My Setup for Comparing Medium Format Lenses (80mm, 150mm...)
Note: Random number #121 in center for on-film Blind Identification
Blind Lens Testing Proposal
by Robert Monaghan
Related Links:
Blind Lens Testing Program
Blind Lens Testing Program Results
How to Test Cameras and Lenses
Lens Testing Chart Download
Lens Testing Charts and Lens Resolution
Lens Testing Pages
Most of us have seen the Pepsi versus Coke blind taste tests on TV commercials. The subject tastes first one, then the other unlabeled drink. They discover to their surprise that Pepsi really does taste better than the Coke they usually drink. The key trick here is the subject can't know which is which until after they have done the test. And of course, we all suspect that they don't show us the folks who drank Pepsi but picked Coke instead, right?
My own experience has been that it is very hard to tell most pro medium format lenses apart, given a stack of unlabeled slides, and say accurately which camera took which photo. If you compare two lenses shooting the same subject, side by side, you may be able to pick out some differences in the corners or slide coloration with good repeatability. But most of us, just casually shooting subjects (especially handheld) will be hard pressed to easily tell which camera took which photos from a stack of slides. I can't. Can you? The only way to tell is to try it out - using our blind lens test!
Noted lens testing guru Herb Keppler of Modern Photography (Nov 1978 IIRC?) described how one of his trusted lens testing technicians claimed that Nikon images would be higher resolution ("crisper") than Olympus images. Keppler decided to try a "blind" lens test by shooting similar Nikon and Olympus lenses side by side with handheld shots on Kodachrome film. Then he mounted the resulting slides from the Olympus in one slide viewing page, and the Nikon slides in another page. Could the pro photographers and photo editors at Modern Photography tell which slides were from which camera and its lenses?
Turns out they couldn't. The distribution of choices was essentially random. Many editors claimed some slides in the page were "obviously" from a Nikon, but these others on the same page were certainly from an Olympus lens. One editor who could tell the difference credited the slight differences in lens coloration, but agreed that the slides were of equal contrast and resolution quality overall. And the technician picked the wrong answer when it was his turn at the "blind" test. Keppler suggested that the technician was influenced by the differences in the images he saw in the finders (high contrast "snappy" focusing images in the Nikon), and not by the on-film results.
As I note below, this type of "blind" testing is not very convincing, since you have a 50:50 chance of guessing right for starters. Now suppose you just had a pile of slides, and had to sort them for being the Nikon slide and the Olympus slide? If you could get all the Nikon slides in one pile, and all the Olympus slides in another on the basis of image quality (not color..), that would be VERY convincing. Even 90% correct in each pile would be very convincing to many of us. But if you got only 60% right, and 40% wrong, it would be a lot less convincing, yes?
Just how reliably can we identify differences in image quality from such randomly sorted stacks of slides? My own experience is that I can not reliably grab a pile of slides and sort them out on the basis of which lens took which photo. I cheat by looking for a notched corner (Bronica S/S2 backs) or "vees" in the middle of the edge (Hasselblad) or a white circle on one edge (Koni-Omega back) or other identifiers in the black rim around the slides. But without such tricks (as with mounted slides), I have to check my notes to tell which lens shot which slide.
| Before You "Upgrade" Your Old Lenses.... |
|---|
| Any professional quality 35mm camera made since the 1960s, any professional quality roll-film camera made since the 1950s, and any professional large format camera, ever, should deliver sharpness which cannot be improved upon. Likewise with lenses: most lenses made since the 1970s, and many medium format and large format lenses made since the 1950s, will deliver the quality you need. Unless you want extreme wide angle, ultra fast lenses or zooms, where progress has been significant, there is no need to buy the latest and best. Forego your next equipment "upgrade" which will probably be illusory anyway, and spend the money on materials. |
Why are such tests called "blind"? A blind lens test means you don't know which slide was taken by which lens. The slides are simply identified only by random number keys on the slides. So when you examine the slides, you won't be swayed by high price tag on one lens into assuming it really must be worth the kilobucks higher cost. Once you have rated or sorted the slides, you write down your results and email them to the test supervisor.
The blind test supervisor emails you back an "answer key" which enables
you to identify which lenses took each shot, and under what conditions. Now you can go back to the
slides, and figure out which slides you liked, and hopefully why.
Moreover, you should also be able to sort the slides by the camera or lens
which made the slides. Now you can compare slide by slide, and see just
how much difference there is between each lens.
A "double blind" test is often used in medical drug studies, as one major
example. The double blind test is setup so the doctor also doesn't
know which drug treatment you are getting either. The goal here is to
prevent anything the doctor says or implies (in body language) from
telling the recipient of the drugs whether they are getting the drug or
the placebo. If neither the doctor or patient know, then the results are
more accurate. But since the lens test is not supervised in person, there
is less chance of any influence from the test supervisor impacting your
reaction to the test slides.
Some people do side by side lens testing and think they have done a blind
lens test. I don't believe they have, since they aren't operating "blind".
They know that one of the two side by side images was taken with one lens,
and the other with lens X. The biggest problem here is that lenses
do have
subtle coloration effects. From use, you know your Mamiya lenses give
warmer images than Zeiss optics.
Now you compare two images, side by side, knowing one is not from your
camera's lenses. Subconsciously, you may pick the warmer slide rather than
the one with better contrast in the corners. Many folks do this without
realizing it. Rerunning the test with lenses which were filtered to shoot
in neutral coloration eliminates their ability to pick out "their" lens
more consistently.
But lens color is easily changed (e.g., with a gel filter or in processing
prints). So side by side tests often yield "proof" of the superiority of
the lens you are used to using, because you can pick them out easily. To
avoid this color and information bias, you have to be really "blind" when
making the test. This means you have to use a stack or sheet of photos,
without any two by two pairing. The human eye is very good in comparing
two images, side by side, for things like coloration. So you have to
work harder to do a truly "blind" test where lens color bias doesn't have
as big an impact.
The simple way to do this is to not provide slides in pairs, so the
testing requires the participant to select slides without that extra
information. You can also vary the number of slides, and the number of
lenses. For example, I am considering a series of trimmed 6x6cm slides
from a Hasselblad zeiss lens, a Rolleiflex 3.5f zeiss lens, a Kowa normal lens, some Bronica
normal nikkor lenses, and even a $75
Chinese DF-4 SLR triplet normal lens. I might have 8 or 10 normal lenses for
the comparison, including several of the same brand. Since the lenses vary
slightly in focal length, I am going to move the tripod a bit during the tests
so as to mask or hide this factor too.
Why did I say I would have to trim the slides? Unfortunately, Hasselblad uses a clever trick of putting little Vees in their backs. This way, insecure art directors can see that you really used professional equipment to take your photos from the "V" notches visible on the edge of the film. Film is also numbered, and you might see #8 on one roll of film and #8 on another, and realize they were probably taken with different lenses and cameras. So with this extra information trimmed off, you have to go more by the film image.
I suspect I will
need to put some random number on the image, so the slides can't get
messed up when removed and sorted. I will have extra shots from the same lenses.
So I can mix these in to see if evaluators are consistently able to identify
such images or not.
The test is blind because the participants:
The cameras and lenses to be used might include:
Sample Variation:
We can study the effects of sample variation with the three Bronica normal lens optics
(plus 150mm lenses)...
Motorized vs. Non-motorized vibration:
Using the hasselblad 500c versus the 500 EL/M, we can compare motorized
versus non-motorized film transport for vibration and other effects.
Body Types - SLR, RF, TLR:
We can compare the effects of body type, RF versus SLR versus TLR.
Film Flatness:
We can compare good versus bad film flatness designs, good designs being
the TLR, Kowa 6, (DF-4), and RF. "Bad" designs for film flatness use double curl backs or
inserts, such as the Bronica EC.
Bokeh:
We can compare the out of focus highlights by potentially using a subject
such as a building in distance and foreground fountain. The bright lights
from the out of focus water should be useful in evaluating bokeh
highlights
What speed of slide film should we use? Using a fast film like 200 ISO or 400 ISO will provide more grainy images, which can be harder to evaluate for contrast and resolution. Faster films are also lower resolution limit films too. Conversely, the slowest films such as Velvia at ISO 50 are very high resolution limit color slide films (e.g., 160/80 lpmm at 1000:1 and 1.6:1 contrast levels). My choice of a medium speed ISO 100 film like Fuji's provia (140/60 lpmm) is a compromise. If you use Kodak ektachrome 100 (ISO 100, 100/50 lpmm) or Agfachrome RSX 100 ISO films (125/50 lpmm) as your "quality" film, you won't get such high resolution levels as provia. If you use velvia, your results would be modestly better than with Provia.
Why use a tripod? The alternative is to hand-hold the camera. On perhaps
three out of four of my handheld shots at 1/60th second, there is a good
bit of camera shake. On the fourth, there is a lot of camera shake!
The amount of camera shake varies with every shot. Since camera shake
severely impacts resolution results negatively, we would prefer to factor
it out of our tests. Using a tripod ensures that the differences observed
in the slides are not due to variations in camera shake from handholding.
Our choice of a tripod is based on it being big enough for medium format cameras, modest cost, easy to level (pan head), and with a built-in bubble level. The bubble level is important since issues like distortion can be made much worse by the tilting of the camera. So the tripod has to be carefully checked for levelness when we change the cameras each time and move it each time.
On the other hand, I
don't want to use a really heavy studio tripod or expensive pro tripod, so I
have settled on a low cost (under $50 used) tripod many amateurs may own. As my
handheld sample shots should show, even such a modest tripod will deliver useful
improvements in sharpness and resolution. You can also compare your own handheld
shots against your tripod shots to see these major improvements yourself.
A subtle issue in testing is that film buckles in certain backs over time.
So ideally, we would like to shoot our film quickly, as tests by Zeiss scientists have suggested. The cameras
will therefore be loaded indoors (darker than outside), then a series of
shots taken quickly. The first shot in each roll will be pulled, since it
may have taken a "curl" due to the delay between loading and shooting.
The rest of the shots are fired off quickly, using a long cable release,
so there is not much time between shots (seconds, not minutes). If a
motorized camera is used, enough delay is used to prevent any vibration
from the past shot to avoid problems with overly rapid shooting. This problem
explains why we have only five standard sets, as the first frame is not used to
minimize this startup curling factor (and 6 shots at f/16 and 6 shots at a
second aperture (f/5.6-f/8) makes 12 shots on a roll).
The use of a long cable release is another subtle point. A short cable
release can put a strain on the camera and communicate movement to the
camera via the cable strain. A long release (24 inches plus) lets you put
in a leisurely catenary curve in the cable, so there isn't any tension
imparted to the camera. Unfortunately, some cameras didn't have a cable
release socket, so they may lose resolution accordingly.
We also want to put in a few slides taken with the camera handheld. Is camera shake really a problem? Can people identify shots
taken on a tripod against those handheld shots from the same spot? If so,
then the participant can see how much quality they are losing by
not using a tripod! I will use the 1/shutter speed rule (rounded up) or
1/80th or 1/90th second, which corresponds to our 1/125th second exposure time.
This is handy, since it means we can directly compare the shots at 1/125th on
the tripod, and handheld. But you will have a harder time identifying the
handheld shots, since they won't have any significant difference in depth of
field or freezing power of the water spray (hey, I know most of these tricks too
;-).
The choice of lighting is also important. We pick a subject that is not
directly backlighted to reduce problems with flare that can be highly
variable. We can devise a test for flare using controlled light sources
precisely positioned off-axis while shooting a flat black subject (flat
black velvet). But if we want to test for resolution and other subtle
distortions, we need to setup the lighting so we aren't overwhelmed by
bright light sources and flare. We also want lighting which provides some black
shadows and adjacent white areas (for coloration aberration and other tests).
Some side lighting is probably ideal. We also want some bright light on the
foreground fountain spray so we can hope for some out of focus highlights from
the fountain.
I am planning on using a subject at infinity for these tests, because most
of us shoot subjects near or at infinity a great deal (e.g., landscapes,
cityscapes). If you shoot mainly portraits or closeups with a normal lens, you may have to
perform your own tests at different distances for each style of shooting.
But one nice feature of shooting infinity with normal lenses is that you
can avoid problems with focusing errors by simply rotating the lens to the
infinity setting on the lens. Repeatability of focusing and focusing
errors can compromise closeup tests unless you know the camera focusing
system is highly accurate.
Similarly, you can use the click stop on the
lens to set the aperture to a well defined position. We will be using two
aperture positions, f/16 and f/8 for this test. The choice of f/16 is
made to illustrate the optimal lens performance usually found by f/16, known as the "sweet spot". This f/16 setting (compares to f/11 on
35mm SLRs) should provide diffraction limited performance on the lenses.
My bet is that the resolution and qualities of even the lower cost pro
medium format lenses at this f/16 position will be pretty impressive
performance wise.
| Choice of Optimal F/stops by Formats |
|---|
|
MF f/5.6 to f/8 LF f/11 to f/16 Medium and Large Format Handbook, p.101 |
Conversely, the choice of f/8 is to provide a relatively wide open
setting for comparisons of lens qualities at a non-diffraction limited
f/stop. Recall that f/8 on a medium format camera corresponds roughly to f/5.6
on most 35mm SLRs. We could shoot the lenses wide open, but some lenses may be f/2.8,
others f/3.5 (TLR), others as slow as f/4. Comparing an f/4 lens wide
open against an f/2.8 lens is unfair, as the f/2.8 lens has much higher
aberration levels to control versus the slower f/4 lens. Comparing the f/4
lens wide open against the f/2.8 lens stopped down a full stop is also
unfair. After stopping down to f/4, a full stop, the faster lenses should
be much improved in many forms of aberrations, while the f/4 lens will be
at its worst.
So by stopping down to f/8 we provide at least two full stops or more of
aberration control, while providing a more comparable standard f/8
setting. Pragmatically, using 100 ISO/ASA film, f/8 is also as fast as we
can shoot with many cameras limited to top shutter speeds of 1/500th
second ( or less, e.g., DF-4 Seagull only goes to 1/200th). In general, one of
the tricks of shooting at optimal apertures is to pick film speeds that let you
avoid shooting wide open, with lots of aberration issues, and running out of
shutter speeds. Neutral density filters can solve these excess light problems in
practical situations. Again, if you shoot lenses wide open all the time, you would want
to perform your own series of tests on each lenses. In fact, doing so at
each f/stop would be the most rational way to observe how your lenses
improve with stopping down.
Ideally, we would like to have a technician check and clean each lens
element to sparkling cleanliness before testing, as well as adjust the
lens shutter and other tests, as Stephen Gandy has suggested online.
Unfortunately, doing so would put us way over-budget. Most of us just use
lenses as we buy them provided there isn't any hazing of the elements
(this was rechecked). The most expensive lens in this test (zeiss 80mm on
hasselblad) was recently CLA'd in June 2001 to fix a flash synch problem
(along with 500C camera and back). So if this lens does not perform
much better than the other optics, then you can't say it is because it was
not coddled and cleaned and treated better than the others!
Date: 26 Apr 2001
From: heavysteam@aol.comzapcrap (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica
bad composition, maybe, but wrong lens brand - not something I'll stay
up
late tonight worrying over -
grins bobm
Keep grinnin' Bob.... each post notches down my opinion of you. BTW, where are those citations to the double blind tests you keep referring to?
From: shadcat11@aol.com (ShadCat11) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: 23 Apr 2001 Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography) I have been reading photo publications 45+ years. US and foreign, and have so far not encountered those blind and double blind tests to which you refer, only allusions to same. Surely citations must exist for them. While waiting, I shall report the results of one undertaken by some friends and me. Among us we had Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Leica 50 and 35 mm lenses to compare. We shot up a bunch of Kodachrome 25 under a variety of lighting conditions at apertures from widest to smallest. Examination of the slides by loupe and projection with a Leitz enlarger showed the 50 mm Summicron to be "superior" to the others, the only noticeable "quality" differences among the 35s favored the Nikon slightly at f2, while the Olympus was a bit soft compared to the others. This test took place more than 15 years ago with lenses designed and/or made in the 60s and 70s. The comparison was justified because even then, the same claims of Leica superiority were being fielded as today. Obviously, this is not comprehensive. We didn't know if the samples we had were typical, although in all cases the owners were confident about their qualities. The comparisons showed slight color or contrast differences, but without comparison I am not sure that I could have identified any of the lenses by examining the slides. Informal examination of photographs over the years has convinced me that Leica results are overall better than that of other makes, although not by an order of magnitude. The limitations of a small negative still dominates, IMHO, and Leica image improvement is marginal, at best. When high image quality is paramount, I turn to larger formats. For onliest camera gear, Leica is a good choice. But would a camera that, say, synchs at a higher shutter speed produce better results? A personal call, I think. Allen Zak
From: Anders Svensson anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography) Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 Heavysteam wrote: > any cites to these studies? > > I ask too, but never receive a reply. Must be done by the same outfits that do > research for the tobacco companies. If such tests exist, they must be hard to set up. To really say something useful, lenses must be gathered, preferably several of the same kind to counter sample variation. Sample variation could easily be a result of a accident like a drop, it needn't be a manufacturing problem so some kind of unpartical technical check may be in order. Then, exposure must be checked between lenses and cameras (Leica can't be used on Nikon, nor Minolta, Pentax or Canon and vice versa in all permutations) as both lenses and cameras have variation on several different areas (metering, aperture actuation, actual vs nominal f/ stop (T vs F value) and so on. Small differences in nominal focal length must be compensated for and a suitable "test target" (or several, rather) must be defined as a proper test target would not reveal much about bokeh (or OOF rendition), for example. Likewise there has to be different and varied lighting (both daylight and artificial light in different angles and strengths), different types of subjects both revealing sharpness (resolution) and contrast as well as color rendition and trueness. Then we have the problem of taking the images and somehow guarantee that they all end up on very good and consistently processed film of excellent performance and quality. After all that effort, the images have to be presented to a test panel that a) has the skill to see very small nuances and differences and b) are truly unbiased and extremely fair. I believe someone has to be very motivated to conduct such a test just to find out if it is really true (or not) that some lenses seem to be slightly better than others... My own personal take is that to see the small differences between a very good and a outstanding lens, all the "other things" have to be right first. Solving that "other thing" part of the equation pays off far better (for me, at least) than enjoing the difference between (say) a Leica 50 mm or a Nikkor 50 mm. Anders Svensson mail: anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 From: Anders Svensson anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica Jeannie wrote: > > paper) or piece of equipment. I use a 35mm lens for which I have the > > highest regard, a Nikkor AF 35mm f/2D, and it took me just one look at > > Heavysteam's picture to see a quality that I could not achieve with my > > Nikkor in the same situation. > > Great, then post your 35mm Nikkor pictures. I mean this in a respectful > way. Please share your pictures so that we can see what you mean when you > say that the Leica 35mm made a sublime picture, as opposed to some other > lens that couldn't. Jeannie, I suggest that you learn to see thru' (and above) some of the hype that is presented here regarding lenses. Mostly, we frail humans do whatever it takes to rationalize our choices (and sometimes, we also attribute to skill or performance what really is luck). I don't delude myself into thinking that I am immune myself, either. But that goes both ways, it is not only those with "lesser" gear that rationalizes. Heavysteams image is a very good one. But taking "one look" at a 29 K JPEG image and immediately see what makes this lens different from that lens isn't possible. Heck, we don't even *know* if Heavysteam is pulling our legs and is using another good lens here. Personally, I think there is no way we can tell that this is a "Leica image" unless we (at least) see a first class print of the image and I couldn't (undoubtedly due to my inability to taste fine lenses :-) say anything unless I had a comparison image as well. I am sure there will be several that automatically *will* see the difference as soon as they hear that it is a Leica involved, but in that case they may have to read up on their H.C. Andersen :-) I personally think that Heavysteam may simply suggest that when the outcome of a photo session is extraordinarily good, it's also good to know that there is no need to question or dispute the the equipment. -- Anders Svensson mail: anders.-.eivor.svensson@swipnet.se
From: "William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced. Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 I would like to see a real, scientifically controlled, comparative test, set up as follows: 1. 10 professional photographers take 10 photographs each of 10 different subjects, using a different camera/lens combination on each photograph, but with the same focal length lens on each subject, and the same film type/brand. 2. Code each photograph with a number on the back, and keep a record of who took each one, and what equipment was used. 3. Show all these photographs to a group of ten art/photographer critics, (or any group of people) and ask them to rate/evaluate each photo against the others of the same subject as to the traditional parameters. (sharpness, color saturation, contrast, etc.....) Then use the statistics to find out weather there really is a significant difference in quality between the $2000 bodies carrying the $2000 lenses, and the $300 bodies carrying the $300 lenses. Of course, this still wouldn't change the fact that some of the equipment is more convenient to use, and lasts longer and/or is more reliable, but it would certainly tell us something about it's ability to perform when in the hands of competent people... ....
From hasselblad mailing list: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 From: Moreno Polloni mp@dccnet.com Subject: Re: [HUG] My New Hasselblad Questions > No where has anyone every shown ANY image degradation from a GOOD UV filter. > If you use some off-brand filter, of course they aren't near as good as any > decent lense...and that would be foolish to put an inferior filter on a high > end lense, but if you use a high end, coated, UV filter...you can't show me > ANY image degradation...except some instances of flare if the shooter isn't > conscious of that circumstance. I ran some tests with no filter, a Hassy UV filter, and a Hoya cheapo UV handheld in front of the lens. Dammed if I could tell the difference, other than a very, very slight difference in colour.
From: fotocord fotocord@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad? Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 Mxsmanic wrote: > "fotocord" fotocord@yahoo.com a écrit > >> Most of the 'blad lenses are decades old >> designs while the rollei's schneiders are >> newer, faster and many say the coatings >> are better. > > An old design isn't necessarily a bad design. No doubt but the topic of the thread is asking this question. > >> Add to that the better shutters and improved >> automation, I'd have to say they HAVE >> improved on the 'blad. > > Then you should be able to consistently distinguish between images taken > with a Rollei and images taken with a Hasselblad in a double-blind test. > Ever tried it? Not between a Rollei 6000 and a 'blad but since I (and three of my photographer friends) can see no difference in between the east german CZJ lenses on my kiev and a 'blad I borrowed (other than the V thing) I'd be amazed if anyone else could see a difference either. Well they did notice the 1800 f2.8 sonnar makes a better portrait than the 150mm f4 blad lens does 8-) The main difference is the user interface and the faster more accurate electronic leaf shutters that is better. This is an improvement anyone can see over the older 'blad designs. Whether you like these "improvements" or not is a personal issue and I wouldn't find them to be that useful myself but that doesn't make it any less of an advance in technology. -- Stacey
From: for7@aol.com (FOR7) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Date: 05 Jul 2002 Subject: Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad? >The Rollei 6000 is way above a blad in performance. Faster shutter, better >lenses, And I'd challenge you to spot a difference in lens quality. I'll throw my Fuji GA645 in there just to make it interesting. Crop the 6x6 to 645 and you'll never be able to tell which is which. My point is that at that level of lenses it isn't even worth comparing. > much better automation etc etc. Next! > >We realize you must make your equipment choice the best, >but try to find another venue to beat on your chest.. >-- > Stacey E.T. for7@aol.com
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 From: blades@starband.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced. The senses are very easy to fool. As an example, I spent many years as an audiophile (high end audio equipment nut.) The high end of audio equipment exists, for the most part, because the senses are easily fooled. Very expensive audio components ($6000 preamplifier as an example) perform just fine but rarely better than components that cost a fraction of the cost. In some cases, the thing has gone to the point of "hearing" the differences between various power cords. A few years ago there were some wooden discs that audiophiles could place on their equipment and then turn to orient the grain in different directions. They received rave reviews in some audio magazines. What happens is that people get enthusiastic about a hobby and wish to pursue perfection or, at least, as much perfection as is possible or practicable. They begin "hearing" differences in equipment that result more from the mind than the sound. It's quite human and normal. It is possible to conduct listening tests to eliminate these biases or beliefs but those kinds of tests aren't too popular with high end audiophiles. I have 40 years of experience with high end audio and I've been through every phase of it one can imagine and have fallen prey to this phenomenon myself. I now realize the weaknesses of my humanity so I no longer "pursue perfection" myself. I just listen to music and ignore the equipment that plays it. It has saved me a fortune. The same thing can happen with vision as happens with hearing. "Gosh, I thought I saw..........." is something you've heard many times in life. So, it is easy to let one's beliefs manage what one sees. Perfectly normal and human. We tend to see what we want in the same way that we tend to hear what we want. It is easy to fall prey to it. I've conducted some blind testing with camera lenses just like I have with audio components. Blind means the viewer doesn't know which lens made the image. Certainly we don't ask people to view images blindfolded. One of the problems in blind testing of images is that it is hard to make two identical compositions with different lenses and cameras so meaningful results only occur with a fairly great number of images of different types. There are some subtle differences between Nikkor lenses and Leica lenses. You may consider them too subtle to matter but the differences do exist and people are able to distinguish regulary between them. Quite simply Nikkor lenses generally have slightly more contrast and slightly less corner resolution at wide apertures than Leica lenses. It's a tradoff that results from compromises in the design philosophy of the lens. Basically, a blind tester can pick out one brand or the other over 85% of the time without knowing which brand it is using a variety of subjects. If you were to ask qualitatively which lens the testers prefer, you get a nearly random response. In other words, one design philosophy doesn't necessarily appeal to people consistently over another. Some folks prefer the Nikkor images and others prefer the Leica images. I have a tendency to like high contrast and I prefer the look of Nikkor lenses with most images in my own blind test participation. Nevertheless I prefer photographing with a Leica. I appreciate the size, weight and feel of the Leica camera. Obviously, I can make images with it that appeal to me every bit as much as those made with Nikkor lenses even though I can see the differences in blind tests. Personally, I think you can "pursue perfection" with either brand and, certainly, other brands which I simply haven't tested in this manner. Good shooting. Fred Photo Forums http://www.photoforums.net "Paul Chefurka" paul@chefurka.com wrote > "William E. Graham" weg9@attbi.com > wrote: > > >Yes....That's what they claim. - But if a blind test can't > >verify it, then it's just a case of finding an excuse after > >the fact to verify what you want to believe for other > >reasons anyway.....Not that I'm immune, by the way. I've > >greased my hobbies over the years with the finest equipment > >I could afford, and convinced myself that I > >sounded/looked/felt (or whatever) better as a result. A > >typical example is taking up bicycling for my health, and > >then buying a $1000 bicycle that pedals easier than the old > >$250 one.....My justification for this was that it gave me > >the incentive to continue..... > > So what's wrong with the simple enjoyment of nice gear? It may be > functionally better in some regard, or it may not. If it gives the user > pleasure, that may be all the justification required. > > I do understand someone not wanting to feel ripped off. Buying something > expensive because you expect it to be better, and then discovering that > it's just expensive can leave a sour taste in your mouth. OTOH, there's > usually some objective reason why expensive gear has the price tag it does, > even if the reason doesn't matter to you personally. > > I suspect you won't get any takers for a blind test as you propose. > Having tried to do some simple resolution testing recently, I can attest to > the fact that it's much harder than it seems to set up a test that has the > sensitivity to give the results you want - there are simply too many > variables that need to be controlled. And getting a null result doesn't > prove much - the conditions might not have been right to highlight > differences that in fact exist, and would have been illuminated by a > different test setup. Like choosing a brick-wall test that would reveal > distortion, when the significant difference between the lenses under test > was flare resistance, or shooting resolution targets when the important > difference is color transmission. > > Anyone who is concerned that Leica lenses are too expensive for the > benefits they offer would be well advised to buy different gear. There's > no getting around the fact that new Leica lenses are ferociously expensive > compared to the Nicanoltax equivalents. The price difference is very hard > to justify on the grounds of optical performance alone, but the simple > truth of the matter is that Leica lenses live well up on the exponential > price/quality curve. Small incremental improvements in quality (whatever > that word means) come with large incremental "improvements" in cost. > Everyone has to decide where on that curve they feel most comfortable. > > Paul
From: Erik Ryberg ryberg@seanet.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: at least i'm happy Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 Godfrey, I think Robert's reply was in response to the fact you bought four cameras and did a comparison of their image quality, and concluded that your hassy had the best images, and therefore decided to sell the others. Robert's point was, I think, that if you are going to sell some of your cameras based on image quality, then you should arrange a blind test first. In other words, he agrees with you: features of ergonomics, consistent work and so forth might outweigh image quality that currently seems to favor the hassy if it turns out in a blind test you can't tell the difference. In that case, you would look for differences in ergonomics etc. and make your decision that way. It may be the hassy still wins, of course, if you prefer it to the other cameras. But since you stated you don't care as much about the image results (so long as they are excellent) than you do about resale, ergonomics, etc., then why do the image tests. I think that was his point. That he agrees with you, and that a blind test is the only way to be sure one camera is turning out better images than the other. ER Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > I can't do a blind test on my own work as I *always* remember what cameras > and lenses took what photos. I've also owned most of the same equipment > you've mentioned and dumped it ... Why? Because it didn't work > consistently, was not ergonomic to me, proved to require a lot of service, > etc etc etc. > > Frankly, I really don't care whether some Y for less money than X might > return the same result if X is the right camera for me. > > "most pro level medium format normal lenses are pretty good" ... Sure, > therein lies the differences. I want something that consistently > excellent, and excellence is not measure solely upon resolution and > contrast. Imaging character, ergonomics, consistency, reliability, resale > value, etc all take a part. > > Godfrey > > rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert > Monaghan) wrote: > > >Hi Godfrey! > > > >I used to think the same, based on my own side by side comparisons, but > >knowing which lens took which photo. But then I ran a blind lens test > >where I wasn't working with just two cameras, and where I didn't know > >beforehand which lens took which photo. Ooops! > > > >I discovered that the differences were very subtle in real world photos at > >my typical shooting apertures (F/8, f/16), and that I couldn't tell the > >difference reliably myself. Nor could I sort out the multiple shots by the > >same lens at the same f/stop shots together from a stack of similar > >slides. Nor could I sort out the bronica from the hassy shots etc. Dang! > > > >Wondering if I was the only one, and how many others could also not split > >these identical shots reliably out of a stack of similar slides, I setup > >my (in)famous blind lens test project. So far, no one has been able to > >reliably sort out these slides at a statistically significant level. > >Some participant volunteers were professional photographers with decades > >of experience, others relative newbies. While there may be some with the > >experience or eyes to make such distinctions, I'm not one of them, and > >I'm not alone. The fact is that most pro level medium format normal lenses > >are pretty good (most are the same basic design, after all)... > > > >Until you do the blind lens test, you can't really know to what extent > >you have been influenced by your fore-knowledge of which camera took which > >set of slides.... > > > >regards bobm
From: Roger nospam@here.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Where to buy Schneider or Rodenstock filters? Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 Xosni wrote: > I'm fed up with those Hoya filters. I want to try quality filters now- > I'm talking specifically about #29 (dark red) filter for B&W.; Where > can I get Schneider or Rodenstock filters in the US (VA)? And which > offer the best quality? Hmmm...tests I've seen suggest that filters make next to no difference to optical quality. It's very easy to make a flat piece of glass. Obviously avoid anything that's loose in its mount or isn't coated on both sides. -- Roger
From: "Jeff" tokom@sympatico.ca Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!! Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 "I. N. Cognito" nomail@nospam.net wrote ... > artkramr@aol.com (ArtKramr) wrote: > Art, Hasselblad is interested in one thing. Turning a profit. If they > could have built the lenses themselves, I'm sure they would have. > Don't expect Hasselblad branded Fuji lenses to be any different than > current Fuji lenses. And Hasselblad isn't in the drivers seat, Fuji > is. A couple of weeks ago I attended a wedding. The photographer was using Hassy gear, and a flash that appeared to be a Sunpak J120. When I questioned him how he liked the J120, he replied that it was a Hasselblad flash made by Sunpak, and he liked it very much. I doubt if 99% of the people can tell the difference between images shot with similar quality lenses. Jeff.
From: I. N. Cognito nomail@nospam.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Hasselblad dumping!! Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 >I doubt if 99% of the people can tell the difference between images shot >with similar quality lenses. Jeff, you're probably right. I can see the difference in the color rendition but it isn't just a sharpness thing. The whole point of my post was that Hasselblad has since their inception pitched the lenses first, and the bodies second. Their camera bodies up until recently have been 1950s's designs. They built their reputation on the reputation of Carl Zeiss, for better or for worse, thats been their marketing angle. Now they are entering a new era trying to compete largely with Mamiya and Contax in the 645 arena, and they no longer have the Zeiss "crutch". Fuji lenses are very good, that isn't the point. I think its going to be a tough road for them trying to play catch up when they can no longer play their trump card.
From: John Stafford john@stafford.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Leica don't know the standards? Re Hasselblad Dump Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 > [snip snip SNIP!] This rattling on of 'standards' and design is such bullshit. Speaking in this case of lenses for normal professional use - the 'standards' are well known! Nobody makes them up out of nothing. Lens design is not a mystery either. We are long past the days when bright, educated, visionary and tenacious individuals had to sit down and ray-trace every single lens proposal. It seems to me that any competent company could make a fine lens _if money were no object_. So get to the point. It is all about money. But I seriously doubt that in a blind test the most vociferous posters in this thread could tell the differences in outcome between the best available 80mm lens and the average one for everyday pictures. -- jjs - I don't see any resolution charts on gallery walls or in albums.
From: Stacey fotocord@yahoo.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: Kiev Carl Zeiss/Arsat vs hassy C lenses? (I'm serious!) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 oranewbie wrote: > People always remark about lens test between bronica and hasselblad that have > been published in photo mags in Europe, Asia, or Antarctica but I haven't ever > seen any posted on a website anywhere. > > Only one close that I've seen is from Bob's site. The blind test is > an excellent idea which would help newbs like me get some help on the > difference between zeiss and zenza, arsat, or whatever and cut through > all the hype. > It would be interesting to see if there was a consistent noticeably > difference between the different manufacturers and if so how much. The main "noticable" difference I see in different lenses is the bokeh/out of focus areas of a print. On the kiev report we just finished a "double blind" web test to see if people could tell the difference between a Hartblei/Arsat 150mm f2.8 and a CZJ/Sonar 180mm f2.8. I was very close when looking at the sharpness etc (actually the Hartblei was slightly sharper and had a nice warm tone..) but to me it was fairly easy to pick the sonar shots from the bokeh which is wonderfully smooth. For lenses I use at smaller f stops for landscapes etc where almost all of the scene is in focus, I can't see the diff between brands. It's the wider open shots with shallow DOF that the good lenses show their stuff. -- Stacey
End of Page