Carsten, they are listed on top of post #2 on this page.
Delatant wrote:
Secondly, while I throughly enjoyed the task (thanks for spending the time to put it together), almost none of these pictures would I have taken with a Zeiss lens - for the most part they were fairly monochrome - the advantage of Zeiss is the color rendition - my Zeiss goes on when color starts to splash! Zeiss is color! While other lens may approach (or at times exceed) Zeiss optically, no other lens can produce the vibrance, rendition, or saturation - ie 3-D effect or \"pop\" that Zeiss does. Now reproduce this test, with lots of color and I think the percentage of correctness will zoom.
I would disagree with you there - Zeiss is about contrast - local and global. The colors are a consequence (higher contrast in RGB space = higher saturation) but the differences are subtle. Canon and Zeiss are relatively close color wise - much closer than for instance Zeiss and Minolta. The camera itself plays a much larger role there. 5DII + Zeiss is much closer to 5DII + Canon in colors than 5DII + Zeiss is to M9 + Zeiss.
A less monochromatic environment would have helped to show differences in bokeh.
Anyway, I have a color test that I did not post. I was actually surprised that the difference was so big, but still, it\'s far more subtle than the first series. There are few hard edges where the Zeiss could do its high local contrast thing.
I had to do something a bit different though. When the images were processed exactly the same way, there was a very significant difference in global contrast between the lenses. So I applied an \"Auto Contrast\" in Photoshop on all the images before resizing them.
This test is a bit different - there are five images total, two where shot with Zeiss lenses. Can guess which two?
Carsten, they are listed on top of post #2 on this page.
Delatant wrote:
Secondly, while I throughly enjoyed the task (thanks for spending the time to put it together), almost none of these pictures would I have taken with a Zeiss lens - for the most part they were fairly monochrome - the advantage of Zeiss is the color rendition - my Zeiss goes on when color starts to splash! Zeiss is color! While other lens may approach (or at times exceed) Zeiss optically, no other lens can produce the vibrance, rendition, or saturation - ie 3-D effect or \"pop\" that Zeiss does. Now reproduce this test, with lots of color and I think the percentage of correctness will zoom.
I would disagree with you there - Zeiss is about contrast - local and global. The colors are a consequence (higher contrast in RGB space = higher saturation) but the differences are subtle. Canon and Zeiss are relatively close color wise - much closer than for instance Zeiss and Minolta. The camera itself plays a much larger role there. 5DII + Zeiss is much closer to 5DII + Canon in colors than 5DII + Zeiss is to M9 + Zeiss.
A less monochromatic environment would have helped to show differences in bokeh.
Anyway, I have a color test that I did not post. I was actually surprised that the difference was so big, but still, it\'s far more subtle than the first series. There are few hard edges where the Zeiss could do its high local contrast thing.
I had to do something a bit different though. When the images were processed exactly the same way, there was a very significant difference in global contrast between the lenses. So I applied an \"Auto Contrast\" in Photoshop on all the images before resizing them.
This test is a bit different - there are five images total, two where shot with Zeiss lenses. Can guess which two?
Carsten, they are listed on top of post #2 on this page.
Delatant wrote:
Secondly, while I throughly enjoyed the task (thanks for spending the time to put it together), almost none of these pictures would I have taken with a Zeiss lens - for the most part they were fairly monochrome - the advantage of Zeiss is the color rendition - my Zeiss goes on when color starts to splash! Zeiss is color! While other lens may approach (or at times exceed) Zeiss optically, no other lens can produce the vibrance, rendition, or saturation - ie 3-D effect or \"pop\" that Zeiss does. Now reproduce this test, with lots of color and I think the percentage of correctness will zoom.
I would disagree with you there - Zeiss is about contrast - local and global. The colors are a consequence (higher contrast in RGB space = higher saturation) but the differences are subtle. Canon and Zeiss are relatively close color wise - much closer than for instance Zeiss and Minolta. The camera itself plays a much larger role there. 5DII + Zeiss is much closer to 5DII + Canon in colors than 5DII + Zeiss is to M9 + Zeiss.
A less monochromatic environment would have helped to show differences in bokeh.
Anyway, I have a color test that I did not post. I was actually surprised that the difference was so big, but still, it\'s far more subtle than the first series. There are few hard edges where the Zeiss could do its high local contrast thing.
I had to do something a bit different though. When the images were processed exactly the same way, there was a very significant difference in global contrast between the lenses. So I applied an \"Auto Contrast\" in Photoshop on all the images before resizing them.
This test is a bit different - there are five images total, two where shot with Zeiss lenses. Can guess which two?
