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.16 #1The 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'd say selective focus and contrast (edge roll-off) play the strongest role after lighting.
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
I'd say selective focus and contrast (edge roll-off) play the strongest role after lighting.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:41 AM
p.16 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
but then again its the lens that makes all the difference and the subject matter itself has little to do with the end product.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:46 AM
p.16 #3The 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.
To your point, the Zeiss 18/4 M Distagon, again:
Yellow Flecks by unoh7, on Flickr
High Rock Garden by unoh7, on Flickr
These are both at F/4. But it looks to me like the focal point is closer in the upper shot.
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
To your point, the Zeiss 18/4 M Distagon, again:
Yellow Flecks by unoh7, on Flickr
High Rock Garden by unoh7, on Flickr
These are both at F/4. But it looks to me like the focal point is closer in the upper shot.
Mar 07, 2016 at 09:54 AM
p.16 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
and really, the zeiss made all the difference?
Mar 07, 2016 at 10:04 AM
p.16 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
DavidBM wrote:
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 would not be quite possible but was surprised by the new Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon. I'm hoping this trend continues.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!
Yes, it seems like size reduction is feasible with wide and ultra wide angle lenses. Imagine how incredible it would be if Zeiss designs a compact Loxia 15/2.8 competing in the IQ department with the huge SLR 15/2.8.
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 would not be quite possible but was surprised by the new Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon. I'm hoping this trend continues.
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!
Yes, it seems like size reduction is feasible with wide and ultra wide angle lenses. Imagine how incredible it would be if Zeiss designs a compact Loxia 15/2.8 competing in the IQ department with the huge SLR 15/2.8.
Mar 07, 2016 at 10:53 AM
p.16 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Imagine how incredible it would be if Zeiss designs a compact Loxia 15/2.8 competing in the IQ department with the huge SLR 15/2.8.
I'll take two please.....
Imagine how incredible it would be if Zeiss designs a compact Loxia 15/2.8 competing in the IQ department with the huge SLR 15/2.8.
I'll take two please.....
Mar 07, 2016 at 11:14 AM
p.16 #7The 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.
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.
Mar 07, 2016 at 12:39 PM
p.16 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
sjms wrote:
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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.
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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims. Mar 07, 2016 at 12:41 PM
p.16 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.
Or we need the human brain to do what it does so well: parse the data and tell us that what we want to believe is true.
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.Or we need the human brain to do what it does so well: parse the data and tell us that what we want to believe is true.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:01 PM
p.16 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Fred Miranda wrote:
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 would not be quite possible but was surprised by the new Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon. I'm hoping this trend continues.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!Yes, it seems like size reduction is feasible with wide and ultra wide angle lenses. Imagine how incredible it would be if Zeiss designs a compact Loxia 15/2.8 competing in the IQ department with the huge SLR 15/2.8.
Fred, the 15 2.8 would have to be killer as the 16-35 is so good at 16mm. I'd even love a Loxia 15 f4 if it would make it even more compact.
DavidBM wrote
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 would not be quite possible but was surprised by the new Loxia 21/2.8 Distagon. I'm hoping this trend continues.
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!
Fred, the 15 2.8 would have to be killer as the 16-35 is so good at 16mm. I'd even love a Loxia 15 f4 if it would make it even more compact.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:22 PM
p.16 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:24 PM
p.16 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
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. I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.
I see your "Moving on" threats did not really pan out much huh. Maybe we all should just enjoy whatever gear we choose to use rather than try shoot holes into other people.
sjms wrote
so, 15 pages of interesting prose and "other" things and we are back to the startperception 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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims. I see your "Moving on" threats did not really pan out much huh. Maybe we all should just enjoy whatever gear we choose to use rather than try shoot holes into other people.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:26 PM
p.16 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
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. I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.I see your "Moving on" threats did not really pan out much huh. Maybe we all should just enjoy whatever gear we choose to use rather than try shoot holes into other people.
How did I know you'd be the first to respond?
You sure take this topic personally
You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.
Andre Labonte wrote
sjms wrote
so, 15 pages of interesting prose and "other" things and we are back to the startperception 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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.How did I know you'd be the first to respond?
You sure take this topic personally You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:30 PM
p.16 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
snapsy wrote:
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
Haha, How true, how true!
Some people just feel they are wiser than others. You know, the kid calls out the emperor's dress
Heh, Heh, Look at me, I am that kid. (proudly).
Andre, now that D500 is here, you have nothing to rant about?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 01:40 PM · View previous versions
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
Haha, How true, how true!
Some people just feel they are wiser than others. You know, the kid calls out the emperor's dress
Heh, Heh, Look at me, I am that kid. (proudly).
Andre, now that D500 is here, you have nothing to rant about?
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 01:40 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:35 PM
p.16 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
snapsy wrote:
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
Just the word Zeiss brings people out from hiding. Really hard to figure out why they have such opinions on lenses they don't have any interest in. I'm sure Frued would love to have a go at some of these characters
As a Zeiss owner I don't recall ever posting in non-Zeiss lens threads to argue about how those lenses lack in any particular degree vs a Zeiss. I don't recall many other Zeiss owners doing it either, although I'm sure there are a few exceptions.
Just the word Zeiss brings people out from hiding. Really hard to figure out why they have such opinions on lenses they don't have any interest in. I'm sure Frued would love to have a go at some of these characters
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:36 PM
p.16 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
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. I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.I see your "Moving on" threats did not really pan out much huh. Maybe we all should just enjoy whatever gear we choose to use rather than try shoot holes into other people.How did I know you'd be the first to respond? You sure take this topic personally
You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.
Oh I see. You're here just to be amused and really don't want to add anything of substance here. The Hide Me button fixes that problem.
chez wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
sjms wrote
so, 15 pages of interesting prose and "other" things and we are back to the startperception 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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims. You sure take this topic personally You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.
Oh I see. You're here just to be amused and really don't want to add anything of substance here. The Hide Me button fixes that problem.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:39 PM
p.16 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).
I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing about a so-called "Zeiss look." I just liked what I was seeing.
I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
Rob
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing about a so-called "Zeiss look." I just liked what I was seeing.
I subsequently moved on to Pentax digital cameras for about 6 years using FA Limited lenses (the three amigos), which I loved. But now, I am shooting Sony FF mirrorless, and I have rediscovered the beauty of Zeiss glass, including vintage C/Y lenses. They remind me of the fabulous Contax G lenses that I adored in the past. I truly prefer my C/Y glass to the more modern Batis lenses. Pictures just look better overall.
Rob
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:41 PM
p.16 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
robgo2 wrote:
Yup, I went down the Zeiss road myself, never saw any magic that wasn't already there in the scene to begin with. In fact, I ended up selling my Zeiss and sticking with Nikon - I actually like the way Nikon renders better (not that there's really much of a difference).I have to disagree. Back in my film camera days, I shot with a Nikon camera and good quality Nikon prime lenses. Then, on a whim, I purchased a Contax G2 rangefinder with several Zeiss-Contax G lenses. When I got the first set of prints back from the lab, my jaw practically dropped to the floor. The images were so much more lifelike and 3D with richer colors than anything that I had ever gotten from my Nikon gear. That was all that it took to convince me that Zeiss was doing something different. At the time, I knew nothing...Show more →
Rob
Two things:
1- Steve's comments were with regards to modern lenses ... not old lenses from the film days.
2- An image take with a single lens cannot be 3D ... you perhaps are confusing contrast and/or shallow DOF or field curvature as providing a 2D image with apparent 3D perspective?
Steve Perry wrote
GoranPhoto wrote
I never really understood what people meant by the "Zeiss Look" even though I have owned about half a dozen different Zeiss lenses myself for the simple reason that I enjoy good manual focus from time to time. Maybe I'd care and pay more attention if I shot JPEGs and Photoshop wasn't around.Rob
Two things:
1- Steve's comments were with regards to modern lenses ... not old lenses from the film days.
2- An image take with a single lens cannot be 3D ... you perhaps are confusing contrast and/or shallow DOF or field curvature as providing a 2D image with apparent 3D perspective?
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:56 PM
p.16 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
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. I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims.I see your "Moving on" threats did not really pan out much huh. Maybe we all should just enjoy whatever gear we choose to use rather than try shoot holes into other people.How did I know you'd be the first to respond? You sure take this topic personally
You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.Oh I see. You're here just to be amused and really don't want to add anything of substance here. The Hide Me button fixes that problem.
Andre Labonte wrote
chez wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
sjms wrote
so, 15 pages of interesting prose and "other" things and we are back to the startperception 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.
I was reading last couple of pages of this thread and thinking the same thing ... back to the original erroneous claims. You sure take this topic personally You misunderstand me ... I get entertained by people's irrational beliefs, chuckle, and move on ... to the next entertaining post. Thanks for the entertainment.
I never suggested that people can't uses the gear they want ... quite the contrary, I like choice. I just get amused by peoples' irrational rationalizations.
Mar 07, 2016 at 01:56 PM
p.16 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Andre Labonte wrote:
You are correct ...with as single lens "3D" is a perception but not reality. To get true 3D you need two images of the same object from different angles projected into a single image using a stereoscope.
To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense depth or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM · View previous versions
akul wrote
IMHO 3D or not is all in lighting. Lens enhances but after all it is just 2d image messing with our perception.To me, 3D in this context is the ability to sense depth or perceive something as real looking.
It's like closing an eye, and looking at a real scene. With an eye closed, I can still sense depth using certain visual clues, in some cases almost the same with both eyes open.
It is the same thing for me on a 2D format like paper or a screen.
Edited on Mar 07, 2016 at 03:01 PM · View previous versions
Mar 07, 2016 at 02:13 PM