View Poll Results: Which will you keep?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Carl Zeiss

    32 96.97%
  • Olympus

    1 3.03%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: Can you tell the difference?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    the CZ seems sharper, especially in the f1.4 pics.

    F1.4
    Take a close look at the logos at the bottom of the box, the cherry at the top, and the stripes in the center of the box. The CZ one is SHARP at all these points, while the OM is noticeably softer and blurred. Especially the white dots at the black thing. The OM one has blurrness and some white smearing around the white dots, while CZ has just abit of blur.

    F2 onwards seems pretty on par sharpness wise, but the OM is still abit softer, check out the black thingy above the stripes, can see that the OM is just a tad softer compared to the CZ.

    F4 both very close, but if u look at the red ring (behind the black thingy), u can see the OM is still softer than CZ there.

    And of cos colour wise the CZ looks much better.

    Keep the CZ
    Last edited by torak; 22nd July 2010 at 12:53 AM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by torak View Post
    the CZ seems sharper, especially in the f1.4 pics.

    F1.4
    Take a close look at the logos at the bottom of the box, the cherry at the top, and the stripes in the center of the box. The CZ one is SHARP at all these points, while the OM is noticeably softer and blurred. Especially the white dots at the black thing. The OM one has blurrness and some white smearing around the white dots, while CZ has just abit of blur.

    F2 onwards seems pretty on par sharpness wise, but the OM is still abit softer, check out the black thingy above the stripes, can see that the OM is just a tad softer compared to the CZ.

    F4 both very close, but if u look at the red ring (behind the black thingy), u can see the OM is still softer than CZ there.

    And of cos colour wise the CZ looks much better.

    Keep the CZ
    thanks for the observation

    i will do a final outdoor test tmr to cfm my decision haha (although heart and soul already picked CZ!)

  3. #23
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    more field test outdoor at 6+pm after my work today... (pardon the composition haha)

    CZ f1.4, ISO 100


    OM f1.4, ISO 100

  4. #24
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    CZ f4, ISO 100


    OM f4, ISO 100

  5. #25
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    CZ f8, ISO 100


    OM f8, ISO 100

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Back when the poll results were 14:1 (they're now 16:1), in favour of keeping the Zeiss of course, I wrote what I admit was a fairly vitriolic response, but managed to dissuade myself from posting it.

    That including the increased vignetting on the Zeiss, noticeable even on the table images shot at high ISO, and hopefully everyone else might actually spot it with those last two pics. It's strange that nobody picked up on that at all. How someone even said the Zeiss was "brighter" given it had vignetting, is anybody's guess.

    Instead, everyone focused on perceived differences in "sharpness" from circa 500 pixel images... vignetting you can tell, but sharpness? You'll not learn anything about sharpness from ISO 800 shots, or ISO 100 shots, at web resolution.

    Incidentally you also have a slight focus differential in your original f1.4 comparison shot.

    16:1 people can't be wrong, though, I guess.

    Keep the Zeiss, that's clearly what you want to do.
    Last edited by Jed; 24th July 2010 at 12:01 AM.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    To be honest I like the CZ more, the OM seems rather soft in the OP, but it may be due to handshake as you are not using a tripod for comparison.

    Out of the camera, CZ has greater contrast.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by madmartian View Post
    Sharpness wise, the CZ is sharper in the middle... The Oly is not as sharp as the CZ in the middle but is brighter.

    If sharpness is your concern, CZ is the one
    Quote Originally Posted by ArcticFox View Post
    CZ is sharper in the centre and somewhat brighter. (?)
    Quote Originally Posted by torak View Post
    the CZ seems sharper, especially in the f1.4 pics.
    Quote Originally Posted by DemonicAngelz View Post
    To be honest I like the CZ more, the OM seems rather soft in the OP.
    I ask again, how is everyone drawing these conclusions aside from the innate belief in a God above and the fact that Zeiss is always sharper?

    This is how sharp your Zeiss image looks at 12mp:



    Looks rubbish, no? Not very sharp at all.

    The point is not that you can't interpolate a 500 pixel image to 12mp. The point is you can get a rubbish 12mp image to look sharp at 500 pixels. So how does everyone above reckon that the Zeiss is sharper from a 500 pixel image?

    And I stress again, in the original table pictures the shots @ f1.4 have a different focal point. I haven't looked closely enough at the stopped down shots to comment on those.

    If there ARE things you can draw conclusions about it's things like vignetting (Zeiss clear loser), contrast (Zeiss is slightly better. Ignore the table shots as they're a light centre subject against dark background with vignetting. In the city shots the OM appears to show greater light transmission as well ie it is brighter - look at the sky at f8 in the cityscape pics for example - which is advantageous in some situations), colour balance (Zeiss is warmer, OM is cooler, not being present it's impossible to tell which is more neutral).

    Sharpness is not one of the things you can draw a conclusion from, from these images.

    Zomg zomg it's z..z..z...Zeiss... /wipe drool from keyboard.

    Emperor's. New. Clothes.
    Last edited by Jed; 24th July 2010 at 10:49 AM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    TS, you have the raw files, so tell us, which do you prefer and why?
    Home is where the heart is.

  10. #30
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Lee View Post
    TS, you have the raw files, so tell us, which do you prefer and why?
    hmm...

    maybe i am much biased towards CZ lenses... cos i use to own this same lens before i got my 5DMK2... but after hearing the mirror slapping issue with this lens on 5DMK2... i decided to sell it away only to regret it later. So was luckily that someone was selling this lens in B&S, so waited no more, bought it immediately from the seller! But just curious... is there 2 version of this lens? Cos previously the CZ i owned the thread filter size was 49mm... but this is 55mm?

    Ok back to your question... ermm i buy MF lenses cos of the colors it gave (i find old MF lenses produces more vintage colors as compared to the vibrant colors produced by modern lenses) ... i like those old vintage colors with slight vignetting (i am not particular about sharpness) so i dun even need to PP my photos and can shoot straight from cam to give this vintage feel to my photos... Actually both lens fits the bill in this case but i am more biased towards CZ actually since i used it before and was satisfied :x

    Btw, i did a night test shot with this lens (CZ only).

    Focus to infinity, ISO 100, f16, 30 secs shutter speed. I like the result it produces


    Did some curving to these photos to punch out the color further.







    more here

  11. #31

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Indoor wise CZ colors' looks richer.
    There's no obvious difference in the image quality.

    However outdoor shots, IMO OM won hands down.
    It gave me the feeling that the values were more comfortable.
    Not to mention that CZ had obvious vignetting at 1.4.

    But then again it seems like you either processed the images or the shutter speed was not adjusted properly to compensate the exposure as a control.

    I can't put my words on it.

  12. #32
    Senior Member sinned79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,850

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle-san View Post

    But then again it seems like you either processed the images or the shutter speed was not adjusted properly to compensate the exposure as a control.

    I can't put my words on it.
    hmm.. i guess its the shutter speed here... cos CZ seems to use longer shutter speed then my OM.

    Those trial shots straight from cam, no editing (except for the night shoots, did the usual s curve to bring out the colors further).

  13. #33
    Senior Member ovaltinemilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sin jia Po lah
    Posts
    2,820

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    CZ seems warmer(assume WB is set manual) thus more punch.
    Anyway, after looking at out door shots, I thot both are fine. haha...no obvious winner except the vignetting issue mentioned.
    Last edited by ovaltinemilo; 26th July 2010 at 01:13 PM.
    ...:::..::.Nikon.::.:::..
    RGB Metering & Focusing.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by ovaltinemilo View Post
    Anyway, after looking at out door shots, I thot both are fine. haha...no obvious winner except the vignetting issue mentioned.
    Quote Originally Posted by turtle-san View Post
    However outdoor shots, IMO OM won hands down... Not to mention that CZ had obvious vignetting at 1.4.
    Except... there is a clear and blatant winner in the poll. 29:1 say keep the Zeiss. Maybe cause vignetting is in?

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle-san View Post
    I can't put my words on it.
    I can. It has "Zeiss" in the description. /drool

    (and yes I know that wasn't what you were referring to.)

  15. #35
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,268

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    Emperor's. New. Clothes.


    Quote Originally Posted by sinned79 View Post
    more field test outdoor at 6+pm after my work today... (pardon the composition haha)

    CZ f1.4, ISO 100


    OM f1.4, ISO 100
    f1.4 for a landscape picture like that is not going to do justice to any lens. Even f4, for these CBD shots. So... where did you focus on? Maybank?

    I'm also wondering about the WB for the first test. Did you like fixed the WB after taking shot from the first photo? If so, did you try it like, the other way round (i.e. OM first, then CZ)? These are all very subjective tests. Also mentioned is that under flourescent lighting, you will get issues.

  16. #36

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    You should post the photos and just label them #1 & #2

    most people tend to let their minds decieve their eyes. Many differential tests have proven that by omiting certain information to the person taking the comparsion test, the person cannot tell the difference. Examples of such test are, serving pepsi & coke in transparent glasses without the brand labels, some who said that they prefer coke over pepsi or vice versa could tell which glass contains their favourite drink just by tasting it

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Shunfu Road, Singapore
    Posts
    2,465

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by photoart View Post
    You should post the photos and just label them #1 & #2

    most people tend to let their minds decieve their eyes. Many differential tests have proven that by omiting certain information to the person taking the comparsion test, the person cannot tell the difference. Examples of such test are, serving pepsi & coke in transparent glasses without the brand labels, some who said that they prefer coke over pepsi or vice versa could tell which glass contains their favourite drink just by tasting it
    Agreed, exactly what I said earlier. I once shot with 4 50mm lenses, got them mixed up and could not tell which shot was by which later.
    Home is where the heart is.

  18. #38

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Based on just these images the CZ seems to have more contrast to my eye. Also the Oly has a mild 'dreamy' / halo effect at 1.4

    But then thats just the image quality aspect -how does the build quality compare?

  19. #39

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Seriously, keep both.

  20. #40
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    3,268

    Default Re: Can you tell the difference?

    Quote Originally Posted by photoart View Post
    You should post the photos and just label them #1 & #2

    most people tend to let their minds decieve their eyes. Many differential tests have proven that by omiting certain information to the person taking the comparsion test, the person cannot tell the difference. Examples of such test are, serving pepsi & coke in transparent glasses without the brand labels, some who said that they prefer coke over pepsi or vice versa could tell which glass contains their favourite drink just by tasting it
    And if you perform the test at some far away beach, hot weather, I will always put the brand I am marketing for the user to taste first.

    It's just like the story about the fella from NS who tasted pei pei mien and somehow tried to look all over for it and never found any other pei pei mien that tasted as good. Because he ate his first pei pei mien when he was really really hungry in NS.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •