p.4 #1 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
jhinkey wrote:
Are the Zeiss images more "3D" just simply due to having higher contrast wide open?
I've found that my 135/2 shots at f/2 need to have the contrast increased to make them pop whereas at f/2.8 or f/4 they seem to not need this.
Todd - have you tried increasing the contrast in post with the 135/2 images to see if you can get it to look like the Zeiss?
- John
As has been discussed (and I think Makten posted some good examples) the Zeiss does not give '3D' just because it has higher contrast wide open. '3D' shots are able to be had with the Zeiss 1) when not shot wide open and 2) when not in high contrast environments. In fact, I think the highest percentage of '3D' shots I have seen have been in the f/4 - f/8 range of a few different Zeiss lenses. And....you don't need a lot of 'bokeh' in the image to get the look either. Increasing contrast on a Nikon lens just won't get you there.
p.4 #2 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
A simple explanation of 3D:ness would be that the lens is so bloody good that you get an impression of not looking through a lens at all. The hard thing is to define what makes the difference between the bloody goodness and the still very good Nikkors.
I'm finding myself very satisfied without cranking contrast and colors of my pictures now. When I shot Nikkors I always wanted to crank everything up to get the pictures "punchy". I've switched from using the "camera vivid" profile in ACR to "camera neutral", and I often lower the saturation instead of increasing it.
Here's an example of that, with the ZF 35/2 on D700.
p.4 #3 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd A, there was a very long thread about 3D on the "alt" forum, and you might want to start there. Though, in fairness it did wander along many pages,and no consensus was reached on what 3D actually looks like, or how it can be produced. To mention but a few issues, some people call 3D what others call separation between in-focus and OOF or between foreground and background. Other people call 3D what yet others call DOF effects.
As to the reality of it, there is a simple test, that also works for audiophile equipment. It is called a properly set up double blind test. If you can't repeatedly find it (whatever "it" is) under these conditions, it isn't there (for you at least). If you can, it is there, even if science can't quite explain what is at play, why it matters. Proof of the pudding is in the eating much more than in the cookbooks IMHO.
p.4 #4 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
As has been discussed (and I think Makten posted some good examples) the Zeiss does not give '3D' just because it has higher contrast wide open. '3D' shots are able to be had with the Zeiss 1) when not shot wide open and 2) when not in high contrast environments. In fact, I think the highest percentage of '3D' shots I have seen have been in the f/4 - f/8 range of a few different Zeiss lenses. And....you don't need a lot of 'bokeh' in the image to get the look either. Increasing contrast on a Nikon lens just won't get you there....Show more →
Well, to me when I view these examples it screams higher contrast which leads to more saturated colors (I'm sure the color cast is different as well) and more 3D "pop". Makten himself indicates increased contrast as a major factor.
As others have indicated, an actual apples-to-apples comparison would be warranted - same FL, same aperture, same camera, same PP, etc., etc. This being said the Zeiss lenses definitely seems to have distinct character.
p.4 #5 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
jhinkey wrote:
Well, to me when I view these examples it screams higher contrast which leads to more saturated colors (I'm sure the color cast is different as well) and more 3D "pop". Makten himself indicates increased contrast as a major factor.
As others have indicated, an actual apples-to-apples comparison would be warranted - same FL, same aperture, same camera, same PP, etc., etc. This being said the Zeiss lenses definitely seems to have distinct character.
John
Yes, higher contrast is a characteristic of Zeiss glass but that does not give it the '3D' affect. I don't believe Martin (Makten) did/would say that either. I think his mention about contrast was that he likes higher contrast images and does not have to increase the contrast on the Zeiss lenses as he does with Nikon
p.4 #8 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
[
Yes, higher contrast is a characteristic of Zeiss glass but that does not give it the '3D' affect. I don't believe Martin (Makten) did/would say that either. I think his mention about contrast was that he likes higher contrast images and does not have to increase the contrast on the Zeiss lenses as he does with Nikon
I was referring to this statement by Martin, referring to Zeiss lenses and his own "2D" sample image:
"And I believe it's all about local contrast. They aren't necessarily optimized for highest possible resolution, but for a certain look.
The most interesting thing is that the "3D" is even more present in shots without blurry backgrounds. So it's not about the bokeh."
p.4 #9 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Makten wrote:
Ah! Read it on my phone this morning and forgot it. Checking now!
No rush, sir. Just wanted to make sure you got it. When I don't get a response to a PM, I always wonder if the person didn't get it. Or if they just hate me.
p.4 #10 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Adamson wrote:
Hahah, I think I have done a poor job of communicating my intentions with this thread.
Nah, I think you did a fine job communicating. I think people were just scared to come out and guess, at the risk of being wrong. I for one, would have guessed wrong. I would have guessed the top one in set one, and the bottom in set two.
But now that I know your answer, I looked again, and I think I see what you're talking about. But my opinion is that the difference in 3D look in the first set is the focal length/ compression/ composition. The shorter lens allows more background for your eyes to use as reference. I hope not to rain on your parade, but I don't see any magic to the Zeiss shots in comparison to the Nikon shot. That's not to say I've never been wowed by Zeiss rendering, I just don't see it here.
I see more of a unique 3D effect in Makten's shot of the cliff wall. The 3D effect I'm used to can be described as a subject in sharp focus at medium telephoto distances against a blurry background. I say medium telephoto, because a tight shot against a distant subject renders the same look we're used to seeing in sports and wildlife shots, with the background completely blown to fog. These shots were with my 85 f/1.4D, and they exhibit what I believe to be a 3D effect due to the factors I describe.
p.4 #11 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Last night while I was working late in the lab, I took a break and took some random shots. Nothing too exciting, and the IQ isn't the greatest because I was shooting handheld at ISO400 on a D2x. But I was trying to convince myself I could focus this thing accurately. I think I'm getting better! Most of these are at f/2:
p.4 #12 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Great, first we have Zeiss fanboys (I'm sure I'd own one or two if I could justify the price to myself) and then speaker cable fanboys. Double wham!
FWIW I used to work on software for a higher end stereo and multichannel audio manufacturer, and we used to run tests on the AP2 (the test equipment that is used to measure all sorts of useful audio parameters like gain, THD, SNR, etc) to measure speaker cables, just for fun. Home Depot lampcord vs Audioquest speaker cables, the audioquest let through more signal but it also let through more noise (lampcord wins on SNR). Same thing with el-cheapo chinese interconnects vs Audioquest, except that for SNR they were about the same. So much fun. Anyway, do some of you guys spending thousands on cables also have odd-legged chairs? Or how about painting your listening room purple? That oughtta have more bearing on the audio quality than your thousands of dollars of cables... Sorry for the complete aside from the Zeiss-love in here
p.4 #13 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
guy, i see nothing what 105 f2 cannot do. If you bother write such elaborates about one lens, at least compare it to their counterparts in same shots to prove your point. It makes absolutely no sense otherwise.
I know you gotta be happy for that price but as someone using 105 f2.5 regularly you would have hard times convince me
p.4 #14 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
jmcfadden wrote:
you missed my point or better yet i didn't make it well
before I try again , did you read the part of the post about the 20dollar mic cable? Have you ever made a record or produced one in a studio? Or built the actual room where the desk lived and soundproofed it? I can pretty much say my ears are good and i made a Lot of money off them for many decades
Now with that aside I do hear differences and when i do they are evaluated and the ones worthy of investment I have to pay the money for. There are LOTS of claims out there that don't add up to a hill of beans. 50,000dollar 10watt class A amps come to mind, 1000dollar speaker cables come to mind too. There is a term called diminishing returns, when I was in high end pro audio sales, clients would always ask me what was "best" ,and i never answered it directly. I Always asked them that they should satisfy about 85% of their requirements because to even get to 90% would mean about 60% more investment. talk of the next 10%borders on the sublime and downright silly
Your Kimber Cables qualify for the 85% BTW You are wrong about interconnects, well sorta "wrong" , it is complicated, you Must look at everything as a true "system" I am sure you use the term often but you never really understand the depth of it. I am not insulting you it is a very common thing and I am guilty of it in many ways too. But your rig is a true and real "system" not just a quickie "word" but a real almost living "thing". In a living thing everything has some impact on the whole , some things have more influence and others less , it is most likely your interconnects were adequate (think 85% again) and so whatever you bought to replace them that cost you more and did not produce a dramatic result may have disappointed you, but you felt redeemed by spending hard earned money on the Kimber Selects. Your previous cables were <85% type cables and therefore gave you a pronounced and worthwhile difference. The weakest link is where the first dollars go but if you buy ultra high end cable for a boom box what do you think you will have ? See at some point the sublime and silly can make a point.
As photographers we have it pretty easy, there are so few players in the game but i just give you one example of what i am really saying. Leica makes a point and shoot, oh but really it is a Panasonic with a little Leica badge on it and for that sublime pleasure how much extra does it cost for the same camera ? Get back to me on that one
No I didn't miss your point. Room acoustics etc are all valid points. Yes there are limitations on the original recordings. Get off your high horse!
I am not talking about my interpretation of "claims" read from third parties. I am talking about the differences I observed with my own ears on my own system. The differences were massive and more than enough to justify the cost.
Of course one needs to consider the context of the system when choosing cables, the rest of the system needs to be good enough.
Believe me I am tight and would not spend this sort of money if it didn't make much difference. Have you personally tried the particular cables I mention in a high end system ?
I am not going to argue any more about whether you believe I can hear a difference or not. Its my ears and my money. Nuff said on the matter.
p.4 #16 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Adamson wrote:
Well, time for this thread to die, methinks.
learned about cables and zeiss all in one thread...2 for 1 special. Now if I could work the zeiss 35 I have from rsolti13 as good as when he had it....would be all set lol.
p.4 #17 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
andrewd01 wrote:
Believe me I am tight and would not spend this sort of money if it didn't make much difference. Have you personally tried the particular cables I mention in a high end system ?
Interesting analogy: "I wouldn't believe in god if he didn't exist"
Sep 01, 2010 at 01:11 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #18 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
dj dunzie wrote:
I have the 105/f2.5 AI-s and just recently got the Zeiss 100/f2 M-P. While I haven't done any side-by-each testing to say definitively or show samples, I think the best way to describe it is that they are very different while both very good.
I'd say that the 105/f2.5 AI-s is absolutely stunning for the dollar figure I paid for it (well under $200). Bokkeh is smooth and color rendition is very nice, and you can create some great shots with the combination of very sharp results on the subject with that smooth BG rendering.
But Zeiss - at some 7x the price I paid for it - just does it differently. The AI-s is metal and everything functions well. The Zeiss is engineered clockwork smooth in the operation. Everything just seems to have had the very best machining and the focus ring rotates for a day and a half, making for easy MF operation if you start out fairly close to the subject being focussed. Color rendition is so smooth it's really hard to describe. Of course the results are sharp, and the bokkeh very creamy - but then you can honestly say that about the 105/f2.5 AI-s. They're both really terrific lenses. One cost well under $200, the other $1400. But I think I'll keep both because I want both.
Maybe I'll try to do some side-by-side shooting to give a better comparison when I find a little time...
Oh, and Todd, I think what you are seeing more than anything is a real difference in FOV perspective and really a result of two different focal lengths and compositions. I have the f2.8 version of the 135 and like it a lot too, but really again it's a different animal than the Zeiss. I think comparing the 105 and the Zeiss is more natural....Show more →
Corvette or lamborghini ... near the same performance but a huge price tag difference. If I was into sports cars, I'd be a Corvette man.
