Two asked for what the lenses where, one kind of rudely, I did tell you what the lens were in the first page directly after the first person asked.
For those who missed it, A it the famous kit lens, and B is a 5 dollar Yashica DSB 50mm 1.9.
Oh, as for the camera being in the wrong place, yeah I didn't set out to do a test so I didn't have my tripod. That was in the car 1/2 mile away and for a quick test didn't feel the need to go back and get it.
I pulled a "blind" test once, myself. There was a film vs digital discussion going on so I posted something like 8 photos and asked if anyone could tell which were digital and which were film. No one got even close.
One of my top 3 favorite photos of all time (that I've taken) was taken with a Nikon Series E 50mm f/1.8 lens that you can buy on Ebay for like $15 these days.
I worry more about enjoying my photography and trying to take semi-decent photos than whether or not a Leica or Zeiss lens would give me 1 line per mm more resolution than my current lenses (that's not to say I actually succeed at TAKING semi-decent photos). I've seen some AWESOME photos taken with the 18-55mm kit lens.
I pull these blind tests just to make sure that the lens is not doing a horrible job. I find myself enjoying using old manual focus prime lens, much more fun, and force me to look at the photo longer. A little tough since I have to hold the lens, since I don't have a Contax/Zeiss/Yashica convertor. My cheap Yashica is far from the excellent quality of either high quality Canon or Zeiss, but I have fun using it from time to time.
IngoZ wrote:
I pull these blind tests just to make sure that the lens is not doing a horrible job. I find myself enjoying using old manual focus prime lens, much more fun, and force me to look at the photo longer. A little tough since I have to hold the lens, since I don't have a Contax/Zeiss/Yashica convertor. My cheap Yashica is far from the excellent quality of either high quality Canon or Zeiss, but I have fun using it from time to time.
I've argued this in the past. I STILL feel manual focus film cameras with manual or semi-manual exposure force you to think more about each photo. Since you're not only manually setting up each photo with the camera's controls but have to worry about wasting a frame on the film, you tend to think about things more carefully.
People tell me "GOOD photographers do this no matter what camera they use" but that's a pile of BS spouted off by digital fanboys or egomaniacs, honestly. Truth is, film and manual operation DO force you to think about things a bit more. I get far more keeper photos with film (all my film cameras are manual) than I do with digital and many I talk to report the same.
I suddenly feel an urge to load up a roll of Tri-X.
I defiantly think it forces you to think more and therefore get better photos. But for me the cost is so great in film developing that I shyed away from ever clicking the button. I do find now that I have clicked my brain out with digital I have learned a lot and can get it close to right with less shots.
I think its true that a "good" photographer will still take the time and only take a few shots and get amazing photos, but marginal photographers like me are still learning and don't have that success rate. I have to say, lately I have had a but of a film urge too, but the idea of driving an hour to get film developed and then paying through the nose bugs me. Plus I can't scan them to play with only. Film still has the best color.
I think B is more reflexive, with a bredth that is friendlier to the eye,.... way better repose and surity....
I can see almost no usefull difference between the images at the resolution available on my monitor (1280:1024)... B may be a little sharper or something... whatever it is, it's well within PS tweakability
