Best for Bokeh

Messages
25
Name
Louise
Edit My Images
No
Hello


I'm after a little advice please. I currently use a compact camera with an 18 x Optical Zoom and have basic understanding of the Aperture and Shutter settings. I photograph a mix of wildlife, landscapes, flowers and would like to start achieving bokeh on some of my photos going forward.


I'm looking to upgrade and have been offered a used Nikon D3200 with an AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5 - 5.6 G ED VR lens and also a kit lens which I'm considering but also looking at a Bridge Camera (possibly the Nikon B700) mainly due to the smaller size, lighter weight and Super Zoom facility.


My questions:


1. Is the Bokeh effect generally easier to achieve on entry level DSLR’s rather than low to mid range Bridge Cameras?

2. I've read you get a reduction in sharpness the more you optically zoom in when using a Super Zoom Bridge Camera. Is this correct?

3. Would there be a reduction in sharpness when I zoom in when using the above mentioned Nikkor 55-300mm lens?


Hope you can help :)
 
Hello


I'm after a little advice please. I currently use a compact camera with an 18 x Optical Zoom and have basic understanding of the Aperture and Shutter settings. I photograph a mix of wildlife, landscapes, flowers and would like to start achieving bokeh on some of my photos going forward.


I'm looking to upgrade and have been offered a used Nikon D3200 with an AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5 - 5.6 G ED VR lens and also a kit lens which I'm considering but also looking at a Bridge Camera (possibly the Nikon B700) mainly due to the smaller size, lighter weight and Super Zoom facility.


My questions:


1. Is the Bokeh effect generally easier to achieve on entry level DSLR’s rather than low to mid range Bridge Cameras?

2. I've read you get a reduction in sharpness the more you optically zoom in when using a Super Zoom Bridge Camera. Is this correct?

3. Would there be a reduction in sharpness when I zoom in when using the above mentioned Nikkor 55-300mm lens?


Hope you can help :)
The effect will certainly be easier to achieve on the DSLR due to the larger sensor in the camera.
There are many other things that affect this too, including the distance from the subject, and the focal length being used.
Any zoom lens will have differing levels of sharpness throughout the zoom range, you will probably find there is less sharpness at the wide angle of the lenses too, with the sharpest focal lengths being somewhere in the middle of the range. If your technique is perfect, you will likely find that the DSLR will be sharper than the bridge cameras at all focal lengths, but technique is likely to affect sharpness more than the lens to begin with.
 
And apperture. The larger the apperture, the longer the lens and the more distance between your in focus subject and the background/foreground the more blured these will be.
The smallere the sensor the shorter the focallenghts will be. The bigger the sensor the longer.......for the equivalent angles of view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I presume you're after bokeh on wildlife & flowers? A longer focal length will tend to give more blurring of the out of focus areas for a given aperture, and a larger sensor (i.e. on a DSLR) will increase that effect compared to a smaller one (i.e. compact camera).

There's more to it than that however. Zooms tend to give a 'busier' and less smooth bokeh than prime lenses, and some of the best bokeh I've had was using a 50mm f1.4 lens at around f1.8 on a crop sensor DSLR. I would suggest something like that D3200 with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 G, if you want to go down the Nikon route *for bokeh specifically* and keep the cost down. I also like the results I've had with a Sony A58 and Sony 50mm f1.4.

This is an example with the cheaper 50mm f1.7 and Sony A58
Plug bank-01857 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

And one with the 50 f1.4.
HydrangeaBokeh-01927 by Toni Ertl, on Flickr
 
I'll leave all the camera stuff to the replies you've already got. What I will say though is, you've got some nice photos on your Flickr. You seem to have a good eye for composition and subject.
A dslr camera is a whole different kettle of fish compared to a compact camera and will take a bit of learning, but in my view it's definitely worth it.
 
With the 3200 and 55-300 bokeh wont be any problem at all to get.

A lot of the time you have to change aperture to try to get more in focus because of unwanted bokeh.

Like if you stand close to a flower with a 200mm half of the petals might be out of focus and you have to adjust settings or stand further away.
 
Bokeh !

IFlYVLU.jpg


VuFinKD.jpg


35NV7KZ.jpg


HJtNnqe.jpg


ESs3Rpa.jpg


5E8HVIk.jpg
 
Welcome to the forum! Some sound advice above, but I'd definitely explore the DSLR as image quality is better given the larger sensor and shallower depth of field is easier to achieve because of that and the things listed above. The next step after that will be buying a Nikon 50 1.8G lens to explore bokeh if that's what you wish to do. A DSLR 'system' will give you more options later on. I think what you have achieved to date is very good indeed, the fun of this game is in the learning. Enjoy and post up your trials and tribulations, it's the only way to learn.
 
Just to be pedantic I think you're using the term bokeh incorrectly. I think you are referring to shallow depth of field creating blurred backgrounds? Bokeh is merely the quality of the out of focus area (blurry bit) not how much 'blurriness' there is.

But yes, shallow DOF is easier to achieve on a DSLR than bridge camera due to the larger sensor meaning you have to get closer to the subject for a given focal length. The closer to the subject you are the shallower the DOF.
 
This might help you understand or see better the 'out of focus' areas Snerkler refers to above

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Select the camera, and the play around with the other parameters - as mentioned above their are different factors such as sensor size, aperture, distance from subject etc - hopefully it will make sense!

Edit - if weight and size are a consideration I think you mention in your post, you could consider smaller mirrorless system cameras that have varying sensor sizes, some fullframe ones from Sony, and then others from Fuji and Olympus, Panasonic etc.

With any system there is generally a cheapish good quality prime - with Canon you had the 50mm 1.8 which gave you the out of focus area but maybe not the bokeh some liked, then things like the 85mm f1.8 or Sygma 1.4 etc - Nikon and others have equivalents. Good luck - if you want to save some money and buy second hands, the sales section here can be good (once you meet the minimum access requirements) but also places like ffordes and mpb
 
Last edited:
The Parrot picture is a classic example of poor bokeh, this is because of the sharp garish yellow line around each out of focus highlight areas. The edges of each our of focus circle should be soft if bokeh is to be considered good bokeh.
The art and science of bokeh Is well described in this article. Good Bad bokeh description.
 
Last edited:
For all my fast primes, I managed this with a compact :)

Parrot, Hong Kong Park by Jim, on Flickr

But this is more an example of shallow depth of field rather than good quality 'bokeh' which I think you are actually referring to?
 
Last edited:
The Parrot picture is a classic example of poor bokeh, this is because of the sharp garish yellow line around each out of focus highlight areas. The edges of each our of focus circle should be soft if bokeh is to be considered good bokeh.
The art and science of bokeh Is well described in this article. Good Bad bokeh description.

I'm not disagreeing, but I find it funny that an image effect can be categorised as good or bad - surely it's overall contribution to the image (which is in itself subjective) dictates whether the Bokeh is good or bad?

Anyhow

here's some el cheopo Helios Bokeh! (Good or Bad!)

DSC03447 by mike mountain, on Flickr

DSC03476 by mike mountain, on Flickr

DSC03468 by mike mountain, on Flickr

DSC03464 by mike mountain, on Flickr

DSC03462 by mike mountain, on Flickr

lavender by mike mountain, on Flickr
DSC03241 by mike mountain, on Flickr

DSC03239 by mike mountain, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
1. Is the Bokeh effect generally easier to achieve on entry level DSLR’s rather than low to mid range Bridge Cameras?
Yes.

2. I've read you get a reduction in sharpness the more you optically zoom in when using a Super Zoom Bridge Camera. Is this correct?
Not that I know of - but certainly very true with zooming digitally (which is equivalent to cropping the image).

3. Would there be a reduction in sharpness when I zoom in when using the above mentioned Nikkor 55-300mm lens?
Not necessarily. As mentioned previously, sharpness and other factors will vary at given points throughout the zooming range, including the wide end and points between.
 
Not that I know of - but certainly very true with zooming digitally (which is equivalent to cropping the image).

.
It depends on the camera/lens. Most zoom lenses tend to be optically 'weaker' at the long end and lose some sharpness, this will probably be accentuated on the smaller sensor cameras.
 
Thank you all for your responses :)

It seems the general consensus is achieving a narrower depth of field/bokeh/blurry background (forgive basic terms) is easier to achieve on a DSLR rather than on a Bridge Camera.

So, out of the D3200 DSLR or a Bridge Camera I think I will be purchasing the DSLR :)

Acheiving Bokeh is just one of the things I would like to achieve from time to time so I don't see myself buying a specific lens just for this purpose at the moment (but its always an option). I like to have a bit of optical zoom to play with as animals are often disturbed if you try to get too close to them and the kit lens will cover landscapes so I'm hoping my choice of the DSLR will prove quite a good general all rounder :)
 
Thank you all for your responses :)

It seems the general consensus is achieving a narrower depth of field/bokeh/blurry background (forgive basic terms) is easier to achieve on a DSLR rather than on a Bridge Camera.

So, out of the D3200 DSLR or a Bridge Camera I think I will be purchasing the DSLR :)

Acheiving Bokeh is just one of the things I would like to achieve from time to time so I don't see myself buying a specific lens just for this purpose at the moment (but its always an option). I like to have a bit of optical zoom to play with as animals are often disturbed if you try to get too close to them and the kit lens will cover landscapes so I'm hoping my choice of the DSLR will prove quite a good general all rounder :)
The D3200 is a great DLSR to start with, and yes will be able to make getting blurred backgrounds easier. For example a quick search reveals these shots taken with the D3200 and the 55-300mm 'kit' zoom lens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/119845873@N04/14073115394/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/96579894@N07/30705040120/
 
Last edited:
These are a couple of my first attempts using the Nikon D3200 with the 50-300mm lens. I've not edited/tweaked them in any way yet, but it gives an idea of the sort of things I like to try.

DSC_0923x.jpg DSC_1095x.jpg
 
It seems the general consensus is achieving a narrower depth of field/bokeh/blurry background (forgive basic terms) is easier to achieve on a DSLR rather than on a Bridge Camera.

So, out of the D3200 DSLR or a Bridge Camera I think I will be purchasing the DSLR :)

At the risk of confusing things further but offering other choices... as the OP has a compact camera maybe a mirrorless camera could be a good option rather than a traditional DSLR as the image quality will be the same but at reduced bulk and weight and the experience maybe may be a bit more familiar to someone coming from a compact? Or maybe look into the 1" options?
 
At the risk of confusing things further but offering other choices... as the OP has a compact camera maybe a mirrorless camera could be a good option rather than a traditional DSLR as the image quality will be the same but at reduced bulk and weight and the experience maybe may be a bit more familiar to someone coming from a compact? Or maybe look into the 1" options?

Are there any drawbacks of a mirrorless compared to the DSLR?
 
Are there any drawbacks of a mirrorless compared to the DSLR?
They come with various sensor sizes, up to and including full frame. But if they have a viewfinder, and many do these days, it will generally be an electronic one, which some prefer but others don't. So let's say it's a different experience.
 
Some people actually edit the bokeh separate. I like to try and smooth out the bokeh as much as possible and sharpen up the subject a lot so it stands out even more.
I'm not very good but some people do a great job at it.

but2-18.jpg
 
Are there any drawbacks of a mirrorless compared to the DSLR?

Mirrorless cameras are arguably/contentiously said to have less good focus tracking ability than DSLR's but I'm not too sure how true this is with the cameras and at the level your looking at and on the other hand their focus is (arguably / generally) thought to be more accurate and consistent and there's no worry about micro adjusting lenses to reduce front / back focus issues.

1" cameras give good image quality, Micro Four Thirds is even better and there are APS-C and FF choices too. I'm fully mirrorless these days and I wouldn't go back. I have mirrorless Micro Four Thirds and also a FF Sony.

Good things you get with mirrorless include the ability to see your exposure and depth of field in the EVF. Note that you don't get an OVF, you get an EVF. Some people don't like EVF's but I wouldn't go back to an OVF camera now. With an EVF you can have an in view histogram to aid judging the exposure and you can call up a greatly magnified view to aid manual focusing. Mirrorless cameras tend to have a 100% view whereas with a DSLR the chances are that you wont see all of the frame. Also with a mirrorless camera you can place your focus point just about anywhere within the frame whereas with a DSLR the focus points are typically few and all clustered around the centre. Another great thing is that you can use old cheap manual focus lenses via cheap adapters and focus accurately and easily and this is something I do a lot. You could buy modern AF lenses for when AF is pretty much essential and you could buy old manual lenses for special uses or for once in a while use which doesn't justify the expense of a modern AF lens. For example you could buy a film era macro lens for flower and insect shots as macro is generally manual focus anyway, you could get a wide aperture lens for bokeh or maybe buy something just for the different look it gives for portrait or arty use :D For example an old 50mm f1.4 could be yours for £60 or less, a 50mm f1.8's are even cheaper.

If you're new to mirrorless maybe you could Google your way to a few reviews and example pictures and there are threads here too.

I'd recommend taking a look at the Micro Four Thirds Panasonic GX80, I have one of these and it's a good camera, it's very responsive and you can use old lenses on it :D and the modern lenses can be found on the used market at reasonable prices. I've always fancied a Sony A6000. These crop up used regularly at reasonable prices but both the A6000 and GX80 are reasonably priced new too. There's a healthy Fuji mirrorless following here too.

If starting from scratch I think you should at least consider mirrorless even if you end up going for a conventional DSLR.
 
1" cameras give good image quality, Micro Four Thirds is even better and there are APS-C and FF choices too.
And medium format too ;)

I suspect that in some years time (5, 10, 20 ?? who knows for sure) mirrorless will be the standard so to speak. Bear in mind that as you go up in format size, the lenses get correspondingly bigger (and heavier) too so any weight/size advantage of mirrorless is soon eaten up.

I'm still not a fan of evf's (most give me a headache) and some are still too slow though on the newer cameras less so. Also, some of the later and larger mirrorless don't have a massive range of native mount lenses - you can always use adapters but to me that is a bodge. Having said that, some of the lenses available on mirrorless are truly superb too. With the improvements of sensors and associated tech, I'm beginning to think that micro four thirds or aps-c may just be the sweet spot.
 
The argument that the mirrorless size advantage disappears with lenses is only partly true. Yes, a full frame 70-200mm f2.8 for mirrorless and DSLR maybe essentially the same size but the Mirrorless body (if we're talking a Sony A7) will still be smaller than the DSLR and once you mount a 35mm f2.8 on your A7 it's significantly smaller than a DSLR with a similar lens. The A7 / other mirrorless body therefore gives you the option of having a small body and lens combination that a DSLR just can't match, should the combination suit the shot and circumstances.

Plus of course the RF style GX80 and A6000 are even smaller.

Plus again... who knows what will happen with lens technology in years to come? It may be that some new tech could give us a pancake 7-200mm f2.8 :D Maybe :D

What the OP should do, IMO, is take a quick look at mirrorless and if it's attractive then look at specific body and lens combinations and see how they stack up against the DSLR alternative.
 
Last edited:
Plus again... who knows what will happen with lens technology in years to come? It may be that some new tech could give us a pancake 7-200mm f2.8 :D Maybe :D

While not a pancake in any way,
I had the Canon 70-300 diffraction optics lens on the very left in this photo.
Not a pancake but way nicer size than the 70-200 monsters.
It does extend however but not bad.

 
Are there any drawbacks of a mirrorless compared to the DSLR?
You've opened up a can of worms there ;) :LOL:

You've got your people that prefer mirrorless and your people that prefer DLSR. The main issue with mirrorless used to be the slow AF systems and inability to track moving subjects. Mirrorless AF systems are no longer slow, but tracking is still an issue on all but very small number of mirrorless (Olympus EM1-II, Fuji XT-2, Sony A9, Sony a6xxx, and one or two of the Panasonics). However, the comparative DSLRs are still fractionally better, but not enough for most people to worry about.

EVF vs OVF? That debate will run forever ;)
 
You've opened up a can of worms there ;) :LOL:

You've got your people that prefer mirrorless and your people that prefer DLSR. The main issue with mirrorless used to be the slow AF systems and inability to track moving subjects. Mirrorless AF systems are no longer slow, but tracking is still an issue on all but very small number of mirrorless (Olympus EM1-II, Fuji XT-2, Sony A9, Sony a6xxx, and one or two of the Panasonics). However, the comparative DSLRs are still fractionally better, but not enough for most people to worry about.

EVF vs OVF? That debate will run forever ;)

not so sure about the A9 Toby,ive heard its pants lol
 
Thank you all for your responses :)

It seems the general consensus is achieving a narrower depth of field/bokeh/blurry background (forgive basic terms) is easier to achieve on a DSLR rather than on a Bridge Camera.

So, out of the D3200 DSLR or a Bridge Camera I think I will be purchasing the DSLR :)

Acheiving Bokeh is just one of the things I would like to achieve from time to time so I don't see myself buying a specific lens just for this purpose at the moment (but its always an option).

If you want to keep open the option of purchasing a lens specifically for the purpose of the best possible bokeh quality, that lens is the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF f2.8 [T4.5], designed quite specifically for that sole purpose, using an apodisation filter instead of a conventional iris. It does have two conventional irises as well, one of which operated manually, the other of which is operated under camera control. To be able to use that lens you will require ideally a Sony A-mount camera, which can mount it directly, or a camera which can mount it with a glassless adapter, such as a mirrorless camera or any DSLR with enough of a shorter registration distance than the Sony A-mount to accommodate an adapter.

I just wanted to alert you to the difficulties and complexities, not to mention the costs, which beset the path of the Ultimate Bokeh Seeker :)
 
I suspect that in some years time (5, 10, 20 ?? who knows for sure) mirrorless will be the standard
. They said that five yeas ago. lol
The truth is both sales of DSLRs and mirrorless cameras are declining, so The camera phone is the only winner.
 
Some people actually edit the bokeh separate. I like to try and smooth out the bokeh as much as possible and sharpen up the subject a lot so it stands out even more.
I'm not very good but some people do a great job at it.

but2-18.jpg


To my eyes that doesn't look very natural I'm afraid.

DSLR tend to have better auto focus systems than the mirrorless cameras in the same price range.

Not for SAF (which is what every shot in this thread would be taken with), mirrorless tend to actually be more accurate.
 
Back
Top