Found on Photo Cine News http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/ Very interesting read. Lots of comparison photos. plus 100% crops.
Nat Geo shooter Ben Horton compares Canon glass to Zeiss glass.
- Thread starter c.d.embrey
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the link. The one thing I take away from that comparison is that you don't have to understand optics in all its details to be an awesome photographer. I guess in the same way as you can be an excellent driver without knowing the intricacies of how your car works. But we already knew that.
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
Yet another photographer talking out of a rear orifice trying to make a name for himself!
How can I say this? Well partly because I know a professor involved in optics, and then again there's plenty of evidence on the web to show he's plain wrong!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff
It's not that long ago that Luminous Landscape did a test in the Antarctic and one of the photographers blamed his poor results on a Canon 500mm f/4 and that he couldn't get the shutter speed high enough, even though it was wide open.
It's an oft said maxim " A poor workman blames his tools".
How can I say this? Well partly because I know a professor involved in optics, and then again there's plenty of evidence on the web to show he's plain wrong!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff
It's not that long ago that Luminous Landscape did a test in the Antarctic and one of the photographers blamed his poor results on a Canon 500mm f/4 and that he couldn't get the shutter speed high enough, even though it was wide open.
It's an oft said maxim " A poor workman blames his tools".
Upvote
0
Flake said:
Ben Horton has already made a name for himself. A big name.
BTW have you ever seen any of his work? If not, how can you call him a poor workman.
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
When someone demonstrably is talking nonsense I think it's quite easy! After all he's the one who's saying that the equipment is letting his photography down and it's not as good as it could be. What I have shown is that the lenses he is using are not as far apart as he is claiming, and the Zeiss lens isn't as good as the Canon. There's really only one other variable and that comes down to the photographer!
There are plenty of very good photographers around, a lot of making a success comes not from some kind of superior ability, but from luck, contacts, being in the right place, etc. etc. Just like many other professions. I wonder how many people could say hand on heart that Damien Hurst, or Tracey Emin are the absolute best living artists, and that there is no one in the UK / World as good?
There are plenty of very good photographers around, a lot of making a success comes not from some kind of superior ability, but from luck, contacts, being in the right place, etc. etc. Just like many other professions. I wonder how many people could say hand on heart that Damien Hurst, or Tracey Emin are the absolute best living artists, and that there is no one in the UK / World as good?
Upvote
0
Flake said:
Would you care to elaborate? I know an MD, that doesn't make me an authority on heart failures
Flake said:
I think it's fair to say that you can talk nonsense and still be an awesome photographer. And technically, your photography can always be improved. So there's no contradiction.
Flake said:
Yes, but it's not sufficient, you have to have some minimum talent. But I don't think that talent necessarily is as intimately connected to the ability to evaluate the equipment as you seem to believe.
Flake said:
I don't have a clue about who you're talking, but I see your point ("not necessarily the best get famous and credit" etc). My point, however, is that you can be an artist without being able to evaluate the microphone in a satisfactory way. You can even complain how quality of the microphone is limiting your work, and still be an awesome artist!
Upvote
0
Grendel said:
Thanks, that was better, though I found the following puzzling:
I though that focus shift was the difference between the AF determined focus and the real focus. How can there be a focus shift on a MF lens? He must mean something different, any idea what?
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
Knowing the professor means I have someone I can ask questions of, and be sure that I get answers that I can trust!
Fair enough to say that someone can be a good photographer & talk nonsense, which is what has happened, and I've pointed out that he has done this. I do have a few issues with a constant search for the nth degree of improvement. It's still possible to get a saleable image from a pinhole camera, most commercial uses for photography won't ever show the differences between the two lenses, and 99.99999999% of people looking at the image are not going to look at it and say "Oh look he used a Zeiss lens over a Canon" and then they'll probably get it wrong.
If he was that bothered about IQ why isn't he shooting medium format, or even large format film?
Damien Hurst is a UK modern artist producing modern art on a commercial scale at very high prices, a lot of it is very controversial, such as a cow cut in half and preserved in formaldehyde.
Shooting for newspaper / magazines can be a deceiving medium for the end viewer, I wonder if you ever saw an image called 'the falling man'? it's a 9/11 shot quite famous, chilling in what it depicts, but the story behnd it illustrates how newspaper photography works. A number of shots were taken in a high speed burst, the photographer didn't even know he'd captured it until it was viewed back at the office, it was the picture editor who picked it out, and that's the point, there's a whole back office of people the public never sees. Most people see an image & think no further than the photographer, but I'm sure my images would improve if I had a picture editor, and a back office of photoshop experts behind me! Most glossy magazines now don't even do it in house, they choose the images and then send them out to third parties who do all the necessary photoshopping, to such an extent that the final result can look completely different to the original.
This is now common practice in commercial magazine images, particularly fashion, where people complain about the unobtainable looks of models.
Composition? no need to bother with that when you can crop it when you get back, in fact the only thing a photographer needs to do is to press the shutter at the right time and make sure it's in focus, the back office can do the rest!
Using the pop music analogy, it's like finding that a singer is miming on stage & using auto tune in the studio because they can't really sing, people still buy the albums and go to the live performances, and people believe that their idol is an 'awesome singer'
Fair enough to say that someone can be a good photographer & talk nonsense, which is what has happened, and I've pointed out that he has done this. I do have a few issues with a constant search for the nth degree of improvement. It's still possible to get a saleable image from a pinhole camera, most commercial uses for photography won't ever show the differences between the two lenses, and 99.99999999% of people looking at the image are not going to look at it and say "Oh look he used a Zeiss lens over a Canon" and then they'll probably get it wrong.
If he was that bothered about IQ why isn't he shooting medium format, or even large format film?
Damien Hurst is a UK modern artist producing modern art on a commercial scale at very high prices, a lot of it is very controversial, such as a cow cut in half and preserved in formaldehyde.
Shooting for newspaper / magazines can be a deceiving medium for the end viewer, I wonder if you ever saw an image called 'the falling man'? it's a 9/11 shot quite famous, chilling in what it depicts, but the story behnd it illustrates how newspaper photography works. A number of shots were taken in a high speed burst, the photographer didn't even know he'd captured it until it was viewed back at the office, it was the picture editor who picked it out, and that's the point, there's a whole back office of people the public never sees. Most people see an image & think no further than the photographer, but I'm sure my images would improve if I had a picture editor, and a back office of photoshop experts behind me! Most glossy magazines now don't even do it in house, they choose the images and then send them out to third parties who do all the necessary photoshopping, to such an extent that the final result can look completely different to the original.
This is now common practice in commercial magazine images, particularly fashion, where people complain about the unobtainable looks of models.
Composition? no need to bother with that when you can crop it when you get back, in fact the only thing a photographer needs to do is to press the shutter at the right time and make sure it's in focus, the back office can do the rest!
Using the pop music analogy, it's like finding that a singer is miming on stage & using auto tune in the studio because they can't really sing, people still buy the albums and go to the live performances, and people believe that their idol is an 'awesome singer'
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
"I though that focus shift was the difference between the AF determined focus and the real focus. How can there be a focus shift on a MF lens? He must mean something different, any idea what?"
Focus shift is where the point of focus changes on stepping down the aperture. It's a big issue because for focussing the lens is wide open, press the shutter the aperture snaps down as the image is taken, and you have a missfocussed image. The only real way to compensate is to use the DOF preview to focus, and then pray the subject doesn't move during the time it takes to press the shutter!
Focus shift is where the point of focus changes on stepping down the aperture. It's a big issue because for focussing the lens is wide open, press the shutter the aperture snaps down as the image is taken, and you have a missfocussed image. The only real way to compensate is to use the DOF preview to focus, and then pray the subject doesn't move during the time it takes to press the shutter!
Upvote
0
Flake said:
I think he is! Considering he tried to improve the FF IQ by mounting a medium format lens ;D
Flake said:
Ah, yes, I've heard of that one.
Flake said:
Yes, "f/8 and be there". But it depends on the kind of photography you do, and there's far more to composition than just the framing.
Flake said:
Well, yeah, although possible, I wouldn't think that happens too often, in either profession...
Flake said:
Ok thanks, I didn't think of that. It's weird though, since the light obtained by stepping down (in the pupil plane) is a subset of the wide open light. That must mean that the foci for the different pupil radii aren't aligned, blurring the image at wide open aperture.
Upvote
0
About half way down the page, this review has an example of focus shift......
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx
It also has several comparison photos to the Canon 85 mm f/1.2 L II.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx
It also has several comparison photos to the Canon 85 mm f/1.2 L II.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks, that is a good write-up (and I found some other interesting posts on the toothwalker site). I had no idea manufacturers were deliberately under correcting aberrations to improve the bokeh.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
