Are you "aware" of different M8/9 bokeh?

[BKK dan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A reason to go Leica with this beautiful hardware is the quality of shallow DoF and bokeh.

 

For those who were shooting the smaller sized sensor of the M8(.2) and got the M9, is the difference in bokeh something you consciously work with?

 

Or not that much difference to be aware of?

 

I know this topic of APS-C sensor bokeh compared to 35mm sensor bokeh has been beaten to death, but I'd be interested in the personal observations of Leica shooters. Thanks!

[Shade]

Mmm.. Lets see how to answer your question properly.. Having used both cameras..

 

First, the bokeh quality is just the same, providing you are using the same lens, i dont think nor do i see any difference in bokeh quality. The only thing that can make a bokeh different.. Is a different lens... Not the sensor..

 

Second, different in sensors does mean te m9 has the ability to control a shallower dof than m8, hence making the bokeh even creamier, but the issue is not the sensor making the bokeh better, but making the dof shallower, hence blurring your background further..

 

Last but not least, i think m8 and 9 have identical sensors, just that the m9 is larger in size..

[jaapv]

Yes - the pixel pitch is identical. But as you say, the size is different, so using the same lens you will move in closer to capture the same scene, which makes for shallower DOF which makes for a more blurred backgound --> more enhanced bokeh. But I doubt that you will see much difference in actual use, as you are normally not comparing the same shot 1:1. Another thing that will make a difference is that you are not using the sweet spot of the lens only, you are using the full image field, so the aberrations towards the corners will be more pronounced.

[adli]

You will also most likely use a different lens in the same situation on the two cameras, to catch your subject. Unless you chose lens based on bokeh and not FoV of course.....

[01af]

... which makes for shallower DOF which makes for a more blurred backgound --> more enhanced bokeh.

It's a common mistake to confuse depth-of-field (or lack thereof) and bokeh. These are two different concepts! Less DOF is just that—less DOF. Not more bokeh. Neither more enhanced bokeh. There no such thing as 'more' or 'less' or 'enhanced' bokeh. Instead, bokeh is nicer or uglier (mostly a matter of taste) ... and that's entirely independent from how wide or narrow DOF is.

 

So no, nobody is aware of different M8 and M9 bokeh. Because cameras don't have bokeh.

[jaapv]

I suggest you read the posts - nobody is suggesting the camera creates bokeh - and nobody suggests DOF creates bokeh - I only said a narrow DOF enhances bokeh -or makes it more visible if you prefer. Just think the other way: if you have a photograph pin sharp from foreground to horizon (-and yes, we all know that is an optical illusion-) you will see no bokeh at all. Fyi, bokeh is a creation of a number of lens factors, like the shape of the aperture and various optical aberrations, in the way shapes are rendered in the out of focus areas of a photograph.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just think the other way: if you have a photograph pin sharp from foreground to horizon [...] you will see no bokeh at all.

Unlike depth-of-field, bokeh is not a quantity, so it cannot be described by a number—including zero. In an image where everything is in focus, there is not zero bokeh. Instead, for that image the significance of bokeh is zero. You might feel that's splitting hairs ... but that comes from not understanding what the term 'bokeh' really means.

 

 

FYI, bokeh is a creation of a number of lens factors, like the shape of the aperture and various optical aberrations, in the way shapes are rendered in the out of focus areas of a photograph.

Actually, bokeh is a property of the image—and depends on way more factors than you are aware of. The lens contributes just a few of those factors. We tend to call those factors (which you listed above) the lens' bokeh ... and then many confuse these with what bokeh really is about.

[jaapv]

Bokeh is not a quantity, so it cannot be described by a number—including zero. In an image where everything is in focus, there is not zero bokeh. Instead, for that image the significance of bokeh is zero. You might feel that's splitting hairs ... but that comes from not understanding what the term 'bokeh' really means.

Where did I say it was zero or introduce any number? I said you cannot see it. If you want to discuss the influence of an invisible factor on an image - feel free. But not with me, please.

 

 

Actually, bokeh is a property of the image—and depends on way more factors than you are aware of. The lens contributes just a few of those factors. We tend to call those factors (which you listed above) the lens' bokeh ... and then many confuse these with what bokeh really is about.

Enlighten us the. I'm always willing to learn. You seem to know more than any photographer on this forum, maybe this planet. But keep in mind that the question here was about the lens bokeh, not about any other esoteric factors you may care to introduce.

 

 

Maybe this article by Zeiss will shed some light on the matter; it was introduced in another thread. It is called "Depth of Field and Bokeh"btw... I draw your attention to page 26ff, entitled: the quantity of blurriness, which (oh horror) puts a number on bokeh, even graphs..

 

 

 

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf

[Jamie Roberts]

I know I shouldn't step into this, but there is no difference between the two cameras that are attributable to bokeh:

 

• bokeh is qualitative, not quantitative, and depends on the lens, not the camera. However...
  
• fully focused images (stopped way down, etc...) don't give you much, if any, chance to judge out of focus quality
  

Since I use the lenses as 'different focal lengths' on the M8 and M9, and tend to work at the same distance for a given lens, I see no differences in the quality of the OOF areas when using the two cameras. (IOW a given lens just gets shifted in my brain, so when I'm using the 28 cron on my M8 I think and shoot "35" but on the M9 it's a 28 wide from the same location. It's one reason for me the M9 is totally worth it--I love that a 50 is a normal FOV and a 28 is a wide again

 

The problem really gets wacky when you have a 1.5x crop or something like that. But you get the same OOF quality using the same lens; it's just framing (and subsequent DOF) that changes.

[jaapv]

Thanks, Jamie, for rephrasing The only addition I already mentioned is the visibility of the corner aberrations on the larger sensor, but I agree, it is quite subtle, however for KM25 it was the reason not to buy an M8.

[roguewave]

Jaime makes a very fine point. Rolo also had a thread in which he talks about his ability to "get closer" because of the full frame on the M9. That is very true for users of the M8/M9.

 

As my principle tool is still the DMR, my experience is just the opposite. The difference is that when using wide angle lenses like the R19, R24 & the 35 Summilux, they all have the ability to shoot wide open with divine bokeh & most important, a vastly closer focus plane. I can get as close as I want. In fact, I've come to enjoy the 1.3 crop because I can still get tons of environmental info in my frame & loose much of the lower quality imagery at the corners, especially with the R19. The R24 comes very close in this regards as well. I shot with the M9 the other day. Very fine image maker & in looking at my images with my 35 & 50 lux, both shot wide open, I found no difference in the rendering of the bokeh.

 

The issue of using M Leica wides is that they don't let you get real close. Not nearly as close as with the same focal length as the R lenses. As far as bokeh, there's nothing in the entire M line of lenses that can hold a candle to the R80 Lux, nothing.

[jaapv]

Well, Ben, there is an M 21 that focusses down to 0.5 m but it is Zeiss, not Leica..

[brill64]

depth of field changes with the bigger sensors

[roguewave]

depth of field changes with the bigger sensors

 

 

That has no effect on the bokeh at all if you look at the exact same areas in a frame taken with an M8 or an M9.

[Jeff S]

...The only addition I already mentioned is the visibility of the corner aberrations on the larger sensor, but I agree, it is quite subtle, however for KM25 it was the reason not to buy an M8.

 

Assume you mean M9?

 

Actually, I'm surprised I haven't seen more commentary on this issue (apart from separate 'red edge' issue), i.e., people losing the overall 'sweet spot' when moving from M8 to M9. I understand that this returns the lens to its original intent and design, but before your reference to KM-25, I wasn't aware of much discussion on the issue.

 

Sorry to divert the discussion.

 

Jeff

[lct]

Soft corners are a common problem with FF digicams. Here a 100% crop from an early Elmarit-R 28 at wide aperture on the 5D.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Assume you mean M9?

 

Actually, I'm surprised I haven't seen more commentary on this issue (apart from separate 'red edge' issue), i.e., people losing the overall 'sweet spot' when moving from M8 to M9. I understand that this returns the lens to its original intent and design, but before your reference to KM-25, I wasn't aware of much discussion on the issue.

 

Sorry to divert the discussion.

 

Jeff

No, he wanted to have the subtle edge rays, as he put it.

[swamiji]

That has no effect on the bokeh at all if you look at the exact same areas in a frame taken with an M8 or an M9.

 

That statement imply's the removal of a lot of variables, that are present in every photograph. Given the use of the same lens on a M8 and the M9, to fill the frame the same you would shoot closer on the M9 than the M8. That distance difference would change both the DoF and the Bokeh. If you pixel peek, true there is no difference, if the distance is the same, but in practical use, there is a difference. It is true, that the quality of Bokeh is subjective, but to say the DoF does not alter Bokeh is not correct either.

 

Also there is a zero bokeh, when everything in the photo is in perfect focus. Think 2D

[01af]

Where did I say it was zero or introduce any number?

'No bokeh' is the same as 'zero bokeh'.

 

 

You seem to know more than any photographer on this forum, maybe this planet.

So you feel anybody who knows more than you do must be the most knowlegable person on the planet!? Interesting viewpoint.

 

 

But keep in mind that the question here was about the lens bokeh, not about any other esoteric factors you may care to introduce.

You mean such entirely esoteric factors like, the distance between main subject and background? The focus distance? Aperture? Kind of background detail? Size of background detail? Contrast of background detail? Background brightness? Lighting conditions? Associations between foreground and background? And, heaven forbid, the eyes of the beholder!?

 

If you honestly believe that 1) bokeh was 'zero' when everything in the frame is in focus and 2) bokeh was purely a property of the lens then please explain how the lens knows the difference between a perfectly flat subject ('no bokeh' in your thinking) and a subject which has a depth that exceeds depth-of-field (more than 'no bokeh' in your thinking).

 

 

Thanks, Jamie, for rephrasing.

Jamie did more than just re-phrase. He phrased correctly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

'No bokeh' is the same as 'zero bokeh'.

 

 

 

So you feel anybody who knows more than you do must be the most knowlegable person on the planet!? Interesting viewpoint.

 

 

 

You mean such entirely esoteric factors like, the distance between main subject and background? The focus distance? Aperture? Kind of background detail? Size of background detail? Contrast of background detail? Background brightness? Lighting conditions? Associations between foreground and background? And, heaven forbid, the eyes of the beholder!?

 

If you honestly believe that 1) bokeh was 'zero' when everything in the frame is in focus and 2) bokeh was purely a property of the lens then please explain how the lens knows the difference between a perfectly flat subject ('no bokeh' in your thinking) and a subject which has a depth that exceeds depth-of-field (more than 'no bokeh' in your thinking).

 

 

 

Jamie did more than just re-phrase. He phrased correctly.

 

Please stop misquoting me and putting words in my mouth.