Canon’s 2024 Roadmap, and the timeline surprised us [CR3]

[sanj]

Maybe I'm the only photographer that wants to isolate my subject. I guess the rest of you want everything in focus? I shoot wide open all the time. This is an uncropped image, shot at 1.2 on the 50mm. I'm not across the room, I'm just up a couple of steps shooting down. But I shoot much closer than this sometimes too. I don't care about the background people in most cases.

I will be honest. This photo example is quite useless to demonstrate full open photography. Wide aperture beauty has not been used. There is no isolation whatsoever. In fact, it is not even clear who the main subject is.

 

[EricN]

I will be honest. This photo example is quite useless to demonstrate full open photography. Wide aperture beauty has not been used. There is no isolation whatsoever. In fact, it is not even clear who the main subject is.

It appeared to be the blonde hair on top of the wedding dress was the focus point, but yes, to get isolation, moving forward would have been warranted. I did think adding vignetting could have helped

 

[Cryve]

I will be honest. This photo example is quite useless to demonstrate full open photography. Wide aperture beauty has not been used. There is no isolation whatsoever. In fact, it is not even clear who the main subject is.

It depends on how big you print. On a big print it can become quite obvious. Viewing size has a massive effect on the perception of bokeh.

 

[koenkooi]

It depends on how big you print. On a big print it can become quite obvious. Viewing size has a massive effect on the perception of bokeh.

It took me a few years to wrap my head around that, I had the idée fixe that everything is set at the time of exposure, f/11 will remain f/11 and will always give me 1mm of DoF when using the MP-E65mm. Regardless of cropping, zooming and viewing distance. It didn't matter that every time I switched from grid view to the develop module in Lightroom I thought "Weird, the DoF is a lot shallower compared the thumbnail"

 

[Sporgon]

It took me a few years to wrap my head around that, I had the idée fixe that everything is set at the time of exposure, f/11 will remain f/11 and will always give me 1mm of DoF when using the MP-E65mm. Regardless of cropping, zooming and viewing distance. It didn't matter that every time I switch from grid view to the develop module in Lightroom I though "Weird, the DoF a lot shallower compared the thumbnail"

As you probably know, it stems from the fact that irrespective of aperture there is only ever one point of absolute focus. Everywhere else is degrees of oof, so the larger the image is viewing, and / or how close you are affects the perception of focus. It’s also why nowadays, given how much we enlarge images the dof scales marked on old film era lenses are wrong, or at least inaccurate. If your old film lens says say f/11 gives x dof, use f/5.6 to be accurate for viewing at 200% !
This whole discussion came from the premise that f/1.2 is “great for low light”. I’ve never understood this (and it’s something people have stated during film days too) as it assumes that in low light you are happy with a razor thin dof and much of the image will be forced into oof whether you want it or not. Also, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, if you aim to compromise by always having subject isolation you run the risk of inadvertently having other unintended things in focus scattered along the plane of focus which can distract from the intended point of focus.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You're not the brightest bulb in the pack. I said I specifically picked that picture for example because I didn't want to show too many faces on this forum. I picked one where all the backs were turned on purpose. Dumbass. I guess reading comprehension is lost on some of you.

Oh no, we comprehend you just fine. First, no one but you cares about subject isolation, everyone else likes the whole frame in focus. The clear implication being that you’re a great photographer and everyone else here can barely find the shutter button.

Then you chose an example that utterly failed to support your point, because your subject is not isolated by your use of f/1.2. Pro tip: if you can’t share an example that supports your point, don’t share an example. Posting an example of subject isolation where someone other than your subject is sharply focused makes it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Finally, you demonstrated that your preferred response to criticism is to insult the critic.

Edit: I see you deleted the post to which I replied. Nevertheless, your point was clear.

 

[EricN]

It depends on how big you print. On a big print it can become quite obvious. Viewing size has a massive effect on the perception of bokeh.

I have to disagree as the photo we are discussing easily demonstrates:
There is a very in focus (probably bridal) subject's clump of blonde hair with an only slightly out of focus figure in a blue dress approximately one third of a meter behind. It's not out of focus enough even at a large scale because the in focus element would become totally unrecognizable before the overlapped secondary subject is blurred enough to look intentional. It would have been better to move forward for the intent of creating separation than to print larger - it is not substantially different from attempting to create more depth of field with a crop sensor.
Of course, as @AlanF has mentioned, we can now use computations for blur.

 

[tbgtomcom]

Oh no, we comprehend you just fine. First, no one but you cares about subject isolation, everyone else likes the whole frame in focus. The clear implication being that you’re a great photographer and everyone else here can barely find the shutter button.

Then you chose an example that utterly failed to support your point, because your subject is not isolated by your use of f/1.2. Pro tip: if you can’t share an example that supports your point, don’t share an example. Posting an example of subject isolation where someone other than your subject is sharply focused makes it look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Finally, you demonstrated that your preferred response to criticism is to insult the critic.

GFY

 

[neuroanatomist]

GFY

Good For You, too!

 

[P-visie]

Good For You, too!

This is what I get when I visit the website in his profile. A selffulfilling prophecy?

 

[danfaz]

Good For You, too!

This has to be one of the funniest responses I've seen in a long time!

 

[EricN]

This has to be one of the funniest responses I've seen in a long time!

me too!

 

[EricN]

This is what I get when I visit the website in his profile. A selffulfilling prophecy?
View attachment 215030

I was able to get the website to work, but I couldn't find any photo showing what I understood his point to be.

 

[Cryve]

I have to disagree as the photo we are discussing easily demonstrates:
There is a very in focus (probably bridal) subject's clump of blonde hair with an only slightly out of focus figure in a blue dress approximately one third of a meter behind. It's not out of focus enough even at a large scale because the in focus element would become totally unrecognizable before the overlapped secondary subject is blurred enough to look intentional. It would have been better to move forward for the intent of creating separation than to print larger - it is not substantially different from attempting to create more depth of field with a crop sensor.
Of course, as @AlanF has mentioned, we can now use computations for blur.

I agree, it depends on the photo.
Apart from this specific foto tho, i say the bokeh does depend on the viewing distance.

Here an example (not claiming its a good photo, just something i had at hand). If we look at the first image (a crop), we see the bokeh looks decently creamy. But if we look at the second image (the full image), the background seems distracting and not creamy.

By printing big and displaying the picture in a way that invites people to have this bigger viewing experience, it kinda allows them to experience this creamier bokeh, because they are cropping with their feet. Its basically forcing their perspective, unless they wanna look at the print from a long distance away.

not discussing the wedding photo or photographer tho, i wanna make it clear that i just wanna talk about the idea.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I agree, it depends on the photo.
Apart from this specific foto tho, i say the bokeh does depend on the viewing distance.

Here an example (not claiming its a good photo, just something i had at hand). If we look at the first image (a crop), we see the bokeh looks decently creamy. But if we look at the second image (the full image), the background seems distracting and not creamy.

Your example doesn’t really seem to be about viewing distance, though.

Cropping does affect DoF, but the underlying assumption is that the original and cropped images are being viewed at the same size.

At a basic level, DoF can be reduced to two factors – physical aperture and magnification. DoF is inversely proportional to both, i.e., a wider aperture and more magnification both mean less DoF. Magnification is determined by subject distance, focal length, image enlargement, and viewing distance. Thus, if you crop an image but view it at the same size as the original, you’ve relatively increased the magnification of the cropped image, thus decreased the DoF.

Conversely, if you reduce the magnification, you increase the DoF. Thus, if you downsample an image or view it from further away, the DoF is increased.

Side note that DoF calculators assume a standard output size and viewing distance, typically an 8x10” print viewed at ‘arms length’.

Side note 2: it’s a commonly held belief that smaller sensors have deeper DoF. That’s incorrect, they have shallower DoF for the reasons described above. However, the context of that belief is typically comparing the same focal length and framing, and when doing so you must be further from your subject with the crop sensor. Further away means less magnification means more DoF.

 

[Del Paso]

I was able to get the website to work, but I couldn't find any photo showing what I understood his point to be.

Because a genius is always misunderstood!

 

[EricN]

I agree, it depends on the photo.
Apart from this specific foto tho, i say the bokeh does depend on the viewing distance.

Here an example (not claiming its a good photo, just something i had at hand). If we look at the first image (a crop), we see the bokeh looks decently creamy. But if we look at the second image (the full image), the background seems distracting and not creamy.

By printing big and displaying the picture in a way that invites people to have this bigger viewing experience, it kinda allows them to experience this creamier bokeh, because they are cropping with their feet. Its basically forcing their perspective, unless they wanna look at the print from a long distance away.

not discussing the wedding photo or photographer tho, i wanna make it clear that i just wanna talk about the idea.

I get what you're trying to say, but even in the uncropped version, there is the sense of separation. Assuming you don't move too close for your eyes to focus on the image, you can never see less detail by looking closer. I admit there is some level of subjectivity depending on our persona visual acuity and where we feel the differences are between in focus - acceptable focus - and on down through levels of out of focus until nothing more comprehensible than a gradation....

 

[Sporgon]

I agree, it depends on the photo.
Apart from this specific foto tho, i say the bokeh does depend on the viewing distance.

Here an example (not claiming its a good photo, just something i had at hand). If we look at the first image (a crop), we see the bokeh looks decently creamy. But if we look at the second image (the full image), the background seems distracting and not creamy.

By printing big and displaying the picture in a way that invites people to have this bigger viewing experience, it kinda allows them to experience this creamier bokeh, because they are cropping with their feet. Its basically forcing their perspective, unless they wanna look at the print from a long distance away.

not discussing the wedding photo or photographer tho, i wanna make it clear that i just wanna talk about the idea.

Agree with what others have said. Actually I think that background bokeh is quite good (at least viewing it on a tablet) and not harsh, therefore not distracting. But then I’m easily pleased !

 

[sanj]

GFY

First, you post a nothing picture that most would delete as it does nothing and looks like crap. Then you curse. Shame!

 

[tbgtomcom]

First, you post a nothing picture that most would delete as it does nothing and looks like crap. Then you curse. Shame!

You people are a joke. You complain endlessly, and have absolutely nothing positive to say to anyone, ever. Such shallow lives you all must lead.