Snake oil in photography

[Offler]

Maybe the manufacturers have reasons why they build a lens exactly like that. There are some newly released vintage lenses (or similar) on the market, I'll exclude them here.
My first question would be what is "no modern materials"?

For me, the most important thing about a lens is its imaging performance. Without them, everything behind them becomes less important. There are enough lenses on the market that reduce the resolution of the camera, even well below 20MP.
Perhaps I should also mention that it wasn't even 10 years ago when the big camera manufacturers didn't have a lens in their range that transmitted the resolution of their 50MP cameras, especially not at full aperture.

Points such as glass lenses, autofocus, image stabilization (in the lens) and also weather protection affect the imaging performance of a lens and must be specified and included during development.
Again, I can take the Zeiss Otus as an example. Everything that could affect the imaging performance was really left out and the highest quality glass lenses and materials were used.
How many lenses are there that can match the imaging performance of the Zeiss Otus lenses at FF and wide aperture, especially the 50mm?

Every manufacturer would do well to omit all unnecessary functionality that is not absolutely necessary. The service life and precision are also affected by functionality such as autofocus, image stabilization (in the lens) and weather protection.
Personally, I also prefer stabilization by the camera sensor, as it makes more sense and is much more effective, and it works with every lens on the market.

The most important point comes right at the end.
As with most development-intensive products, the price is made up of development costs, production costs and quantities. In the case of small quantities, the costs must be shared among them.
It's no secret that the first 90% of a development is easier and cheaper, the next 5-7% is at least twice as expensive. At the last 2-3%, the development costs explode 5-10 times or more, or the development has to be considered a flop/total loss.

And that's what bothers me the most about your statement. A manufacturer learns the most about problems and weak points from a product that is so well developed and pushed to the extreme.
Exactly this experience flows into the next generation and makes the next affordable lenses better.

I would go for CaF lenses if it would be a parameter declared by the manufacturer.

Calcium fluoride - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Its lighter than glass, has very natural optical characteristics, and the tech for growing CaF crystals and polishing them into lenses is around for about 25+ years. Yes, Zeiss and I am long time fan of their work.

I found the remark about lenses that reduce the resolution of the camera quite informative, because I have been following few professionals and their work - they used fullframe Canons and Nikons which are considered to be golden standard. I use Olympus with either M.Zuiko or Lumix lenses - Preferably the Leica branded ones.

I have been commended by few photographers that my photos are very sharp and detailed. Not for the system or sensor, but in general. I attributed that to Anti-Aliasing filter which is not present on my sensor.

Thanks to you I realized that higher pixel density requires better lenses to get the best results. That brings me to conclusion that PRO and premium lenses for those systems most likely have better resolution (or lens to sensor transport). OFC there are more factors because cropped formats typically use lenses with shorter focal distance which means wider DOF, all that paired with In-Body-Stabilization.

Checked Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 photos. I really like them. Some lenses make perfect image of the subject, while the background gets distorted.

This was taken by Lumix GX 35-100mm F2.8 at maximum focal lenght and 2.8. M43 lenses typically have best resolution at 1 stop down. With this lens we are talking about price tag about 1100 dollars, might have changed due the inflation.

Both lenses have aspherical elements which is the cause of the background distortion, both are apochromatic. Also I should refrain to use fake vignette efect so often, but no blur effect was used in post.

My opinion is that smaller sensors with higher pixel density helped to pave the way for 50+Mpix sensors on FF systems, but still its cheaper to mass produce lenses and sensors of smaller size. Getting to full manual glass lenses isnt Zeiss Otus territorry anyway.

 

[julian_hughes]

My opinion is that if you deal with lighting, composition and timing well, and have the wits to use shutter speed and aperture combination to manage depth of field, motion capture and so on then nobody will ever care about bokeh, lens brand, sensor type, lens elements, pixel count, film type etc. etc. A great photographer, Tony Vaccaro, died aged 100 in December. What do the obituaries talk about? They do mention his famous wartime camera, an Argus C3, but mostly they focus on his great images and the famous and beautiful people he portrayed after his military life. Nobody cares if his extraordinary images were made with a Rolleiflex or a Speed Graphic or an Olympus OM1 or a Panasonic or a Leica or whatever. They especially don't care if the lenses were made from rare earth glass or calcium fluoride or the bottom of a beer bottle.

 

[TulseLuper]

My opinion is that if you deal with lighting, composition and timing well, and have the wits to use shutter speed and aperture combination to manage depth of field, motion capture and so on then nobody will ever care about bokeh, lens brand, sensor type, lens elements, pixel count, film type etc. etc. A great photographer, Tony Vaccaro, died aged 100 in December. What do the obituaries talk about? They do mention his famous wartime camera, an Argus C3, but mostly they focus on his great images and the famous and beautiful people he portrayed after his military life. Nobody cares if his extraordinary images were made with a Rolleiflex or a Speed Graphic or an Olympus OM1 or a Panasonic or a Leica or whatever. They especially don't care if the lenses were made from rare earth glass or calcium fluoride or the bottom of a beer bottle.

Hard to imagine a photographer accomplishing more with less than Vaccaro.

 

[BaaM]

Hello guys!
Do you know a good forum to read, learn and discuss about technical aspects of photography and image quality?
I am especially looking for informations about these new AI-powered photo editing softwares.

 

[ravh]

Hello guys!
Do you know a good forum to read, learn and discuss about technical aspects of photography and image quality?
I am especially looking for informations about these new AI-powered photo editing softwares.

Dpreview?

 

[ravh]

To me, unlike audio, buying camera gears is a lot easier than trying to find the right products to buy for HiFi.
It all comes down to glass portfolio and ease of service if it ever comes to it.

I still remember how difficult it was to service my Leica M6. And oh boy, the cost...
Now, I'm happy with my Fuji X glasses.

 

[Tks]

Few I recognize is snake oil claim "larger sensor means lower noise because of more light".

Been reading into topic and in general... people do mistake pixel size with total sensor size.

Another which sounds profoundly like HIFI sellers "this lens has creamy bokeh".

Yeah that whole sensor light relationship has been a farce for a while now it seems. It was making the rounds again with respect to lower MP sensors having "bigger pixels" that can absorb more light information compared to larger MP sensors. The camera that ignited these claims was when the Sony A7SIII was releasing, it was a 12MP FF camera, so many were saying how this is the true reason the camera has best in class low-light performance. The A1 has shown this is just nonsense in practical terms. We also see noise can be controlled better by simply having multi-gain ISO, sure it makes the engineering and cost more expensive, but this is something becoming more common, and is far easier to achieve than making larger sensors.

As for creamy bokeh claims. I think all people want to say with this is, a lens doesn't produce the onion-ring striations some other lower cost lenses might when viewing out of focus light sources.

 

[pluton]

As a film photographer for decades and digital since 2006, the most snake oil thing I've seen so far in photography are 'Film simulations" which are sold as LUTs or, in Adobe-speak, Develop Presets.
These are software plugins that purport to take the image from your digital camera and make them look just like Kodak Tri-X film, Kodachrome film, Agfa Pan 100, etc.
I've seen a fair number of these softwares over the last 10 or 12 years, and all of them...ALL of them... are completely fraudulent.
The image characteristics or 'look' they create bear zero resemblance to what the images from the films actually looked like.
None.
They're just a bunch of made up stuff.
Also, most of them are ugly.

 

[antcollinet]

As a film photographer for decades and digital since 2006, the most snake oil thing I've seen so far in photography are 'Film simulations" which are sold as LUTs or, in Adobe-speak, Develop Presets.
These are software plugins that purport to take the image from your digital camera and make them look just like Kodak Tri-X film, Kodachrome film, Agfa Pan 100, etc.
I've seen a fair number of these softwares over the last 10 or 12 years, and all of them...ALL of them... are completely fraudulent.
The image characteristics or 'look' they create bear zero resemblance to what the images from the films actually looked like.
None.
They're just a bunch of made up stuff.
Also, most of them are ugly.

Agreed.

On the plus side, the vast majority of these are supplied free with image editing software.

 

[Offler]

Olympus cameras have settings for so called Art Filters. I ran them through their OM Workspace application, and... well.

I do remember when newspaper used film cameras and i got experience with Agfa, Kodak, Fujifilm, maybe some other... The filters Olympus did incorporated in their cameras are actually quite good when it comes to an attempt to emulate results of certain film development process. But they included them in their cameras basically for free and its even possible to spend some more time to improve those filters.

There is also business of selling your personal filters for Photoshop/Lightroom. I really dont get this. Like yes you might get some specific look other photographer did, but editing is a lot about your own approach to photography.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

I remember and know only one vivid example:

Lytro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There was a lot of noise and naive expectations, in the end it turned out that the optical processor (lens) is not replaced by post-processing of a flat image that has lost phase information.

Everything else in photography is OK, including bokeh aesthetics, it has nothing to do with snake oil.

 

[Offler]

This is a presentation video about Leica M11 Monochrome:

Few things:
1. Yes, removing Bayer filter will improve SNR of the sensor, and you will get better B/W image in terms of fidelity.

2. I would really like to know how this improve BW transitions in other way in digital domain or even more in print.
When I took a photo the most colors I ever had was around 900 000, after post procesing to get really vivid palette it was 1.7 milion in sRGB color space when in TIFF. JPEG however took a lot away, photo had 250 000 unique colors, but typically photos converted to jpeg go as down as 80 000 for muted scenes, even less for B/W.

Sensors are typically 10-12 bit nowadays, but getting full readout from them is a complete different thing - similarly as with amplifiers and sound. Even when following recommendations to get best dynamic range, you will get like 7.9-8.1 bits of data.

Once you restrict to grayscale only, you will benefit more from a 10 or 12bit HDR display with 10 000 nits. Even restricting to sRGB (still typical output format) will take away a lot of dynamics assuming the sensor was capable to get above 8bit. Printing would take away even more.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

This is a presentation video about Leica M11 Monochrome:

Few things:
1. Yes, removing Bayer filter will improve SNR of the sensor, and you will get better B/W image in terms of fidelity.

2. I would really like to know how this improve BW transitions in other way in digital domain or even more in print.
When I took a photo the most colors I ever had was around 900 000, after post procesing to get really vivid palette it was 1.7 milion in sRGB color space when in TIFF. JPEG however took a lot away, photo had 250 000 unique colors, but typically photos converted to jpeg go as down as 80 000 for muted scenes, even less for B/W.

Sensors are typically 10-12 bit nowadays, but getting full readout from them is a complete different thing - similarly as with amplifiers and sound. Even when following recommendations to get best dynamic range, you will get like 7.9-8.1 bits of data.

Once you restrict to grayscale only, you will benefit more from a 10 or 12bit HDR display with 10 000 nits. Even restricting to sRGB (still typical output format) will take away a lot of dynamics assuming the sensor was capable to get above 8bit. Printing would take away even more.

If I had free money to buy a set of Leica with their Summilux, Noctilux and APO-Telyt lenses, I would do it immediately and I don't care who thinks Leica is a snake oil.
Because Leica is impeccably beautiful

 

[Keith_W]

My M10 + 50 Lux

 

[Offler]

I am using Summilux 25mm F1.4 with my Olympus, but I like the lens based on data from DPreview and my own measurings of colors based on histogram data.

What I am saying is that there is a lot of differences between RAW capture by the sensor, processed image on web and definitely a difference in print.

 

[fcracer]

As a film photographer for decades and digital since 2006, the most snake oil thing I've seen so far in photography are 'Film simulations" which are sold as LUTs or, in Adobe-speak, Develop Presets.
These are software plugins that purport to take the image from your digital camera and make them look just like Kodak Tri-X film, Kodachrome film, Agfa Pan 100, etc.
I've seen a fair number of these softwares over the last 10 or 12 years, and all of them...ALL of them... are completely fraudulent.
The image characteristics or 'look' they create bear zero resemblance to what the images from the films actually looked like.
None.
They're just a bunch of made up stuff.
Also, most of them are ugly.

While I agree with you that most simulations and LUTs are crap, there are two that I find excellent:

1. Fujifilm's built in film simulations. It's clear that Fujifilm spends an inordinate amount of time formulating the digital simulations. They even use the same guy that designed the actual films.
2. RNI Real Film Simulations from Really Nice Images (RNI) have some excellent film simulations.

If you do a lot of photography and want a particular look, these can be extremely helpful, saving lots of time and hassle. However, again, I agree that 99% of what's out there is crap.

 

[fcracer]

If I had free money to buy a set of Leica with their Summilux, Noctilux and APO-Telyt lenses, I would do it immediately and I don't care who thinks Leica is a snake oil.
Because Leica is impeccably beautiful

I find that Leica is pretty honest in what they are these days. They still provide a superbly unique rangefinder experience, in a small package, with excellent build materials. They aren't the most reliable cameras (although I've never had any issues with mine), but they do retain excellent resale value.

If you put the capital in one time, you can retain a large chunk of it over time. I wrote about my Leica journey on a post that you can read here. Net, net, when I calculated all the costs, owning a Leica M10 and Summilux 35 FLE worked out to US$50/month over 4.5 years of ownership. Not bad!

Therefore, I don't think that Leica is snake oil. It's extravagant, even outrageous sometimes, but unabashedly so.