sebboh wrote:
the tests todd did were even more ambiguous in terms of peoples response (people in those probably had different biases as well).
Yes, but that was in the Nikon forum, wasn't it? Most people there have only used Nikon lenses while people in this forum tend to have a broader experience and a higher level of interest in the drawing style of different lenses.
denoir wrote:
Yes, but that was in the Nikon forum, wasn't it? Most people there have only used Nikon lenses while people in this forum tend to have a broader experience and a higher level of interest in the drawing style of different lenses.
certainly, i would expect people in this forum to be better at noticing the telltale signs of specific brands. maybe i should go through and count, because i thought i remembered the preference on this forum being about 60/40 between the zeiss and the nikkor. in my own guess, i reversed the lenses saying the zeiss was the nikkor and vice versa because i assumed (having shot with the nikkor and only seen pictures with the zeiss) that i would prefer the nikkor's bokeh.
"this has not been my experience showing uninterested parties (non-photographers) doubly blind sets of various brands against each other. those images weren't matched across brands though. i'm sure if i told them to examine identically shot images they would be able to find some differences."
Subject matter plays quite a role, as does exposure, which of course affects everything else - you want a good deep image (fast apertures are cheating unless that is the test), one you would be happy with. Good DR coverage helps also, to depict differences in shadow and highlight rendition, and tonal range transition.
It's best done with identically processed RAW files (into TIFFs or PSDs) shown on a good sized CM'd monitor with identical camera settings, with exposure matched in the RC and in Adobe 1998 or wider space. Show the whole images at full screen, toggle back and forth a few times...then match horiz/vert arrangement, the most accurate zoom ratios (25%, 33%, 50%, etc), and view away for detail rendition. Seat them directly in front at an appropriate viewing distance in a dimly lit (or unlit) room.
This works also for fully developed images, as well as for minimally developed ones. Images from the better CZ lenses arrive almost ready-made, so you can give an advantage to the other brand lenses this way.
For added fun, I like to ask people *why* they like one over the other, as much to appreciate their expression as their reasons...'find some differences' all right. The human eye is very good at this kind of comparison.
Best to avoid midgy, compressed, arbitrarily sharpened/NR'd, sRGB, 8 bit 400Kb jpegs viewed on average LCDs in office lighting, like the impoverished lens comparison parlour games we indulge in here ;-) Which is like listening to the 9th on a cheap MP3 player.
philip_pj wrote:
"this has not been my experience showing uninterested parties (non-photographers) doubly blind sets of various brands against each other. those images weren't matched across brands though. i'm sure if i told them to examine identically shot images they would be able to find some differences."
Subject matter plays quite a role, as does exposure, which of course affects everything else - you want a good deep image (fast apertures are cheating unless that is the test), one you would be happy with. Good DR coverage helps also, to depict differences in shadow and highlight rendition, and tonal range transition.
It's best done with identically processed RAW files (into TIFFs or PSDs) shown on a good sized CM'd monitor with identical camera settings, with exposure matched in the RC and in Adobe 1998 or wider space. Show the whole images at full screen, toggle back and forth a few times...then match horiz/vert arrangement, the most accurate zoom ratios (25%, 33%, 50%, etc), and view away for detail rendition. Seat them directly in front at an appropriate viewing distance in a dimly lit (or unlit) room.
This works also for fully developed images, as well as for minimally developed ones. Images from the better CZ lenses arrive almost ready-made, so you can give an advantage to the other brand lenses this way.
For added fun, I like to ask people *why* they like one over the other, as much to appreciate their expression as their reasons...'find some differences' all right. The human eye is very good at this kind of comparison.
Best to avoid midgy, compressed, arbitrarily sharpened/NR'd, sRGB, 8 bit 400Kb jpegs viewed on average LCDs in office lighting, like the impoverished lens comparison parlour games we indulge in here ;-) Which is like listening to the 9th on a cheap MP3 player....Show more →
as i said, if the images were identical shots from the same scene just with different lenses i'm sure people would find differences especially given time to pour over them in fine detail. that is not the test that was described previously, which was processed shots by different photographers of different things at websize.
Have you said yet the order of the last set of 3 - don't know the first two - have never use Leica or Canon (nikon for 30 years) - but the last photo is a Zeiss!
It just reiterates that DxO tests, however they are done, are not representative of real world results.
Honestly, look at some zeiss landscape shots on full frame and get back to us DxO
Luka,
In your first post - 2,1,2 zeiss
Edit
I also think it's leica, canon, zeiss on the second.. but it's much more difficult to discern the differences in that test.. whether I was right in the first or not (I think i was ) The second could be Leica Zeiss Canon though..
My point is very simple, please go the DXO Distagon 21 test page, then go to resolution, then field map. This IMO is the easiest way to verify the lens resolution across the frame. As you can see in the field map, the 21 is very bad except in the center, even stopped down to f/8-11. As many of you here do own the Distagon, I would like to ask you if this graph corresponds to the performance you get from your lens. If yes, then we have no problem. If no, then the consequences are very serious because this is one of the most respected companies in this field and showing incorrect results IMO is dishonest in the best of cases.
edwardkaraa wrote:
As you can see in the field map, the 21 is very bad except in the center, even stopped down to f/8-11. As many of you here do own the Distagon, I would like to ask you if this graph corresponds to the performance you get from your lens. If yes, then we have no problem. If no, then the consequences are very serious because this is one of the most respected companies in this field and showing incorrect results IMO is dishonest in the best of cases.
You must be joking about DXO being "respected company in this field", right? This test is the biggest pile of horse shit I've ever seen. My copy is tack sharp across the frame and in fact it is comparable to Canon 17mm TS-E.
AF-ON, h00ligan, crazeazn, robinlee got 3/3 correct on set 1 while mshi got 2/3.
So in this small test, the correct recognition rate was ~93%. So it is definitely possible for a trained eye to differentiate between Zeiss and Canon drawing styles.
denoir wrote:
Yes, but that was in the Nikon forum, wasn't it? Most people there have only used Nikon lenses while people in this forum tend to have a broader experience and a higher level of interest in the drawing style of different lenses.
According to your prejudices
You don't know anything about that with ten thousends of members here. And most members here don't belong or visit only one forum. Not one of all the members here that I know a little bit better, only read/post in one forum...
227,143 registered members at FM
You don't know anything about that with ten thousends of members here. And most members here don't belong or visit only one forum. Not one of all the members here that I know a little bit better, only read/post in one forum...
227,143 registered members at FM
That's because you are relatively new to the alt forum. Yes, there are some ventures to other forums, but to a large degree it's relatively isolated. In my experience the Canonistas seldom cross the borders while Nikonians are more likely to do so. Generalizing broadly, there is a certain hostility towards alt lenses in the Canon forum and a certain degree of contempt for Canon lenses in the alt forum.
