grahamule
grahamule
Okay, I'm going to start this by saying it is completely anecdotal and not to be taken as gospel, though I am sure it might be controversial anyway. And sorry it got to be so long, but I wanted to describe the situation.
Several weeks ago, I was shopping and in the process of considering making a major shift in my gear (specifically, I was looking at the x100 vs. m9). I wanted to see if the (new) preferences that I was developing were completely in my head or not. Lots and lots of people say that people see the signature of a lens or camera because they are looking for it and that they want to see it because they know it should be there.
Anyway, I found some work by a photographer online that I mostly like, and he had a few dozen examples posted taken with the x100, m9+35 summicron, and m9+zeiss 35/f2 (among others of course, but I was going for some kind of consistency). The pictures were of varying subject matter and settings, both b&w and color, etc., although there were no "side-by-side" shots any particular scene with the different gear. But being from the same person, they all had a similar overall style.
So I collected these few dozen photographs and mixed them all up among each other. I sat my wife down with me and *only* asked her to look at the photos, and tell me for each one if she liked it or not or how much. Whatever she wanted to say. I asked her to pick out her favorites, her next favorites, least favorites, etc. I also told her to try not to judge the pictures by the subject or content, but really just the aesthetics of the photo itself, though I admitted to her and here that this can be hard to do. I tried to keep my instructions as vague as possible, trying not to bias her answers. When she gave me opinions on any photo, negative or positive, I would ask *only* "why", with no leading questions or adjectives. A few days later, I repeated the exact same procedure with a friend. Neither my wife nor my friend has any photography experience or interest really. And they don't really spend time looking through photo books or magazines. Also, I had not yet discussed what I was shopping for before this, so they shouldn't have had an idea of what they were looking at.
I didn't keep an exact count, but a running tally in my head corresponding to a ratio, and the results were as follows:
Wife: preferred the m9 to x100 about 3 to 1, and of the m9 photos the summicron to zeiss about 2 to 1. When asked why, some of the exact words she used were (among others): pop, vivid, sharp, 3D, contrast, etc., and less interesting things like pretty, neat, etc. She seemed to like the subject separation in the photos, and pointed this out in both cameras, but made the comment more often with the m9.
Friend: preferred the m9 to x100 about 2 to 1, and of the m9 photos the summicron to zeiss about 2 to 1, although he consistently liked the zeiss b&w photos better than the summicron b&w. He used words like: sharp, colors, pop, and seemed to not like the shallow DOF examples as much, though commented on a couple that he did like.
Again, I was very careful not to provide these adjectives to them before hand, because I wanted to see what they would see and how they would describe it on their own. I was kind of shocked when they both said "pop" and the wife said "3D". I kind of expected "sharpness" and "colors" (in either a positive or negative way).
Part of me wanted them to not tell a difference or prefer the x100 so I could talk myself out of the m9 cost. But I preferred the m9 so part of me wanted them to prefer it as well to confirm me. And by the way, I am now with an m9 + zeiss because right now I slightly prefer the zeiss look, and wanted to get some more experience with the system before making the decisions about spending the bucks on the leica glass (issues like asph vs. pre-asph, etc. 🙂 )
Several weeks ago, I was shopping and in the process of considering making a major shift in my gear (specifically, I was looking at the x100 vs. m9). I wanted to see if the (new) preferences that I was developing were completely in my head or not. Lots and lots of people say that people see the signature of a lens or camera because they are looking for it and that they want to see it because they know it should be there.
Anyway, I found some work by a photographer online that I mostly like, and he had a few dozen examples posted taken with the x100, m9+35 summicron, and m9+zeiss 35/f2 (among others of course, but I was going for some kind of consistency). The pictures were of varying subject matter and settings, both b&w and color, etc., although there were no "side-by-side" shots any particular scene with the different gear. But being from the same person, they all had a similar overall style.
So I collected these few dozen photographs and mixed them all up among each other. I sat my wife down with me and *only* asked her to look at the photos, and tell me for each one if she liked it or not or how much. Whatever she wanted to say. I asked her to pick out her favorites, her next favorites, least favorites, etc. I also told her to try not to judge the pictures by the subject or content, but really just the aesthetics of the photo itself, though I admitted to her and here that this can be hard to do. I tried to keep my instructions as vague as possible, trying not to bias her answers. When she gave me opinions on any photo, negative or positive, I would ask *only* "why", with no leading questions or adjectives. A few days later, I repeated the exact same procedure with a friend. Neither my wife nor my friend has any photography experience or interest really. And they don't really spend time looking through photo books or magazines. Also, I had not yet discussed what I was shopping for before this, so they shouldn't have had an idea of what they were looking at.
I didn't keep an exact count, but a running tally in my head corresponding to a ratio, and the results were as follows:
Wife: preferred the m9 to x100 about 3 to 1, and of the m9 photos the summicron to zeiss about 2 to 1. When asked why, some of the exact words she used were (among others): pop, vivid, sharp, 3D, contrast, etc., and less interesting things like pretty, neat, etc. She seemed to like the subject separation in the photos, and pointed this out in both cameras, but made the comment more often with the m9.
Friend: preferred the m9 to x100 about 2 to 1, and of the m9 photos the summicron to zeiss about 2 to 1, although he consistently liked the zeiss b&w photos better than the summicron b&w. He used words like: sharp, colors, pop, and seemed to not like the shallow DOF examples as much, though commented on a couple that he did like.
Again, I was very careful not to provide these adjectives to them before hand, because I wanted to see what they would see and how they would describe it on their own. I was kind of shocked when they both said "pop" and the wife said "3D". I kind of expected "sharpness" and "colors" (in either a positive or negative way).
Part of me wanted them to not tell a difference or prefer the x100 so I could talk myself out of the m9 cost. But I preferred the m9 so part of me wanted them to prefer it as well to confirm me. And by the way, I am now with an m9 + zeiss because right now I slightly prefer the zeiss look, and wanted to get some more experience with the system before making the decisions about spending the bucks on the leica glass (issues like asph vs. pre-asph, etc. 🙂 )
