Full Frame's Bokeh vs. Crop Sensor's

I have heard some people saying that full frame gives better bokeh than a crop sensor. Is there any truth to this statement?

ff has less I was told.....

maybe a guy with a crop and ff can post a sample of the same shot to show us??

No truth whatsoever.

However, full frame cameras have a smaller depth of field (all else being equal) so it is easier to make areas in front and behind the subject be out of focus. Some people confuse having a shallow depth of field with bokeh, which is simply the subjective "pleasing appearance" of those out of focus areas.

No, it's not. [edit, damn.. beaten to the punch by krb]

The difference is that the field of view is wider on a full frame camera vs. a crop sensor with the same lens.

this allows you to get closer to your subject while keeping it all in the frame.

The closer you are, the less DOF.

The less DOF, the more background/foreground blur.

the more bg/fg blur the more blur. there is "more" bokeh, if it can be said.

now i sit and wait for the potn purists to tell me that bokeh is the quality of the blur

blah blah blah. there's more of it, so that is just more quality!

mikekelley wrote in post #8868298
now i sit and wait for the potn purists to tell me that bokeh is the quality of the blur

blah blah blah. there's more of it, so that is just more quality!

So what you're trying to say is that "Quantity has a quality all its own".

"Bokeh" is not the magnitude of blur, it's the quality of blur. A 500mm f/5.6 mirror lens has a hellatious magnitude of blur, but hellatiously ugly bokeh.

The quality of blur is a characteristic of the lens. Remember that the only difference between putting a lens on a 15x22mm format camera or on a 24x36mm format camera is the amount of the lens' projected image the camera crops away. The same lens produces the same quality of blur on a 15x22mm format camera as on a 24x36mm format camera because it's the same image.

If you try to argue that magnitude equals quality, then all one has to do is open one lens wider and suddenly it's got better bokeh--or close one lens down and suddenly it's got worse bokeh. At that point, the word ceases to have what little significance it might have had. Heck, it's only about 10 years old in Western photographer's lexicon anyway...might as well drive it back out before too many people know what it actually means.

Daniel Browning wrote in post #8868325
So what you're trying to say is that "Quantity has a quality all its own".

precisely!!

RDKirk wrote in post #8868354
"Bokeh" is not the magnitude of blur, it's the quality of blur. A 500mm f/5.6 mirror lens has a hellatious magnitude of blur, but hellatiously ugly bokeh.

The quality of blur is a characteristic of the lens. Remember that the only difference between putting a lens on a 15x22mm format camera or on a 24x36mm format camera is the amount of the lens' projected image the camera crops away. The same lens produces the same quality of blur on a 15x22mm format camera as on a 24x36mm format camera because it's the same image.

and once again i predict perfectly

mikekelley wrote in post #8868361
precisely!! and once again i predict perfectly

It's easy to predict, if you're wrong.

And if you walk down the middle of Main Street naked, you can predict someone will stare.

Some predictions are unsurprising.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #8868377
It's easy to predict, if you're wrong.

'cept i was right

mikekelley wrote in post #8868420
'cept i was right

Actually, you were 6 minutes too slow...

RDKirk wrote in post #8868354
"Bokeh" is not the magnitude of blur, it's the quality of blur. A 500mm f/5.6 mirror lens has a hellatious magnitude of blur, but hellatiously ugly bokeh.

The quality of blur is a characteristic of the lens. Remember that the only difference between putting a lens on a 15x22mm format camera or on a 24x36mm format camera is the amount of the lens' projected image the camera crops away. The same lens produces the same quality of blur on a 15x22mm format camera as on a 24x36mm format camera because it's the same image.

If you try to argue that magnitude equals quality, then all one has to do is open one lens wider and suddenly it's got better bokeh--or close one lens down and suddenly it's got worse bokeh. At that point, the word ceases to have what little significance it might have had. Heck, it's only about 10 years old in Western photographer's lexicon anyway...might as well drive it back out before too many people know what it actually means.

So would a Canon 135L give higher quality bokeh than my Canon IS 70-200 2.8?

Yes, it would. The 135L is legendary for it's bokeh characteristics.

can we see a ff vs crop same shot to compare??