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.15 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
A different take on the "Zeiss look," the look Zeiss apparently got from his wife:
http://www.zeiss.com/content/corporate/international/website/en_de/desktop/history/historical-figures/carl-zeiss/_jcr_content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.img.jpg/1425910561917.jpg/Content_Historical_Figures_Zeiss_Ottilie_Zeiss_01_224.jpg
Wonder if he had to pay for the lenses he owned...?
Just a little levity in keeping things in perspective.
http://www.zeiss.com/content/corporate/international/website/en_de/desktop/history/historical-figures/carl-zeiss/_jcr_content/mainpar/textimage_2/image.img.jpg/1425910561917.jpg/Content_Historical_Figures_Zeiss_Ottilie_Zeiss_01_224.jpg
Wonder if he had to pay for the lenses he owned...?
Just a little levity in keeping things in perspective.
Mar 06, 2016 at 12:02 PM
p.15 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Here's my Zeiss look (well, mostly Zeiss).
© jcolwell 2016
Mar 06, 2016 at 12:31 PM
p.15 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philber wrote:
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens.
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens.
Mar 06, 2016 at 01:08 PM
p.15 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
aren't there enough "holy wars" going on in this world?
We haven't gotten to Packers vs. Bears, yet. That's when things will get ugly.
aren't there enough "holy wars" going on in this world?
We haven't gotten to Packers vs. Bears, yet. That's when things will get ugly.
Mar 06, 2016 at 01:17 PM
p.15 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Mamiya.
chez wrote:
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens.
chez wrote:
philber wrote
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!Mar 06, 2016 at 01:18 PM
p.15 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
At least, everybody can agree the Pats is the best team that didn't win the Super Bowl this year.
chez wrote:
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens.
chez wrote:
philber wrote
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!Mar 06, 2016 at 01:19 PM
p.15 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
jcolwell wrote:
At least, everybody can agree the Pats is the best team that didn't win the Super Bowl this year.
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens.
All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.
At least, everybody can agree the Pats is the best team that didn't win the Super Bowl this year.
chez wrote
philber wrote
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.
Mar 06, 2016 at 01:32 PM
p.15 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens. All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.
Are you questioning their masculinity?
jcolwell wrote
At least, everybody can agree the Pats is the best team that didn't win the Super Bowl this year.chez wrote
philber wrote
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!Are you questioning their masculinity?
Mar 06, 2016 at 01:50 PM
p.15 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.
Egads, that's what my dog said after he was fixed.
All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.
Egads, that's what my dog said after he was fixed.
Mar 06, 2016 at 01:57 PM
p.15 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
CGrindahl wrote:
That's because all of his Zeiss lens were in the photo. Must have been taken with a Canikon lens. All I can say is the Pats just cannot play without deflated balls.Are you questioning their masculinity?
Just my opinion from what I observed against the Broncs.
chez wrote
jcolwell wrote
At least, everybody can agree the Pats is the best team that didn't win the Super Bowl this year.chez wrote
philber wrote
Not much 3D in your pic, Jim!Just my opinion from what I observed against the Broncs.
Mar 06, 2016 at 02:12 PM
p.15 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
ckcarr wrote:
Well Henry, Duh!
It's like the Harley thing. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand!
Interesting that GDanMitchell has liked this constructive comment... Fits right in with such a noble statement...
"I believe that they, too, can focus that enthusiasm on photography rather than cameras. I've seen it happen. I've seen some of them transformed, they have made beautiful work."
henry albert wrote
Okay, now please explain what I'm looking at. I'm not being a smart ass, just trying to understand.It's like the Harley thing. If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand!
Interesting that GDanMitchell has liked this constructive comment... Fits right in with such a noble statement...
"I believe that they, too, can focus that enthusiasm on photography rather than cameras. I've seen it happen. I've seen some of them transformed, they have made beautiful work."
Mar 06, 2016 at 04:20 PM
p.15 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
henry albert wrote:
Okay, now please explain what I'm looking at. I'm not being a smart ass, just trying to understand.
I am by no means an authority on this topic, but I'll try and explain this when I get some time.
Edit: On second thoughts, I think I'm done with these types of ideological wars. I can PM you if you're genuinely interested. Cheers.
Edited on Mar 06, 2016 at 10:01 PM · View previous versions
Okay, now please explain what I'm looking at. I'm not being a smart ass, just trying to understand.
I am by no means an authority on this topic, but I'll try and explain this when I get some time.
Edit: On second thoughts, I think I'm done with these types of ideological wars. I can PM you if you're genuinely interested. Cheers.
Edited on Mar 06, 2016 at 10:01 PM · View previous versions
Mar 06, 2016 at 04:31 PM
p.15 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
Interesting that...
?
Interesting that...
?
Mar 06, 2016 at 04:44 PM
p.15 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
The ZM 35/2 today:
Zeiss Sans Blue by unoh7, on Flickr
Zeiss look? I don't know, but good for 2.8, to my eye.
Zeiss Sans Blue by unoh7, on Flickr
Zeiss look? I don't know, but good for 2.8, to my eye.
Mar 06, 2016 at 07:44 PM
p.15 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Spherical aberration, distortion, field curvature, corner astigmatism, strong vignetting, etc..do give our images a certain character but I think it's different than drawing/rendering. Lenses can be well corrected and still draw beautifully. We have so many modern examples. (E.g. 35/2 Sonnar, 21/2.8 Distagon, etc.)
Modern optical designs significantly reduced aberrations by increasing lens elements and I think it's actually a good thing. Why? Because today's software post-processing gives us the freedom to create different looks depending on subject and photography needs.
Can a modern lens have nice rendering, be well-corrected and offer high IQ in a small size? I thought it...Show more →
I guess this is vindication of the short flange distance at last.
Some were disappointed when it turned out to have no advantages from normal to tele (though it was fairly obvious)
But then when compact RF wides looked bad in the corners some thought there would be no advantages.
But it turns out that provided they are designed for the right cover glass thickness, and provided there is a little retro focality (but not as much as a dslr lens) you can shrink the size of a quality wide with mirrorless!
Spherical aberration, distortion, field curvature, corner astigmatism, strong vignetting, etc..do give our images a certain character but I think it's different than drawing/rendering. Lenses can be well corrected and still draw beautifully. We have so many modern examples. (E.g. 35/2 Sonnar, 21/2.8 Distagon, etc.)
Modern optical designs significantly reduced aberrations by increasing lens elements and I think it's actually a good thing. Why? Because today's software post-processing gives us the freedom to create different looks depending on subject and photography needs.
Can a modern lens have nice rendering, be well-corrected and offer high IQ in a small size? I thought it...Show more →
I guess this is vindication of the short flange distance at last.
Some were disappointed when it turned out to have no advantages from normal to tele (though it was fairly obvious)
But then when compact RF wides looked bad in the corners some thought there would be no advantages.
But it turns out that provided they are designed for the right cover glass thickness, and provided there is a little retro focality (but not as much as a dslr lens) you can shrink the size of a quality wide with mirrorless!
Mar 07, 2016 at 04:09 AM
p.15 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
uhoh7 wrote:
The ZM 35/2 today:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1649/25276750080_6070186e68_b.jpg
Zeiss Sans Blue by unoh7, on Flickr
Zeiss look? I don't know, but good for 2.8, to my eye.
I think a lot of it is depth of the photo. You see the shoulders don't appear to be the same distance from the camera. You can especially see this with the eyeglass lens being different distances from the camera. Look at a similar image from an Art (or some other new fancy lens with way too many elements) lens on flicker. I lot of people think new lens produce "flat" images. Truthfully, I think a lot of people like the "flat and sharp" look nowadays. If DXOmark (or whatever it is called) were to include the flatness as a demerit the scoring would come out different.
I think it would be more pronounced with a 58mm voigtlander vs. one of these new FX lens with the super high element count.
The ZM 35/2 today:
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1649/25276750080_6070186e68_b.jpg
Zeiss Sans Blue by unoh7, on Flickr
Zeiss look? I don't know, but good for 2.8, to my eye.
I think a lot of it is depth of the photo. You see the shoulders don't appear to be the same distance from the camera. You can especially see this with the eyeglass lens being different distances from the camera. Look at a similar image from an Art (or some other new fancy lens with way too many elements) lens on flicker. I lot of people think new lens produce "flat" images. Truthfully, I think a lot of people like the "flat and sharp" look nowadays. If DXOmark (or whatever it is called) were to include the flatness as a demerit the scoring would come out different.
I think it would be more pronounced with a 58mm voigtlander vs. one of these new FX lens with the super high element count.
Mar 07, 2016 at 06:11 AM
p.15 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
Mar 07, 2016 at 07:16 AM
p.15 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
so, 15 pages of interesting prose and "other" things and we are back to the start
perception is 9/10ths of a happy user of whatever.
we, as humans, tend to believe pretty much what we want to believe or in what we deem is our favorite flavor of Kool-Aid that is fed to us.
perception is 9/10ths of a happy user of whatever.
we, as humans, tend to believe pretty much what we want to believe or in what we deem is our favorite flavor of Kool-Aid that is fed to us.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:26 AM
p.15 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul wrote:
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
I guess some lenses just better enhance this lighting than others...still resulting in more chance of achieving this look with certain lenses. Isn't this what we ars discussing here...without light we don't have an image. It's what lenses do with that light that counts.
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
I guess some lenses just better enhance this lighting than others...still resulting in more chance of achieving this look with certain lenses. Isn't this what we ars discussing here...without light we don't have an image. It's what lenses do with that light that counts.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:36 AM