SKumar25 wrote:
Denoirs tests showed that this is not imagined.
And Aravind's various comparisons showed they are...what of it? I think, after twenty some-odd pages of the same back and forth, we should just agree to disagree.
The only way of truly knowing is to view a series of actual prints in person and for someone to go through and pick out which lenses were used to make which prints. I can absolutely guarantee not one person will guess correctly for every single print.
PetKal wrote:
I looked at those pictures and to my eye they seem like snapshots that might have been taken with just about any lens/camera combination.
However, in Lars' shots at the very beginning of this thread I see a distinctive "rendering".......the rendering which a good photographer imparts to their images.....the Lars' rendering
Expensive and exceptionally good lenses are totally and absolutely insufficient on their own to produce a photograph of any merit , although such photograph might have the Zeiss or Leica or whatever look. And I stress "might".
Good photographers strive to imbue their images with their own personal aesthetic look, rather than leaving it to their lens to "draw" for them....Show more →
Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there. I too don't see anything special about those shots. And you do have a very good point. You give an artist the cheapest gear available and he/she will be able to create a masterpiece, and you give a novice the most expensive gear available on the planet and he/she will find the way to screw it up.
M Vers wrote:
And Aravind's various comparisons showed they are...what of it? I think, after twenty some-odd pages of the same back and forth, we should just agree to disagree.
As I said this is not in every picture. Best way to explain this is this: when you see the results of a shoot on your computer, you'll see a picture that is a bit different. With Zeiss it this is more common. Many who have tried both lenses know this through experience.
SKumar25 wrote:
Denoirs tests showed that this is not imagined.
Your constant references to utterly ordinary images that could have been taken by any camera or lens shows otherwise.
I'm not disputing that the lenses can have different looks in general. I said that directly when I thanked denoir for his first post. I just think you have an overactive imagination on this issue, and you are muddying the waters rather than clarifying them.
Lexus vs BMW. San Francisco vs Los Angeles. Canon vs Nikon vs Zeiss vs Leica. We are blessed with all kinds of great choices. Take your pick and just enjoy it. They are ALL fantastic ... and I believe we can all agree on this. Now let's see how good your images are where it matters most ... in content and composition ... as no one is really interested in the IQ of a barbed wire fence or a single cat whisker. Let's move on ... as this is getting so boring now, and tiresome.
M Vers wrote:
The only way of truly knowing is to view a series of actual prints in person and for someone to go through and pick out which lenses were used to make which prints. I can absolutely guarantee not one person will guess correctly for every single print.
The claim is that for many images taken with Zeiss and non Zeiss lenses that in a blind test that many photographers can correctly pick out which images come from the Zeiss. This is without even knowing precisely which Zeiss/non Zeiss lenses are being used. This does not mean that 100% accuracy would be achieved, or that statistical significant results would be achieved on every random image pair chosen, as there are enough difficult to control variables to obscure any potential difference. However the point of the test was to establish that there is a certain design consistency among the Zeiss lenses that produce a "style" of reproduction which is characteristic. The well controlled, statistically significant, blind study support this conclusion. If you do not fancy that "style", that is absolutely fine.
Mike K
For PetKal, if he is still reading the thread:
I finally convinced a few birds to show up around my house. Unfortunately, they weren't too cooperative on the scheduling, so they only appeared in overly harsh high-noon lighting.
Photos taken with Leica Telyt-R 400/6.8 (hand held with supplied shoulder stock, wide open).
100% crops from 5D: http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_crow_1.jpg http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_crow_2.jpg
and an ~50% crop: http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20110603_crow_3.jpg
I can completely understand why autofocus is revolutionary for work like this. If I regularly shot anything that moved much faster than a tree, I'd want a lot more autofocus lenses in my collection, too. Nonetheless, it's not entirely impossible to get BIF with a fully manual lens (my keeper rate was rather low, ~25% in-focus and fewer of those with decent composition, but I bet it could improve a lot with practice; I could already see improvement just over the time of this short shoot).
Mendenhall, I think those are very good MF shots of a hard-to-photograph bird species, in unfavourable light. For one, I certainly couldn't do anything of the sort if I tried to focus manually.....shooting a crow in flight is difficult enough using an AF lens.
charlesk wrote:
Your constant references to utterly ordinary images that could have been taken by any camera or lens shows otherwise.
... I just think you have an overactive imagination on this issue, and you are muddying the waters rather than clarifying them.
In this thread you needed help understanding that the rendering styles did not relate to subject isolation. You also mentioned you had arguments with Zeiss owners over this same issue a couple of years back. The fact you got into these arguments without getting your concepts straight is cringe worthy. You already shot your own credibility to pass any judgement.
I'm done on this topic. As Bobby and Joshua said, this is getting old.
Good photographers strive to imbue their images with their own personal aesthetic look, rather than leaving it to their lens to "draw" for them.
When you create that personal style, you build it out of combination of available elements. A specific film, specific processing or specific lens selection, all may contribute to that style. Some people like Tri-X (or Velvia) and make it part of their own style, because they simplify (or exaggerate) reality in some way. Some people do not care about films, because their style is based on something else. Same with lenses, I think. So for somebody certain qualities of a lens can be important to help create the style they envision. I never studied any photographers, but my guess would be that HCB did not care much about his lens' drawing style or film look, but Galen Rowell probably did.
I don't understand the incessant attempts to discredit those that think Zeiss lenses have a different and preferable look to Canon's equivalents. I like Sierra Nevada Pale a lot and prefer it over Sam Adams Boston Lager. They are different. That doesn't mean I think Sam Adams is crappy. And, frankly, why should anyone care if someone believes Sierra Nevada is the superior beer or if Sam Adams is crappy? If someone thinks there is no difference between various beers and various lenses then they are an idiot. So, let's stipulate that lenses can be different and some prefer one brand over another and move on.
ghozer wrote:
I like Sierra Nevada Pale a lot and prefer it over Sam Adams Boston Lager. They are different. That doesn't mean I think Sam Adams is crappy.
Right. But you wouldn't say "Sam Adams is a very nice beer. But it can't touch the flavor and quality of Sierra Nevada Pale", would you?
And if you did, wouldn't you expect someone to contest that claim? Especially if you posted it in a forum where people go to discuss and debate beers?
The issue isn't, and never has been, personal preference. It is the attempts by people to generalize their subjective preferences into objective conclusions without any reasonable evidence.
Arun Gupta wrote:
Does this have a "3D" look?
(5D2, 50L, f/4.0)
To me, the image has a moderate amount of 3D (I can imagine it being both better or worse). The busy, upper-right side of the image is highly un-3D (but that part would be a challenging for any lens), but if you consider only the left 2/3rds of the image, it is fairly easy to interpret the depth relations between the layered flowers. The image also has the clipped red channel that, in my experience, is really hard to prevent on Canon bodies (without seriously under-exposing all the other color channels); I wish Canon would make their red pixels a bit less light sensitive to better match other colors in a typical scene (and prevent the flat, blown-out pink patches that seem almost inevitable on red objects).
.
