This topic is in the 2016 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2016The mystery of the Zeiss look?
p.12 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Wow this is about as polarizing as whether you back Donald Trump or not 
The way I see it is, the people who don't see or feel theirs a difference in Zeiss or Leica are the most to have a problem with other opinions.
Trump 2016
Edited on Mar 05, 2016 at 01:25 PM · View previous versions
The way I see it is, the people who don't see or feel theirs a difference in Zeiss or Leica are the most to have a problem with other opinions.Trump 2016
Edited on Mar 05, 2016 at 01:25 PM · View previous versions
Mar 05, 2016 at 12:51 PM
p.12 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
That's for sure!
If you take photographs that various people regard as having the so-called "3D" effect and then ask what it is about the images that produces this response, you'll find that a whole bunch of factors tend to be connected to their reaction. They might include any of the following:
1. A wide angle lens that produces a strong foreground/background contrast. (See the classic "near/far" landscape composition.)
2. Use of narrow DOF and background (and sometimes foreground) blur to set off the primary subject. (I refer to this as subjective sharpness — the subject may not be objectively particularly sharp, but...Show more →
I agree with this aside from your last point. There is a set of lens rendering characteristics found in some lenses but not all lenses that will add to the 3D effect that I'm thinking of. Enhancing some of your points, as well as having their own points.
Does this happen only with Zeiss? No. But it does happen more frequently with certain Zeiss lenses. And it happens far less if at all with other lenses.
sebboh wrote
if there is one thing that repeated threads about 3D in the alt forum have proven, it's that the term 3D doesn't have any particular meaning.If you take photographs that various people regard as having the so-called "3D" effect and then ask what it is about the images that produces this response, you'll find that a whole bunch of factors tend to be connected to their reaction. They might include any of the following:
1. A wide angle lens that produces a strong foreground/background contrast. (See the classic "near/far" landscape composition.)
2. Use of narrow DOF and background (and sometimes foreground) blur to set off the primary subject. (I refer to this as subjective sharpness — the subject may not be objectively particularly sharp, but...Show more →
I agree with this aside from your last point. There is a set of lens rendering characteristics found in some lenses but not all lenses that will add to the 3D effect that I'm thinking of. Enhancing some of your points, as well as having their own points.
Does this happen only with Zeiss? No. But it does happen more frequently with certain Zeiss lenses. And it happens far less if at all with other lenses.
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:04 PM
p.12 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Okay, I'm willing to see the light! Please direct me to a particular image that possesses the magic. Then show me the magic. Educate me.
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:08 PM
p.12 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
Okay, I'm willing to see the light! Please direct me to a particular image that possesses the magic. Then show me the magic. Educate me.
It's got both magic and mystery. It's also been around about as long as some of the more popular manual focus lenses have (sorry, couldn't resist):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
Okay, I'm willing to see the light! Please direct me to a particular image that possesses the magic. Then show me the magic. Educate me.
It's got both magic and mystery. It's also been around about as long as some of the more popular manual focus lenses have (sorry, couldn't resist):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:26 PM
p.12 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Mataz426 wrote:
Wow this is about as polarizing as whether you back Donald Trump or not The way I see it is, the people who don't see or feel theirs a difference in Zeiss or Leica are the most to have a problem with other opinions.
Trump 2016
And the big question is...why do they even care?
Wow this is about as polarizing as whether you back Donald Trump or not
The way I see it is, the people who don't see or feel theirs a difference in Zeiss or Leica are the most to have a problem with other opinions.Trump 2016
And the big question is...why do they even care?
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:29 PM
p.12 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
It's got both magic and mystery. It's also been around about as long as some of the more popular manual focus lenses have (sorry, couldn't resist):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
there are popular manual focus lenses?
henry albert wrote
Okay, I'm willing to see the light! Please direct me to a particular image that possesses the magic. Then show me the magic. Educate me. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
there are popular manual focus lenses?
Mar 05, 2016 at 01:46 PM
p.12 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
there are popular manual focus lenses?
With over 5400 pages of posts in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread, I'd probably hazard a yes.
Oh, and I'd dare say Zeiss has a few fans of their own.
there are popular manual focus lenses?
With over 5400 pages of posts in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread, I'd probably hazard a yes.
Oh, and I'd dare say Zeiss has a few fans of their own.
Mar 05, 2016 at 02:54 PM
p.12 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
sebboh wrote
there are popular manual focus lenses?compared to the hundreds of thousands of pages of posts with AF lenses in the Nikon forum?
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
Mar 05, 2016 at 03:04 PM
p.12 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
With over 5400 pages of posts in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread, I'd probably hazard a yes. compared to the hundreds of thousands of pages of posts with AF lenses in the Nikon forum?
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
Probably the majority only know about AF lenses and are unaware that manual focus lenses even exist.
Rich
jancohen wrote
sebboh wrote
there are popular manual focus lenses?i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
Probably the majority only know about AF lenses and are unaware that manual focus lenses even exist.
Rich
Mar 05, 2016 at 03:17 PM
p.12 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
This is wonderful 
A post cross between two broad. I won't dare to imagine if it was posted in Canon forum as well.
Folks in Alt forum usually more open minded I feel. Lots of discuss here is purely based on lens rendering or FC, SA, CA, designer, history as well as share with joy and story of using such lenses. There is a cultural and spirit here. There is always disagreement about how lens look and rendering as we all know this can be subjective but we share what we think, we contribute knowledge and passion. That is a fun place for me.
As for lens rendering, it is always there even in Canikon. For example, I really like what I see from 85f1.2L and 135f2 canon. Nikon 50mm1.8G is wonderful little lens. 85mm f1.4D is another master piece. Is people get a lecture by saying that?
A post cross between two broad. I won't dare to imagine if it was posted in Canon forum as well. Folks in Alt forum usually more open minded I feel. Lots of discuss here is purely based on lens rendering or FC, SA, CA, designer, history as well as share with joy and story of using such lenses. There is a cultural and spirit here. There is always disagreement about how lens look and rendering as we all know this can be subjective but we share what we think, we contribute knowledge and passion. That is a fun place for me.
As for lens rendering, it is always there even in Canikon. For example, I really like what I see from 85f1.2L and 135f2 canon. Nikon 50mm1.8G is wonderful little lens. 85mm f1.4D is another master piece. Is people get a lecture by saying that?
Mar 05, 2016 at 03:21 PM
p.12 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred.
Luka (denoir) did just such a study here, to verify that a large proportion of viewers could identify Zeiss lenses from near equivalent Canon lenses. Empirical data is never enough to dispel the feedback each person may experience from their own vision ('seeing is believing' right?) but these two factors - individual variability and study results - might give people cause to reflect.
It's a personal view, but it seems a reasonable expectation that people with long exposure to situations requiring excellent depth perception are more likely to see the presence or absence of cues in images that indicate depth or three dimensionality than those without such experience.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred.
Luka (denoir) did just such a study here, to verify that a large proportion of viewers could identify Zeiss lenses from near equivalent Canon lenses. Empirical data is never enough to dispel the feedback each person may experience from their own vision ('seeing is believing' right?) but these two factors - individual variability and study results - might give people cause to reflect.
It's a personal view, but it seems a reasonable expectation that people with long exposure to situations requiring excellent depth perception are more likely to see the presence or absence of cues in images that indicate depth or three dimensionality than those without such experience.
Mar 05, 2016 at 03:35 PM
p.12 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
Can you provide a citation for those stats?
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
Can you provide a citation for those stats?
Mar 05, 2016 at 03:53 PM
p.12 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
My Favorite Zeiss:
Sun finds the water by unoh7, on Flickr
Steep Slope at Sundown by unoh7, on Flickr
Step this Way by unoh7, on Flickr
Close Sentiment by unoh7, on Flickr
Next Step by unoh7, on Flickr
I bet philber can recognize it
Sun finds the water by unoh7, on Flickr
Steep Slope at Sundown by unoh7, on Flickr
Step this Way by unoh7, on Flickr
Close Sentiment by unoh7, on Flickr
Next Step by unoh7, on Flickr
I bet philber can recognize it
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:27 PM
p.12 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philip_pj wrote:
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred....Show more →
Well said Philip. Our perception of things in life change as we get more experience with them. The subtle flavours of different wines is an acquired taste that many just don't posses...yet it is very real. Many people will just guzzle their wine while others will swish it around their mouth and tongue to experience the sensations. If I did not have an aquired taste for wines, I might think people were nuts with the way they drank wine. I believe this is the same issue we have with being able to see the minute differences in the way lenses render. It's an learned and acquired talent that many just either don't take the time to acquire or maybe people's perception differs enough such that some just cannot see these features of different lenses.
In the end, it really should not matter if one can make out subtle differences between fine wines or fine lenses...everyone should pick whatever wine or lens that makes them happy and not really care about what others use and why they use them. I find the constant lecturing on people justifying their purchase by seeing the Zeiss 3d pop, getting a little old and pushing towards childish banter.
Edited on Mar 05, 2016 at 04:39 PM · View previous versions
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred....Show more →
Well said Philip. Our perception of things in life change as we get more experience with them. The subtle flavours of different wines is an acquired taste that many just don't posses...yet it is very real. Many people will just guzzle their wine while others will swish it around their mouth and tongue to experience the sensations. If I did not have an aquired taste for wines, I might think people were nuts with the way they drank wine. I believe this is the same issue we have with being able to see the minute differences in the way lenses render. It's an learned and acquired talent that many just either don't take the time to acquire or maybe people's perception differs enough such that some just cannot see these features of different lenses.
In the end, it really should not matter if one can make out subtle differences between fine wines or fine lenses...everyone should pick whatever wine or lens that makes them happy and not really care about what others use and why they use them. I find the constant lecturing on people justifying their purchase by seeing the Zeiss 3d pop, getting a little old and pushing towards childish banter.
Edited on Mar 05, 2016 at 04:39 PM · View previous versions
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:33 PM
p.12 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
...everyone should puck whatever wine or lens that makes them happy and..
...shoot it through the five hole.
...everyone should puck whatever wine or lens that makes them happy and..
...shoot it through the five hole.
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:36 PM
p.12 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
And here, the most famous and influential Zeiss lens in the history of photography:
Hideaway by unoh7, on Flickr
jena blue by unoh7, on Flickr
L1023072 by unoh7, on Flickr
Shy Friend by unoh7, on Flickr
Front Yard by unoh7, on Flickr
Hideaway by unoh7, on Flickr
jena blue by unoh7, on Flickr
L1023072 by unoh7, on Flickr
Shy Friend by unoh7, on Flickr
Front Yard by unoh7, on Flickr
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:38 PM
p.12 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sebboh wrote:
With over 5400 pages of posts in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread, I'd probably hazard a yes. compared to the hundreds of thousands of pages of posts with AF lenses in the Nikon forum?
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
I agree with you and frankly, when I started the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread five and a half years ago, I fully expected it to end after a couple of weeks. In fact, at one point, on page 13 to be exact, I wrote a valedictory piece thanking everyone. There hadn't been a post in five days... Well obviously I was wrong about that. But clearly, as beautifully crafted as these old lenses are, and despite the fact they can be bought for a song... still most folks want the latest and greatest, which usually means plastic AF lenses that don't have aperture rings. So folks shooting manual focus, regardless of the origin of their lenses, will always be a distinct minority. We MAY be a bit snobbish about it, but I guess as humans we need something to cheer about, especially when topics like politics and religion generally turn to ranting and raving. You'd NEVER expect that among photographers...
jancohen wrote
sebboh wrote
there are popular manual focus lenses?i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.
I agree with you and frankly, when I started the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread five and a half years ago, I fully expected it to end after a couple of weeks. In fact, at one point, on page 13 to be exact, I wrote a valedictory piece thanking everyone. There hadn't been a post in five days... Well obviously I was wrong about that. But clearly, as beautifully crafted as these old lenses are, and despite the fact they can be bought for a song... still most folks want the latest and greatest, which usually means plastic AF lenses that don't have aperture rings. So folks shooting manual focus, regardless of the origin of their lenses, will always be a distinct minority. We MAY be a bit snobbish about it, but I guess as humans we need something to cheer about, especially when topics like politics and religion generally turn to ranting and raving. You'd NEVER expect that among photographers...
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:47 PM
p.12 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred.
Luka (denoir) did just such a study here, to verify that a large proportion of viewers could identify Zeiss lenses from near equivalent Canon lenses. Empirical data is never enough to dispel the feedback each person may experience from their own vision ('seeing is believing' right?) but these two factors - individual variability and study results - might give people cause to reflect.
It's a personal view, but it seems a reasonable expectation that people with long exposure to situations requiring excellent depth perception are more likely to see the presence or absence of cues in images that indicate depth or three dimensionality than those without such experience.Well said Philip. Our perception of things in life change as we get more experience with them. The subtle flavours of different wines is an acquired taste that many just don't posses...yet it is very real. Many people will just guzzle their wine while others will swish it around their mouth and tongue to experience the sensations. If I did not have an aquired taste for wines, I might think people were nuts with the way they drank wine. I believe this is the same issue we have with being able to see the minute differences in the way lenses...Show more →
And you forgot to mention the change that comes with getting older and losing acuity of vision. It seems as we become more WISE we also lose our hearing and eyesight... I wonder what that means?
philip_pj wrote
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred.
Luka (denoir) did just such a study here, to verify that a large proportion of viewers could identify Zeiss lenses from near equivalent Canon lenses. Empirical data is never enough to dispel the feedback each person may experience from their own vision ('seeing is believing' right?) but these two factors - individual variability and study results - might give people cause to reflect.
It's a personal view, but it seems a reasonable expectation that people with long exposure to situations requiring excellent depth perception are more likely to see the presence or absence of cues in images that indicate depth or three dimensionality than those without such experience.
And you forgot to mention the change that comes with getting older and losing acuity of vision. It seems as we become more WISE we also lose our hearing and eyesight...
I wonder what that means? Mar 05, 2016 at 04:53 PM
p.12 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jancohen wrote:
sebboh wrote
i don't shoot AF but i'm under no illusion that manual focus is anything other than a tiny niche for a few eccentric folks. 99 percent of dslr users shoot exclusively AF and 99.999999999 percent of all camera users shoot exclusively AF.no. I'm basing it off reported camera and lens sales for the past decade and of course my own anecdotal experience. I'm just on a phone now so I don't really feel like finding the info, but if you look up total canon (or Nikon) lens sales for the past decade and compare them to the combined lens sales of zeiss and Leica it'll give you some idea of the percentage of people using manual focus lenses.
on the anecdotal side, my daily walk to and from work in SF took me past a few hundred to a few thousand tourists each day. over 4 years I saw less than 20 people using manual focus lenses (excluding forum members I met up with).
Mar 05, 2016 at 04:53 PM
p.12 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philip_pj wrote:
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred....Show more →
I'm curious how empirical studies can help a person who has difficulty with their capacity to recognize visually what is being articulated. I guess we could say that our minds are satisfied that our opinions are correct, but that and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee and not much more... unless your ego is invested in BEING right. I know that can be quite seductive, though in my experience being right is the booby prize.
Honestly, we will never have more than subjective experience gives us. How we interpret what we experience is colored by a thousand and one variables, some of which you refer to in describing vision. But there are psychological states as well as mood swings that affect not only seeing but more importantly how we interpret what we encounter. Language is always an approximation since even words are susceptible to interpretation... hence my comment above about wine tasting. Yes, we can do chemical analyses of wine and may even conclude that this particular chemical composition will guarantee a perfect glass of wine... but still we'd have to drink it to satisfy ourselves and would once again likely find ourselves using different adjectives to describe what we're tasting. We'd also likely find folks who experience the wine as terrible rather than terrific. The old I say potayto and you say potahto.
As I said before, these are all cookies for the mind. Nothing wrong with cookies for the mind and it is probably great fun to find kindred spirits who love the same things you do. That is what we've found in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread. I've made it a point, however, to keep analytical assessments of lenses to a minimum, which can be challenging with the scientifically oriented folks who hang out of the thread. We've found a way to have a good time without creating hard feelings. I like that.
for henry - it rarely gets discussed but it is a reasonable case that humans vary widely in many critical aspects of vision, as we see resulting from many factors such as diet, experience, health, lifestyle and demographics. So much so that many individuals at one end of the distribution struggle to see (figuratively or literally) what those at the other end are talking about.
This is why solid empirical studies matter - they give us a good sample size to even out such effects across a large number of observations, sufficiently large to enable statistical validity to be inferred....Show more →
I'm curious how empirical studies can help a person who has difficulty with their capacity to recognize visually what is being articulated. I guess we could say that our minds are satisfied that our opinions are correct, but that and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee and not much more... unless your ego is invested in BEING right. I know that can be quite seductive, though in my experience being right is the booby prize.
Honestly, we will never have more than subjective experience gives us. How we interpret what we experience is colored by a thousand and one variables, some of which you refer to in describing vision. But there are psychological states as well as mood swings that affect not only seeing but more importantly how we interpret what we encounter. Language is always an approximation since even words are susceptible to interpretation... hence my comment above about wine tasting. Yes, we can do chemical analyses of wine and may even conclude that this particular chemical composition will guarantee a perfect glass of wine... but still we'd have to drink it to satisfy ourselves and would once again likely find ourselves using different adjectives to describe what we're tasting. We'd also likely find folks who experience the wine as terrible rather than terrific. The old I say potayto and you say potahto.
As I said before, these are all cookies for the mind. Nothing wrong with cookies for the mind and it is probably great fun to find kindred spirits who love the same things you do. That is what we've found in the Manual Focus Nikon Glass thread. I've made it a point, however, to keep analytical assessments of lenses to a minimum, which can be challenging with the scientifically oriented folks who hang out of the thread. We've found a way to have a good time without creating hard feelings. I like that.
Mar 05, 2016 at 05:10 PM