Do photography buffs buy in to the kind of tweaky stuff that audiophiles like? Are there photographic analogies to magic wire and those sorts of things? I don't know anything about it. I know Leica cameras cost a lot.
Do photography buffs buy in to the kind of tweaky stuff that audiophiles like? Are there photographic analogies to magic wire and those sorts of things? I don't know anything about it. I know Leica cameras cost a lot.
It's nowhere as bad as audio.
Do photography buffs buy in to the kind of tweaky stuff that audiophiles like? Are there photographic analogies to magic wire and those sorts of things? I don't know anything about it. I know Leica cameras cost a lot.
Is that because they are supposed to be 'magic' (some sort of undefined top tier quality) or because they are 'collectible'? Some vintage audio gear has a high price because of the collectable aspect. Old McIntosh amps, early Marantz stuff, and a few others. I don't think anyone thinks they are exceptional from a modern electrical standpoint, but they command high prices because of what they are, and what they represent.The "magical" stuffs are usually vintage lenses and accessories, like certain Leica lenses, like 35mm double aspherical, old 50mm f1.2, certain camera models like KE-7a, some cine lenses like Dallmeyer super sixes, etc., which can easily go to six figures.
There are a lot of legends regarding photographic gear too...Do photography buffs buy in to the kind of tweaky stuff that audiophiles like? Are there photographic analogies to magic wire and those sorts of things? I don't know anything about it. I know Leica cameras cost a lot.
Or Zeiss Otus...The "magical" stuffs are usually vintage lenses and accessories, like certain Leica lenses, like 35mm double aspherical, old 50mm f1.2, certain camera models like KE-7a, some cine lenses like Dallmeyer super sixes, etc., which can easily go to six figures.
On photo forums, pretty much like on audio forums, a lot of people write, as given truth, a severe amount of BS too.Nothing is as bad as audio. Unless maybe fragrances..
I have had both those lenses. The 35mm f1.4 is still my favourite lens, the 50 f1.2 was OK but only special (ie expensive) because of its rarity.The "magical" stuffs are usually vintage lenses and accessories, like certain Leica lenses, like 35mm double aspherical, old 50mm f1.2, certain camera models like KE-7a, some cine lenses like Dallmeyer super sixes, etc., which can easily go to six figures.
Rather a Thompson machine gun, given the noise.I used to own an IBM Selectric. I mean, it was the McIntosh of typewriters. Or maybe the M1 Abrams tank of typewriters.
Some serious website are evaluating flare.I have had both those lenses. The 35mm f1.4 is still my favourite lens, the 50 f1.2 was OK but only special (ie expensive) because of its rarity.
I sold most of my collection (I kept one of the 35mm f1.4 aspherical) as it was my pension fund. It is amazing how much rare Leica stuff had increased in value and very disappointing how badly Nikon and Canon stuff had done, even the very rare stuff.
In general people on the internet seem to be obsessed with lens sharpness, as if it were the only parameter.
Lenses are spectacularly more complex to measure and evaluate (except sharpness) than hifi.
Flare resistance is super important yet there is no accepted test procedure.
One of my favourite lenses, the 28-35-50 tri-Elmar is tiny and astonishingly sharp but in some common lighting conditions has so much flare it looks like it was misted up.
The other thing little mentioned is the mechanical precision needed to keep the plane of focus in the plane of the sensor. Not so important with slow zooms because of depth of field but astonishingly so for medium format and fast lenses.
This is rarely measured in reviews.
Overall, if sharpness is your only criterion or sensor performance itself there are plenty of review sites. However a sharp lens that flares or has a lot of field curvature on a camera body with a spectacular sensor which isn't accurately aligned with the lens mounting flange will perhaps give a warm feeling of satisfaction but not such technically good results...
I'm sure the beauty industry is worse, they probably put literal snake oil into some products.Nothing is as bad as audio. Unless maybe fragrances..
What about alcoholic beverages? What's the difference between Two-Buck Chuck and Château-ci-de-ça? Honest question. I don't drink so I wouldn't know.I'm sure the beauty industry is worse, they probably put literal snake oil into some products.
Similar to the rest of food and drink I would think. There are differences, and blind tests are done to establish preference, but there is also a whole lot of nonsense.What about alcoholic beverages? What's the difference between Two-Buck Chuck and Château-ci-de-ça? Honest question. I don't drink so I wouldn't know.