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.7 #1The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gary Clennan wrote:
chez wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
Yeah, I know what you mean. I notice any thread with the Zeiss word in it brings out the regular bashers...the ones that never shot with a Zeiss but somehow think they are experts with them.
Walks away shaking his head...
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:01 PM
p.7 #2The mystery of the Zeiss look?
chez wrote:
You are, as is anyone, of course free to make any choice you want. On a personal level you can choose to use coke bottles for lenses if you want — and I'll bet someone has made interesting photographs with them! ;-)
However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
DanJust wish said viewpoints were from ACTUAL use of said equipment rather than third party "I've read it somewhere on the net so it must be true" type of experience. Now who's opinions would you take...someone who uses the equipment on a regular basis or someone who reads about it on the net. I know where I'd put my focus...and it's not on the net browser.This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing.... Yeah, I know what you mean. I notice any thread with the Zeiss word in it brings out the regular bashers...the ones that never shot with a Zeiss but somehow think they are experts with them.
Walks away shaking his head...
Hi Gary and Harry,
I too have been there as I am sure Gary knows.
But, I think that this may apply to German optics in general incluidng Zeiss and Leica for 35mm as well as the LF optics made by Schneider, Rodenstock, and Zeiss (Zeiss no longer makes LF lenses), and German MF lenses.
I am not sure if what we are seeing entirely has to do with lens design entirely but I suspect that it may also have to do at least in part something to do with coatings used by the German makers. But that is just a guess.
Rich
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 09:20 PM · View previous versions
Gary Clennan wrote
chez wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
zhangyue wrote
There is a pattern for this kind of thread every time show up. I don't need defend my choice if I feel there is a difference existing either objectively or subjectively...However...
... quite a few people come here to try to learn about photographic topics. With that in mind, and with all due respect to everyone's freedom to make any choice they wish and to the knowledge that different people have different reasons for their choices, it seems reasonable to discuss the claims about almost any gear choices and the impact of those choices on photography.
So, the person who believes that the funkiest, cheapest, least capable camera in the world is just as fine as something more sophisticated is welcome to his or her opinion... and he/she can expect that other viewpoints will be offered here. In the same way, those who believe that expensive, rare, and specialized lenses will make their photographs better in ways worth the cost are welcome to act on that belief, but they can also expect that other viewpoints will be offered.
Take care,
Dan
Walks away shaking his head...
Hi Gary and Harry,
I too have been there as I am sure Gary knows.
But, I think that this may apply to German optics in general incluidng Zeiss and Leica for 35mm as well as the LF optics made by Schneider, Rodenstock, and Zeiss (Zeiss no longer makes LF lenses), and German MF lenses.
I am not sure if what we are seeing entirely has to do with lens design entirely but I suspect that it may also have to do at least in part something to do with coatings used by the German makers. But that is just a guess.
Rich
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 09:20 PM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:19 PM
p.7 #3The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Gary Clennan wrote:
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:19 PM
p.7 #4The mystery of the Zeiss look?
There are very high-priced cars, and no-one questions their legitimacy. And boats. And bikes. And watches. And, and, and...
But, come lenses, and some say: "if I can't see it, it is not there, not worth it, pure snobbery, technical drivel".
What furthers impedes any serious technical discussion is that Zeiss and Leica both publish measured MTF curves, whereas Canikon both publish calculated MTF curves, depriving photographers of a simple like-with-like comparison tool.
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently. If they don't "see it", then it doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist. So, if "it isn't there", what drives others to "claim to see it"? Snobbery? Idiocy? Gullability? Masochism? All of the above?
What is it that drives the naysayers to claim to hold a copyright on The Truth? I, for one, have no time to lose speculating on the answer(s) to this question. That would be time away from the much more important -and pleasurable- task of taking pictures.
But, come lenses, and some say: "if I can't see it, it is not there, not worth it, pure snobbery, technical drivel".
What furthers impedes any serious technical discussion is that Zeiss and Leica both publish measured MTF curves, whereas Canikon both publish calculated MTF curves, depriving photographers of a simple like-with-like comparison tool.
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently. If they don't "see it", then it doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist. So, if "it isn't there", what drives others to "claim to see it"? Snobbery? Idiocy? Gullability? Masochism? All of the above?
What is it that drives the naysayers to claim to hold a copyright on The Truth? I, for one, have no time to lose speculating on the answer(s) to this question. That would be time away from the much more important -and pleasurable- task of taking pictures.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:25 PM
p.7 #5The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
Gary Clennan wrote
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
Mar 03, 2016 at 09:34 PM
p.7 #6The mystery of the Zeiss look?
+1 @ degrees of refinement vs. the ability to discern the degrees of refinement.
I once was able to discern .001" by touch, something that seems unrealistic to most (even surreal to me now).
The first time I tasted wine, I had no idea what they were talking about regarding the way it "lays" ... I just drank the sweet stuff. The ability to detect "notes" totally escaped me. The first time I came to the Alt Forum, there was all this talk about drawing styles ... and I was totally lost, couldn't see what folks were talking about.
Well, suffice to say that whether it is our sense of taste, touch, smell, sight or hearing ... humans are capable of achieving various degrees of discernment and refinement. Some can discern degrees of refinement differently than others, it is just that simple ... and yes, it can be learned, changed, improved and/or lost. Is there a threshold for folks ... sure, why not. But, sometimes we allow that threshold to be established far too easily, without really even trying to raise the bar.
I'm currently learning to shoot handguns ... ummm, my current level of shooting can't (fully) benefit from the difference between a Dan Wilson, a Kimber, a Glock or a Beretta (well sorta), but the point here is that just because someone can't (or maybe better stated @ currently doesn't) discern, or benefit from, a difference ... well, that doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist.
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:45 PM · View previous versions
I once was able to discern .001" by touch, something that seems unrealistic to most (even surreal to me now).
The first time I tasted wine, I had no idea what they were talking about regarding the way it "lays" ... I just drank the sweet stuff. The ability to detect "notes" totally escaped me. The first time I came to the Alt Forum, there was all this talk about drawing styles ... and I was totally lost, couldn't see what folks were talking about.
Well, suffice to say that whether it is our sense of taste, touch, smell, sight or hearing ... humans are capable of achieving various degrees of discernment and refinement. Some can discern degrees of refinement differently than others, it is just that simple ... and yes, it can be learned, changed, improved and/or lost. Is there a threshold for folks ... sure, why not. But, sometimes we allow that threshold to be established far too easily, without really even trying to raise the bar.
I'm currently learning to shoot handguns ... ummm, my current level of shooting can't (fully) benefit from the difference between a Dan Wilson, a Kimber, a Glock or a Beretta (well sorta), but the point here is that just because someone can't (or maybe better stated @ currently doesn't) discern, or benefit from, a difference ... well, that doesn't mean a difference doesn't exist.
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:45 PM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:05 PM
p.7 #7The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philber wrote:
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently...
No they don't. While they disagree with the conclusions, no one "ardently challenges the right of others to think differently." ;-)
SKumar25 wrote:
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
That is one theory — that a person who disagrees with a positive assessment of the significance of a difference must be insensitive, and the disagreement is "proof" of their insensitivity — but it is not the only one. And not all measurable differences are significant. -)
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:39 PM · View previous versions
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently...
No they don't. While they disagree with the conclusions, no one "ardently challenges the right of others to think differently." ;-)
SKumar25 wrote:
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
That is one theory — that a person who disagrees with a positive assessment of the significance of a difference must be insensitive, and the disagreement is "proof" of their insensitivity — but it is not the only one. And not all measurable differences are significant. -)
Edited on Mar 03, 2016 at 10:39 PM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:32 PM
p.7 #8The mystery of the Zeiss look?
philber wrote:
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently. If they don't "see it", then it doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist. So, if "it isn't there", what drives others to "claim to see it"? Snobbery? Idiocy? Gullability? Masochism? All of the above?
What is it that drives the naysayers to claim to hold a copyright on The Truth? I, for one, have no time to lose speculating on the answer(s) to this question. That would be time away from the much more important -and pleasurable- task of taking pictures.
That's the thing - most fans of a particular rendering style are used to the fact that most don't share their same type of appreciation, so their rationalization is typically a fairly laid-back, "that's fine if you don't see it, but I see it and I like what I like." Unfortunately, some take that as an insult, because they now see themselves as being in a position of, not just defending their equipment choices, but defending against any possible hint of a whisper of an insinuation that they themselves are somehow inadequate by virtue of not seeing what the other person sees.
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently. If they don't "see it", then it doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist. So, if "it isn't there", what drives others to "claim to see it"? Snobbery? Idiocy? Gullability? Masochism? All of the above?
What is it that drives the naysayers to claim to hold a copyright on The Truth? I, for one, have no time to lose speculating on the answer(s) to this question. That would be time away from the much more important -and pleasurable- task of taking pictures.
That's the thing - most fans of a particular rendering style are used to the fact that most don't share their same type of appreciation, so their rationalization is typically a fairly laid-back, "that's fine if you don't see it, but I see it and I like what I like." Unfortunately, some take that as an insult, because they now see themselves as being in a position of, not just defending their equipment choices, but defending against any possible hint of a whisper of an insinuation that they themselves are somehow inadequate by virtue of not seeing what the other person sees.
Mar 03, 2016 at 10:36 PM
p.7 #9The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
philber wrote
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently...SKumar25 wrote
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.Dan, you wear glasses right. Maybe it's time you had them checked.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:06 PM
p.7 #10The mystery of the Zeiss look?
WhyFi wrote:
philber wrote
But what I find most interesting is that the naysayers ardently challenge the right of others to think differently. If they don't "see it", then it doesn't exist. I shouldn't exist. So, if "it isn't there", what drives others to "claim to see it"? Snobbery? Idiocy? Gullability? Masochism? All of the above?What is it that drives the naysayers to claim to hold a copyright on The Truth? I, for one, have no time to lose speculating on the answer(s) to this question. That would be time away from the much more important -and pleasurable- task of taking pictures.
And why should they feel inadequate. Let them just use whatever lenses they feel produce whatever images they like.
What makes me giggle is any thread with the word Zeiss has these people jumping in with their two sense ( usually not even worth the 2 cents) opinions on the look of Zeiss lens.
Do they jump in on the look of Tokina, Sigma or Tamron...noooo...its just Zeiss that somehow strikes a chord in them. They even get into a lecturing mode...as if they are experts in these lenses...yet they have never shot a single image with the lens.
What is their drive...why Zeiss...why don't they just let the people who see the value of the Zeiss lens enjoy?
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:14 PM
p.7 #11The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Gary Clennan wrote
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
That's questionable.
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:15 PM
p.7 #12The mystery of the Zeiss look?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
I'd be willing to bet a group of fine violinists could tell you the subtle differences between the various instruments they've tried, including different strings, bows, etc. And they'll be able to tell you what qualities in their preferred instruments they appreciate. Then you can find another group of fine violinists who will tell you the first group is full of crap, completely delusional about their overpriced junk, and should just shut up and play. The second group considers themselves practical and level-headed, but the irony that they've sacrificed their own precious playing time to make that pointless comment is lost on this group.
When it comes to a one-to-one relationship like that between an artist and their tool, the artist's perception is reality, be that perception "useless crap", "no different in performance than any other tool", or "bestest tool ever".
Gary Clennan wrote
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
I'd be willing to bet a group of fine violinists could tell you the subtle differences between the various instruments they've tried, including different strings, bows, etc. And they'll be able to tell you what qualities in their preferred instruments they appreciate. Then you can find another group of fine violinists who will tell you the first group is full of crap, completely delusional about their overpriced junk, and should just shut up and play. The second group considers themselves practical and level-headed, but the irony that they've sacrificed their own precious playing time to make that pointless comment is lost on this group.
When it comes to a one-to-one relationship like that between an artist and their tool, the artist's perception is reality, be that perception "useless crap", "no different in performance than any other tool", or "bestest tool ever".
Mar 03, 2016 at 11:16 PM
p.7 #13The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Yup ... and my fav tool has later become less than fav, and circled back to being fav again. Does that mean folks can be fickle, too. 
There was a time when I was very serious about the 3D-ishness aspect. I studied it both in photography @ lenses, and at processing. I studied in painting @ trompe loeill. I studied it human physiology. I had my "go to lenses" and knew where they performed well to get the "look" I wanted to achieve.
Then I moved away from such a strong interest in that aspect of my work. Did that change its reality from existence, nope ... just my perception on its relevance to my work.
But, here's the left-handed thought on the matter:
So, if folks say they can't tell the difference on something "more refined" (which is certainly viable) or it doesn't matter to them ... then what keeps them from using a tool of even "less refined" capability than they currently use? In other words, if there is a threshold for them @ usefulness at the top, is there not also a threshold for usefulness at the bottom?
How high one will go really isn't that much different of a question from that of how low one will go ... it's just the other end of the same question @ what is the range that matters to you.
There was a time when I was very serious about the 3D-ishness aspect. I studied it both in photography @ lenses, and at processing. I studied in painting @ trompe loeill. I studied it human physiology. I had my "go to lenses" and knew where they performed well to get the "look" I wanted to achieve.
Then I moved away from such a strong interest in that aspect of my work. Did that change its reality from existence, nope ... just my perception on its relevance to my work.
But, here's the left-handed thought on the matter:
So, if folks say they can't tell the difference on something "more refined" (which is certainly viable) or it doesn't matter to them ... then what keeps them from using a tool of even "less refined" capability than they currently use? In other words, if there is a threshold for them @ usefulness at the top, is there not also a threshold for usefulness at the bottom?
How high one will go really isn't that much different of a question from that of how low one will go ... it's just the other end of the same question @ what is the range that matters to you.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:11 AM
p.7 #14The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
That is one theory — that a person who disagrees with a positive assessment of the significance of a difference must be insensitive, and the disagreement is "proof" of their insensitivity — but it is not the only one. And not all measurable differences are significant. -)
A person who can't detect a measurable difference could be insensitive, not someone who detects a difference and assesses it to be insignificant. Significance is relative, we don't get to decide what is significant or not for everyone else.
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalided.
If the difference can be measured, but you can't detect these whilst others can, then the problem may lie with you.
That is one theory — that a person who disagrees with a positive assessment of the significance of a difference must be insensitive, and the disagreement is "proof" of their insensitivity — but it is not the only one. And not all measurable differences are significant. -)
A person who can't detect a measurable difference could be insensitive, not someone who detects a difference and assesses it to be insignificant. Significance is relative, we don't get to decide what is significant or not for everyone else.
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalided.
Mar 04, 2016 at 12:45 AM
p.7 #15The mystery of the Zeiss look?
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.Do you care to elaborate a bit more?
If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:09 AM
p.7 #16The mystery of the Zeiss look?
I like Zeiss because the lenses are well built, reliable, and consistent. I also like the sharpness, contrast, and colors the lenses can produce.
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum and check out one of the massive Zeiss photo threads there. Pick a thread, jump in at any arbitrary post, and look at the photos. This is the easiest way to judge for yourself what Zeiss lenses are all about.
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum and check out one of the massive Zeiss photo threads there. Pick a thread, jump in at any arbitrary post, and look at the photos. This is the easiest way to judge for yourself what Zeiss lenses are all about.
Mar 04, 2016 at 07:48 AM
p.7 #17The mystery of the Zeiss look?
SKumar25 wrote:
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalid...
Not at all. There are virtually always measurable differences between two different things. There are, no doubt, measurable differences among all of the possible lenses that people might be thinking of in this discussion, for example.
Confirmation bias would most certainly come into play here if it turned out that a person's notion of which of the different things is better (not the same as different) and the magnitude of the differences was influenced by their preexisting beliefs — for example that Brand A is known to be better than Brand B, or that they tend to feel that brands from one country are better than those from another, or their knowledge that Item A is regarded to be exotic and specialized, while Item B is less expensive and the product of an assembly line process.
freaklikeme wrote:
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
DanI'd be willing to bet a group of fine violinists could tell you the subtle differences between the various instruments they've tried, including different strings, bows, etc. And they'll be able to tell you what qualities in their preferred instruments they appreciate. Then you can find another group of fine violinists who will tell you the first group is full of crap, completely delusional about their overpriced junk, and should just shut up and play. The second group considers themselves practical and level-headed, but the irony that they've sacrificed their own precious playing time to make that pointless comment is...Show more →
A fair point, but... two things.
First, the point I was making was related to the notion that those who don't use/do a thing are unqualified to perceive or understand differences, a point repeatedly stressed in this and similar discussions. In fact, one can be highly competent at seeing (or hearing, tasting, feeling, analyzing, measuring, etc.) things produced with tools that one does not personally use. The idea that only users of, say, Polaroid cameras are qualified to offer any opinions on the quality of Polaroid camera photography is unsupportable, as would be the notion that my opinions about differences between, say, 8 x 10 large format film photographs (which I have not made) and MFT format digital photographs (which I have not made either) is invalid.
(Anyone who disagrees with that should make sure that they, ahem, only offer opinions from here on out on subjects concerning the precise equipment than they, themselves use, and that they refrain from participating in any discussions about tools that they do not personally own and use. That's not my perspective, but to those who do think this... ;-)
Second, and to your specific analogy, it turns out that I actually know a lot of very good violinists (and performers on just about every other instrument) from long professional work in the field of music. (Recently I spent three years mixing my musical and photographic background and was "embedded" with classical musicians as I photographed them.)
I understand quite well the nature of the direct physical connection between the player of a musical instrument and their carefully practiced and hard won virtually intuitive relationship with an instrument. There is a bit of this in the operation of cameras — at the point that you know your camera so well that you can begin to make pictures without consciously thinking much at all about the technical stuff and instead focus on the visual, in the same way that players train the technical into near invisibility so that they can simply make music.
But the analogy doesn't work that well. The relationship between a photographer and a lens is virtually nothing like the relationship between a violinist and a violin. We don't, for example, engage in expressive focusing in the way that a violinist expressively controls bow pressure and speed and much more. We don't make poetic f-stop adjustments on the fly in the same way that a fiddle player introduces vibrato. Yes, lenses are different from one another, but beyond that the comparison to musical instruments breaks down pretty thoroughly. (There will never be, for example, a Stradivarius lens. Sorry to break the news... ;-)
And, one more thing... put a group of violinists (or oboe players or pianists or trombonists or percussionists or you name it) together and have that conversation about instruments and you'll find virtually the same sorts of opinions that you get in photography forums. Some will think X is better than Y and some will think that Y is better than X. Some will yearn for that old model of Z while others are hopefully looking forward to the upcoming introduction of A. Others have learned that the important thing is to make beautiful music using whichever tool you do acquire and that, in the end, it matters little which tool that is (within a reasonable range) as long as it is a good one and you have put in the requisite time to master its use.
(There is, as in some photographic circles, also a group of amateur musicians who are very, very focused on instruments. One professional musician that I know very well occasionally runs into these folks, who invariably produce exasperated eye-rolls among folks who make their living in music. These enthusiasts collect instruments, and often love to talk about and show off their instruments. This particular professional musician that I'm thinking of recently had one of them as a student. The student showed up with a super-expensive, exotic instrument and was very proud of it. He couldn't play very well — not the fault of the instrument — and the teacher later remarked that in all her years of professional playing she had never encountered a professional player who actually used that extraordinarily expensive and "top shelf" instrument for professional work. Food for thought...)
sandycrane wrote:
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
Dan
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/CelliDoubleBassesRehearsal20130927.jpg
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/ViolinistMusiciansWarmUpBackstage20140926.jpg
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/EverettWilliamBassSSV20130112.jpg
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 08:46 AM · View previous versions
If there is a measurable difference between 2 things, small or large, then an argument along the lines of "confirmation bias" is invalid...
Not at all. There are virtually always measurable differences between two different things. There are, no doubt, measurable differences among all of the possible lenses that people might be thinking of in this discussion, for example.
Confirmation bias would most certainly come into play here if it turned out that a person's notion of which of the different things is better (not the same as different) and the magnitude of the differences was influenced by their preexisting beliefs — for example that Brand A is known to be better than Brand B, or that they tend to feel that brands from one country are better than those from another, or their knowledge that Item A is regarded to be exotic and specialized, while Item B is less expensive and the product of an assembly line process.
freaklikeme wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
A fair point, but... two things.
First, the point I was making was related to the notion that those who don't use/do a thing are unqualified to perceive or understand differences, a point repeatedly stressed in this and similar discussions. In fact, one can be highly competent at seeing (or hearing, tasting, feeling, analyzing, measuring, etc.) things produced with tools that one does not personally use. The idea that only users of, say, Polaroid cameras are qualified to offer any opinions on the quality of Polaroid camera photography is unsupportable, as would be the notion that my opinions about differences between, say, 8 x 10 large format film photographs (which I have not made) and MFT format digital photographs (which I have not made either) is invalid.
(Anyone who disagrees with that should make sure that they, ahem, only offer opinions from here on out on subjects concerning the precise equipment than they, themselves use, and that they refrain from participating in any discussions about tools that they do not personally own and use. That's not my perspective, but to those who do think this... ;-)
Second, and to your specific analogy, it turns out that I actually know a lot of very good violinists (and performers on just about every other instrument) from long professional work in the field of music. (Recently I spent three years mixing my musical and photographic background and was "embedded" with classical musicians as I photographed them.)
I understand quite well the nature of the direct physical connection between the player of a musical instrument and their carefully practiced and hard won virtually intuitive relationship with an instrument. There is a bit of this in the operation of cameras — at the point that you know your camera so well that you can begin to make pictures without consciously thinking much at all about the technical stuff and instead focus on the visual, in the same way that players train the technical into near invisibility so that they can simply make music.
But the analogy doesn't work that well. The relationship between a photographer and a lens is virtually nothing like the relationship between a violinist and a violin. We don't, for example, engage in expressive focusing in the way that a violinist expressively controls bow pressure and speed and much more. We don't make poetic f-stop adjustments on the fly in the same way that a fiddle player introduces vibrato. Yes, lenses are different from one another, but beyond that the comparison to musical instruments breaks down pretty thoroughly. (There will never be, for example, a Stradivarius lens. Sorry to break the news... ;-)
And, one more thing... put a group of violinists (or oboe players or pianists or trombonists or percussionists or you name it) together and have that conversation about instruments and you'll find virtually the same sorts of opinions that you get in photography forums. Some will think X is better than Y and some will think that Y is better than X. Some will yearn for that old model of Z while others are hopefully looking forward to the upcoming introduction of A. Others have learned that the important thing is to make beautiful music using whichever tool you do acquire and that, in the end, it matters little which tool that is (within a reasonable range) as long as it is a good one and you have put in the requisite time to master its use.
(There is, as in some photographic circles, also a group of amateur musicians who are very, very focused on instruments. One professional musician that I know very well occasionally runs into these folks, who invariably produce exasperated eye-rolls among folks who make their living in music. These enthusiasts collect instruments, and often love to talk about and show off their instruments. This particular professional musician that I'm thinking of recently had one of them as a student. The student showed up with a super-expensive, exotic instrument and was very proud of it. He couldn't play very well — not the fault of the instrument — and the teacher later remarked that in all her years of professional playing she had never encountered a professional player who actually used that extraordinarily expensive and "top shelf" instrument for professional work. Food for thought...)
sandycrane wrote:
If anyone is truly interested in what may be special about these lenses you should hop next door to the Alt forum...
This thread seems to already be in the alt forum, since that is how I'm accessing it. And, yes, the alt forum is a very interesting and diverse place!
Dan
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/CelliDoubleBassesRehearsal20130927.jpg
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/ViolinistMusiciansWarmUpBackstage20140926.jpg
http://gallery.gdanmitchell.com/gallery/var/resizes/HumanWorld/PerformingArts/Music/EverettWilliamBassSSV20130112.jpg
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 08:46 AM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 08:22 AM
p.7 #18The mystery of the Zeiss look?
akul 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).Do you care to elaborate a bit more?
If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
Sure -
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses ever did. Like Craig said a few pages back, line a bunch of photographers up at sunrise in Canyonlands and the difference in photos is NOT the lens.
When I did shoot the same or similar scenes with the Nikon and Zeiss, it was more or less a wash for me. The lenses did render differently, but I actually liked the more neutral colors of the Nikon. Some of the Zeiss glass seems to add a bit of warmth or something to the image - and to me that's an unwanted "feature". I like to start out fairly neutral and post process from there.
That said, the differences between the Zeiss and Nikon were subtle and not something I felt any normal person viewing my photos would ever notice. (And, like I said, I'm not sure the Zeiss glass was actually "better" in my opinion, just different).
I also didn't like the build quality. Just because it's a metal lens, doesn't make it better. I shoot landscapes and I often do so in wet, rainy, dusty, or similarly harsh environments. The Zeiss glass is not sealed in any way and allows moisture and dust in far too easily for my purposes. After awhile, you get sick of drying them out in your hotel room with a hair dryer. Nikon may have more plastic, but they do keep moisture and dust out better.
So, in short, I didn't see anything special about them, they cost more than the Nikon equivalents, they aren't weather sealed, and even if there is something "special" about them I can easily get the look I want in post.
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 08:45 AM · View previous versions
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.If there isn't much difference, what was your decision point? I suspect price differences wasn't that big. Some Zeiss are more contrasty than new Nikon lenses (the regular three zooms) I own. In PP contrasty file can get in the way depending on the goal. I am just curious what your experience was.
Luka
Sure -
I had a Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. I also used Nikon lenses that were either the same or included in the range of my zoom lenses.
IMO I actually liked the way the Nikon glass rendered better. I went for the Zeiss glass initially because I thought the glass was another step up from the Nikon glass and that that I'd see an improvement in my images. However, the truth is when I really looked at it subjectively, the choices I made in subject and light made a FAR greater difference than the lenses ever did. Like Craig said a few pages back, line a bunch of photographers up at sunrise in Canyonlands and the difference in photos is NOT the lens.
When I did shoot the same or similar scenes with the Nikon and Zeiss, it was more or less a wash for me. The lenses did render differently, but I actually liked the more neutral colors of the Nikon. Some of the Zeiss glass seems to add a bit of warmth or something to the image - and to me that's an unwanted "feature". I like to start out fairly neutral and post process from there.
That said, the differences between the Zeiss and Nikon were subtle and not something I felt any normal person viewing my photos would ever notice. (And, like I said, I'm not sure the Zeiss glass was actually "better" in my opinion, just different).
I also didn't like the build quality. Just because it's a metal lens, doesn't make it better. I shoot landscapes and I often do so in wet, rainy, dusty, or similarly harsh environments. The Zeiss glass is not sealed in any way and allows moisture and dust in far too easily for my purposes. After awhile, you get sick of drying them out in your hotel room with a hair dryer. Nikon may have more plastic, but they do keep moisture and dust out better.
So, in short, I didn't see anything special about them, they cost more than the Nikon equivalents, they aren't weather sealed, and even if there is something "special" about them I can easily get the look I want in post.
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Edited on Mar 04, 2016 at 08:45 AM · View previous versions
Mar 04, 2016 at 08:32 AM
p.7 #19The mystery of the Zeiss look?
freaklikeme wrote:
I don't play violin, but I can tell the difference between a fine player and a less fine player. I'm pretty skillful at listening.
Looking, too. ;-)
DanI'd be willing to bet a group of fine violinists could tell you the subtle differences between the various instruments they've tried, including different strings, bows, etc. And they'll be able to tell you what qualities in their preferred instruments they appreciate. Then you can find another group of fine violinists who will tell you the first group is full of crap, completely delusional about their overpriced junk, and should just shut up and play. The second group considers themselves practical and level-headed, but the irony that they've sacrificed their own precious playing time to make that pointless comment is...Show more →
****************
A red herring or straw man argument because the sound produced by a violin is dependent upon both the violinist and the violin and its tuning.
The rendering of a lens is its rendering and is independent of the skill of the user. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge and experience in photography and at looking at corresponding images can tell a great deal from just looking at a large volume of sample images from a particular lens. The repeated argument that one must have experience with a particular lens to appreciate its optical qualities is fallacious at best. Now, with regards to build and handling, that is 100% a different story.
Let's be clear here folks ... nobody is saying that Zeiss lenses are crap ... I think everyone acknowledges that they are well built lenses that are wonderful to use if you enjoy manual focusing. Their optical performance is also very good and competitive.
What many here on the forum are objecting to are to are the often repeated claims:
1) Zeiss lenses have numinous quality to their rending that is superior to the rendering of all other lenses out there and thus are always worth the price premium.
2) It's "obvious" to anyone "in the know" which is Zeiss and which is not.
Claims like this are a pile-o-crap. Like any other vendor, it depends on the particular lens ... some are good, and some are not so good. But there is no particular "Zeiss Look" that is ubiquitous across the Zeiss line-up. They are good lenses but by no means the best in all cases.
I personally take the view that each lens needs to be evaluated against the competition. For instance:
-- If I want the sharpest lens possible in the 50-60mm range. Otus 55mm f/1.4 .... BUT, I can get reasonable performance at a fraction of the cost from other offerings ... the price premium is not worth it.
-- If I want the best performance at 135mm ... the Zeiss comes out on top provided I'm fine with MF ... in this case the Zeiss would in fact be my choice if I were and FX shooter
-- If I want the best macro lens ... well, the Zeiss 100 made my short list, but other lenses performed as well if not better (105VR) and have additional features I want (AF, VR, 1:1) and at lower cost. Sorry, nothing special about the Zeiss here.
-- WA prime ... I have not seen anything compelling about the Zeiss offerings ... and many of the modern Nikons performance is nothing but stellar.
So you see ... it's a mixed bag. Every lens at each focal length needs to be evaluated on its merits. It why I do not shoot 100% Nikon lenses either.
gdanmitchell wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
This is also very typical of any heated discussion/debate involving Leica. Most have never touched a Leica but feel empowered to bash them with abandon based on something they read somewhere. In short, I'm quite used to this sort of thing....Looking, too. ;-)
Dan
****************
A red herring or straw man argument because the sound produced by a violin is dependent upon both the violinist and the violin and its tuning.
The rendering of a lens is its rendering and is independent of the skill of the user. Anyone who has sufficient knowledge and experience in photography and at looking at corresponding images can tell a great deal from just looking at a large volume of sample images from a particular lens. The repeated argument that one must have experience with a particular lens to appreciate its optical qualities is fallacious at best. Now, with regards to build and handling, that is 100% a different story.
Let's be clear here folks ... nobody is saying that Zeiss lenses are crap ... I think everyone acknowledges that they are well built lenses that are wonderful to use if you enjoy manual focusing. Their optical performance is also very good and competitive.
What many here on the forum are objecting to are to are the often repeated claims:
1) Zeiss lenses have numinous quality to their rending that is superior to the rendering of all other lenses out there and thus are always worth the price premium.
2) It's "obvious" to anyone "in the know" which is Zeiss and which is not.
Claims like this are a pile-o-crap. Like any other vendor, it depends on the particular lens ... some are good, and some are not so good. But there is no particular "Zeiss Look" that is ubiquitous across the Zeiss line-up. They are good lenses but by no means the best in all cases.
I personally take the view that each lens needs to be evaluated against the competition. For instance:
-- If I want the sharpest lens possible in the 50-60mm range. Otus 55mm f/1.4 .... BUT, I can get reasonable performance at a fraction of the cost from other offerings ... the price premium is not worth it.
-- If I want the best performance at 135mm ... the Zeiss comes out on top provided I'm fine with MF ... in this case the Zeiss would in fact be my choice if I were and FX shooter
-- If I want the best macro lens ... well, the Zeiss 100 made my short list, but other lenses performed as well if not better (105VR) and have additional features I want (AF, VR, 1:1) and at lower cost. Sorry, nothing special about the Zeiss here.
-- WA prime ... I have not seen anything compelling about the Zeiss offerings ... and many of the modern Nikons performance is nothing but stellar.
So you see ... it's a mixed bag. Every lens at each focal length needs to be evaluated on its merits. It why I do not shoot 100% Nikon lenses either.
Mar 04, 2016 at 08:39 AM
p.7 #20The mystery of the Zeiss look?
Steve Perry wrote:
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads. That just sounds like jealousy or being envious. In fact, if people don't see the benefits of Zeiss glass, why do they need to attack at all...why not just accept Zeiss is not for them and be happy with their gear choices.
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with Zeiss glass. Makes me wonder what drives these type of people.
As such, I don't drink the Zeiss Kool-Aid anymore. In fact, I think the reason people sometimes attack Zeiss glass when these threads come up is because of the premium Zeiss asks for their glass - whereas other 3rd party manufacturers are typically less than their Nikon counterparts. If the premium was actually worth it, I'd be on board, but I just don't see it.
So there you go, just my opinion - shoot whatever makes you happy!
Why would the price of the Zeiss lenses...which I personally don't find being out of line compared to the Canon L glass, cause people to attack in these threads. That just sounds like jealousy or being envious. In fact, if people don't see the benefits of Zeiss glass, why do they need to attack at all...why not just accept Zeiss is not for them and be happy with their gear choices.
I just find the same crew come onto any thread about Zeiss and try to put down the glass and more disturbing somehow put down the people that shoot with Zeiss glass. Makes me wonder what drives these type of people.
Mar 04, 2016 at 09:16 AM