5 ms·

Unsurprisingly, there is a whole community collecting old lenses, I just narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby. But I am more and more fascinated by using th

Unsurprisingly, there is a whole community collecting old lenses, I just narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby. But I am more and more fascinated by using the different bouquets ("style of blurred backgrounds") as case for teaching. There is so much in there: optics, physics, math and a very nice application of machine learning, maybe.

kybernetyk 5y ago
>not so cheap hobby As someone who's also into cars as a hobby I find photography to be refreshing inexpensive for a hobby. I mean even a top notch Leica Lens will cost only the fraction of a Skyline GT-R ;)
krallja 5y ago
Bokeh and bouquet do not share an etymology, nor are they pronounced the same.
- haswell 5y ago
  While they may not share an etymology, bokeh does sound incredibly close to “bouquet” The primary difference is the emphasis on the “oh” in bokeh vs. the emphasis on “kay” in bouquet.
  - jimnotgym 5y ago
    Indeed I agree. I have heard plenty of people mispronounce 'bouquet' as 'bow-kay'... which is pretty much the same sound as 'bokeh'.
  - krallja 5y ago
    Hm, TIL. I pronounce bouquet like “boo kay” and bokeh like “bow kay.” But MW says either pronunciation is valid for bouquet.
- VilleSalonen 5y ago
  Autocorrect is very likely the culprit here.
wlesieutre 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Croftengea 5y ago
> narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby It's a way cheaper than collecting new lenses anyway :) Not sure about F-mounts, but I kept an eye on M42 old lens market. You could (and probably still can now) get a very fast (f/2 and below) lens 5-10x cheaper than their modern counterparts. Yes you loose automatic focus but this is probably no big issue with modern viewfinders.
- aenis 5y ago
  You also lose resolution. Those old lenses render cool looking, but somewhat blurred images on modern high res sensors.
  - memling 5y ago
    In practice prints look good either way. I have noticed that the main drawback to the older lenses is the coma, not resolution. I routinely shoot manual focus Nikkors on digital bodies without significant artifacts from resolution...but astro work is far more challenging.
  - ruined 5y ago
    in the portrait and video range, high end older lenses can still compete. digital sensors have only recently surpassed 35mm film in resolution, and professional 20th century photographers had similar demands for detail across the frame. and it only really matters if you're doing significant enlargement and cropping towards the edge in post, which most consumers simply won't. professionals will always want the best, but i've got a few vintage primes that still give me more resolution than i know what to do with, and that whole collection would be outpriced by a single modern lens.
  - petre 5y ago
    Who cares. I'm not copying documents or doing astrophotography. I have still yet to find a modern lens that replicates the look rendered by my old C/Y Zeiss Planar and Rolleiflex Tessar lenses.
    - aenis 5y ago

kybernetyk 5y ago

>not so cheap hobby As someone who's also into cars as a hobby I find photography to be refreshing inexpensive for a hobby. I mean even a top notch Leica Lens will cost only the fraction of a Skyline GT-R ;)

krallja 5y ago

Bokeh and bouquet do not share an etymology, nor are they pronounced the same.

haswell 5y ago
While they may not share an etymology, bokeh does sound incredibly close to “bouquet” The primary difference is the emphasis on the “oh” in bokeh vs. the emphasis on “kay” in bouquet.
- jimnotgym 5y ago
  Indeed I agree. I have heard plenty of people mispronounce 'bouquet' as 'bow-kay'... which is pretty much the same sound as 'bokeh'.
- krallja 5y ago
  Hm, TIL. I pronounce bouquet like “boo kay” and bokeh like “bow kay.” But MW says either pronunciation is valid for bouquet.
VilleSalonen 5y ago
Autocorrect is very likely the culprit here.

wlesieutre 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

Croftengea 5y ago

> narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby It's a way cheaper than collecting new lenses anyway :) Not sure about F-mounts, but I kept an eye on M42 old lens market. You could (and probably still can now) get a very fast (f/2 and below) lens 5-10x cheaper than their modern counterparts. Yes you loose automatic focus but this is probably no big issue with modern viewfinders.

aenis 5y ago
You also lose resolution. Those old lenses render cool looking, but somewhat blurred images on modern high res sensors.
- memling 5y ago
  In practice prints look good either way. I have noticed that the main drawback to the older lenses is the coma, not resolution. I routinely shoot manual focus Nikkors on digital bodies without significant artifacts from resolution...but astro work is far more challenging.
- ruined 5y ago
  in the portrait and video range, high end older lenses can still compete. digital sensors have only recently surpassed 35mm film in resolution, and professional 20th century photographers had similar demands for detail across the frame. and it only really matters if you're doing significant enlargement and cropping towards the edge in post, which most consumers simply won't. professionals will always want the best, but i've got a few vintage primes that still give me more resolution than i know what to do with, and that whole collection would be outpriced by a single modern lens.
- petre 5y ago
  Who cares. I'm not copying documents or doing astrophotography. I have still yet to find a modern lens that replicates the look rendered by my old C/Y Zeiss Planar and Rolleiflex Tessar lenses.
  - aenis 5y ago