I find some of your posts to teeter toward hubris, and not just in this thread.
I find pedantic pontification to be a form of hubris
I made sure to read through this whole thread to gain clarity. You seemed taken aback that people were offended by your words. This post was started to debate the merits of a particular lens, not the talk about the G9 and how it's 'better' in so many aspects.
Thank you for reading back to me what transpired in this thread, as if I wasn't the one here participating in it
Yes, this thread originated by asserting the merits of the Sony macro lens. I just didn't think the lens was all that sharp, and I still don't. People have shown me the difference in "bokeh," and I understand and appreciate the effect of bokeh, but I still don't think the lens is all that sharp.
Finally, if you're going to berate me for comparing the Canon G9 to the Sony, then by the same logic what does your Canon 30D and 100mm have to do with a Sony?
After numerous well though out replies from other people here, you began to take back some of your words. To be civil.
I haven't taken back anything. I acknowledged the superior bokeh, I appreciate the education about the bokeh, but I still don't think the lens is all that sharp. And I am still left wondering why you feel the need to attempt to paraphrase this past discussion back to me?
Regarding overall sharpness vs. bokeh, you seem to have your own opinions of what is pleasing. Here, I choose to argue very little. People have different opinions in everything. If you value sharpness everywhere, then that is fine. Many professional and advanced amateurs prefer the smooth transitions that larger sensors afford. For more creative work one could choose the 135 STF lens, which has some of the best bokeh around. Period. (From what I hear...I haven't had the pleasure myself) Or, perhaps adapt a 90mm T/S lens with an extension tube for close focus.
Exactly. It's a matter of taste and objective. For what I do, I like capturing the subject (arthropod) by photograph and then attempting to identify its species/subspecies with a field guide. How creamy the bokeh is means nothing to me. How sharp and accurately the majority of the subject is captured
means everything to me. So what I did was come to understand the perspective of others, and appreciate the need and "look" of a nice bokeh, while still not being overly impressed with the lens for my purposes.
The point of using an f/2.8 macro lens is choice. I can choose to leave it wide open and have very little be rendered sharply, or I can stop down to f/16 or f/22 and have much more in focus. I don't know the exact specs of the G9, but it is certain the bokeh is far behind what can be achieved with a modern DSLR and a dedicated macro (or other type of lens for that matter).
Thanks for the clarification, but I really don't have any use for bokeh at this point. I have a use for sharp photos that bring my subject into full clarity. For this reason, I like a little more depth-of-field (or field-of-view, I am not sure which is the correct term), but I enjoy this better because I want as much of the subject "in focus" as possible. A lot of arthropods in photos only have their face and a leg or two "in focus," while the rest of them is out of focus, which I find an annoyance and not a good photograph. From an "artsy" point of view, some might "ooh" and "ahh" over the bokeh, but I myself would be displeased that more of my subject wasn't
in focus than what was in focus. If what you're saying is that a dedicated macro stopped down to f/16 or f/22 would produce a more completely-focused effect, then these
are the kinds of photos I would like to see more examples of.
Again, as per bokeh. I am amongst those that find it pleasing and important. I have friends who look at my images on screen and prints and have no idea what 'bokeh' is and blink a few times when I try to explain it. But they are always impressed by shots that utilize it well.
Well, I have come to admire the bokeh too, in an attempt to appreciate the affects others are trying to achieve in their photography, but that is not the effect *I* am trying to achieve in mine. I am trying to get as much of the arthropod in focus as I can, and really don't give a hoot about the background. I do appreciate why someone else would find a creamy bokeh and "buttery background" pleasing to the eye, but I am not trying to produce fine art, only to capture an arthropod in its entirety as clearly as possible.
Spiky Tree Bark at Dallas World Aquarium
(ISO 1250, f/4, 1/160 second)
I myself find it humorous that you got on me for interjecting some photos taken by Canon G9 for comparison to the Sony macro, and then yourself posted a couple of Canon images on this same Sony thread for comparison. Also, this thread is about the Sony 100mm macro, and you end by talking about your interest in the A900.
But other than this, and the bumps and bruises that have occured here to so many sensitive feelings, I am grateful to have learned a few things. I also appreciate the affect that others are trying to achieve. It has made me more aware of what a professional is looking for. If I can take a razor sharp photo of my entire subject, and achieve a creamy bokeh as well, certainly I would like to achieve this. But honestly, if it is an "either-or" choice, then I would rather sacrifice bokeh to have more of my subject in sharp focus than I would to have a wonderful bokeh and only a tiny fraction of my intended subject in focus.