Panny 25mm 1.4 vs Olympus 25mm 1.8 Reviewed

Started Feb 15, 2014 | Discussions
Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: What advantage?

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Altruisto wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree on this. It does make a difference. Look at the smith photos. On the f1.4 we have a sense of depth. Not enough in the f1.8 shot. And it's not subjective.

I thought you guys were arguing that it had less depth...

And no it doesn't. And yes it is subjective.

That earns another LOL

Like, oh my god.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: The psychology of seeing what you want to see

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

dgrogers wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race. It's academic for me since I have the 25/.95 and between it and the 12-35 I'm more than happy with my 25mm options. But it's good to know that "real world" photos don't have trees in the background. LOL

Confirmation bias has it's grip on you. For someone who claims to have no horse in this perceived race, you sure are acting like that obnoxious fan in the cheap seats. Why do you see this as a race instead of another excellent option in the m4/3 world?

-- hide signature --

Completely infatuated with the "OMG"

I believe the psychological term you are looking for is "projection".

No, it's confirmation bias. You know, the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own bias.

No, it's projection, as in you are projecting your fanboyism on me.

If you're going to attempt to be pretentious, you should at least be smart enough to know what you're talking about. And...fanboy? I'm not the one all butthurt.

You really do need to see an eye doctor.

Will he help me understand your quasi-coherent ramblings?

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: What advantage?

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

You might want to have your eyes checked because the f/1.4 pic clearly has a lot more background blur than the f/1.8 pic.

As I've mentioned before, I don't have a horse in this race.

But you do have, what, 20 posts in this race?

As do you, and thus by your own logic YOU are obsessing?

Technically half as obsessive as you...

When testing I think it's actually more important to take pictures that demonstrate the thing being tested. You want to demonstrate resolution? Shoot resolution charts -- not peppers. You want to demonstrate bokeh? Shoot a scene with clear foreground/background separation....

I think the portraits have pretty clear foreground/background separation...

Better to LOL than be the butt of it.

If it makes you feel better to think about my butt while you LOL, far be it from me to stop you.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,726
Re: What advantage?

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Altruisto wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree on this. It does make a difference. Look at the smith photos. On the f1.4 we have a sense of depth. Not enough in the f1.8 shot. And it's not subjective.

I thought you guys were arguing that it had less depth...

And no it doesn't. And yes it is subjective.

That earns another LOL

Like, oh my god.

Yes .. both true and subjective!

Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: What advantage?
1

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

amtberg wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Altruisto wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree on this. It does make a difference. Look at the smith photos. On the f1.4 we have a sense of depth. Not enough in the f1.8 shot. And it's not subjective.

I thought you guys were arguing that it had less depth...

And no it doesn't. And yes it is subjective.

That earns another LOL

Like, oh my god.

Yes .. both true and subjective!

I have to admit that our interaction has turned a corner. I'm starting to admire your tenacity. If you ever make it to Vancouver, I'll buy you a Backhand of God and we can take myriad photos at f/1.4 and 1.8.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

peppermonkey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,569
I don't understand...

Dave Sanders wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Lawrence22 wrote:

The PL25 gives more richness in color and better 3Ddimensionality is quite obvious.

Lawrence

...complete bunk. Honestly, to even say so shows that you misunderstand the fundamentals of digital imaging.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

because my eyes tells me (at least with the Robin Wong samples) that the Panny 1.4 does have a more 3D look to it's images. I'm uncertain about richness of colours but the differences in colour gradients is much more smoother in the Panny.

I'm saying that I doubt that you can see that in a compressed JPEG, shot in sRGB using natural picture mode and AWB displayed on a monitor of unknown calibration and colour gamut and be certain what you're seeing a difference in a lens. There are simply too many steps in the imaging chain. In such a workflow, colour gradients are the things that suffer the most. Being able to see such subtle things as 'depth' and 'colour gradients' seems unlikely while viewing a low-res, 8 bit sRGB JPEG. I've spent too much time working with RAW files on a calibrated wide-gamut monitor to believe that, sorry.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Are you saying that I'm NOT seeing what I'm seeing and that it's just some delusion? Or are you saying that whatever differences I DO see is insignificant that it shouldn't be used as a plus for the PL 25mm? Because, unless you are telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing...I do see the PL as being more 3D looking and with smoother more pleasing, smoother, colour contrast. The Oly at least in my eyes seems more flatter, and clinically more detailed.

Or on the flip side are you just saying that most people wouldn't see it so it shouldn't matter to anyone else either?

-- hide signature --

Hubert
My non-digital gear: Agfa Isolette, Fed 2, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2457111090_00eafbf8a4_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 peppermonkey's gear list:peppermonkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Sigma DP2 Sony RX100 II Pentax K110D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: I don't understand...

peppermonkey wrote:

Are you saying that I'm NOT seeing what I'm seeing and that it's just some delusion? Or are you saying that whatever differences I DO see is insignificant that it shouldn't be used as a plus for the PL 25mm? Because, unless you are telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing...I do see the PL as being more 3D looking and with smoother more pleasing, smoother, colour contrast. The Oly at least in my eyes seems more flatter, and clinically more detailed.

Or on the flip side are you just saying that most people wouldn't see it so it shouldn't matter to anyone else either?

No, I'm saying what I said, which you quite obviously didn't understand. Round 2?

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

peppermonkey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,569
So I'm NOT seeing what I'm seeing?

Dave Sanders wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

Are you saying that I'm NOT seeing what I'm seeing and that it's just some delusion? Or are you saying that whatever differences I DO see is insignificant that it shouldn't be used as a plus for the PL 25mm? Because, unless you are telling me I'm not seeing what I'm seeing...I do see the PL as being more 3D looking and with smoother more pleasing, smoother, colour contrast. The Oly at least in my eyes seems more flatter, and clinically more detailed.

Or on the flip side are you just saying that most people wouldn't see it so it shouldn't matter to anyone else either?

No, I'm saying what I said, which you quite obviously didn't understand. Round 2?

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

All I said is that I see what the other guy said he sees. Which is that the PL 25mm photos look more 3D and the colours are different enough to make the gradient smoother, more natural and again, more 3D. I didn't say the PL is better than the Oly. Just that it's different. Why is that such a big deal?

-- hide signature --

Hubert
My non-digital gear: Agfa Isolette, Fed 2, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2457111090_00eafbf8a4_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 peppermonkey's gear list:peppermonkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Sigma DP2 Sony RX100 II Pentax K110D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Dave Sanders Senior Member • Posts: 2,456
Re: So I'm NOT seeing what I'm seeing?

peppermonkey wrote:

All I said is that I see what the other guy said he sees. Which is that the PL 25mm photos look more 3D and the colours are different enough to make the gradient smoother, more natural and again, more 3D. I didn't say the PL is better than the Oly. Just that it's different. Why is that such a big deal?

Because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how many steps in the digital imaging workflow - especially those dealing with colour and tone - can affect the final look of an image, especially an 8 bit sRGB JPEG. I own the PL25. I've shot thousands of photos with it, professional and personal. Once I have applied my colour management and workflow, it's images looks like I want them to look. But please, feel free to continue to argue that you see what you see (3D!) on a low-res, 8 bit JPEG without understanding how ridiculous that assertion actually is.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

peppermonkey Veteran Member • Posts: 4,569
Oh for goodness sakes...
1

Dave Sanders wrote:

peppermonkey wrote:

All I said is that I see what the other guy said he sees. Which is that the PL 25mm photos look more 3D and the colours are different enough to make the gradient smoother, more natural and again, more 3D. I didn't say the PL is better than the Oly. Just that it's different. Why is that such a big deal?

Because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how many steps in the digital imaging workflow - especially those dealing with colour and tone - can affect the final look of an image, especially an 8 bit sRGB JPEG. I own the PL25. I've shot thousands of photos with it, professional and personal. Once I have applied my colour management and workflow, it's images looks like I want them to look. But please, feel free to continue to argue that you see what you see (3D!) on a low-res, 8 bit JPEG without understanding how ridiculous that assertion actually is.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

no one is saying that the images are 3D or anything to do with a 3D images. All we are saying is that there is a (lack of a better word) more 3D look to it. Whether it's a difference in micro-contrast, colour gradients, I haven't a clue. The photos just has a more natural organic look. This is mostly seen from images of people, pets, or other organic subjects. Buildings, artificial objects, etc. doesn't seem to be affected, so the Oly is probably better suited for such subjects. We aren't talking 3D technology. And it has nothing (as far as I can tell) to do with DOF. Certain images just has more pop, ...more 3D "look".

And as I mentioned, somewhere in this thread, whatever phenomenon (as I seem to not able to describe it properly) I'm seeing isn't drastic or 'that' significant, but enough to be noticeable. It's either that or the Oly is just more flatter, more clinical or some combination of both.

-- hide signature --

Hubert
My non-digital gear: Agfa Isolette, Fed 2, Konica Auto S2, K1000, Yashica Electro 35 GX, Recesky
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2034/2457111090_00eafbf8a4_m.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peppermonkey/

 peppermonkey's gear list:peppermonkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 Sigma DP2 Sony RX100 II Pentax K110D Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads