View Full Version : Does this study apply to expensive lenses? Are you all suckers?
M. Valdemar
01-14-2008, 16:52
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=newsmap
I think it does. Leica lenses as opposed to FSU lenses.
Audio equipment too. It's the "chump" factor.
For example, knowledge of a beer's ingredients and brand can affect reported taste quality, and the reported enjoyment of a film is influenced by expectations about its quality," the researchers said. "Even more intriguingly, changing the price at which an energy drink is purchased can influence the ability to solve puzzles."
Test it yourself. Buy a $10 bottle of wine, drink it and then use it for a lens. Let us know the results....lol
Bob
Why such anger and attitude?
This is exactly why proper scientific tests are done using the so called "double blind" methodology. e.g. in a trial of a new medicine, neither the person adminstering the tests, nor the person undergoing them knows whether a real medicine has been administered or whether its a placebo. This is to avoid giving accidental / unconscious signals to the person taking the medicine /placebo. It does not surprise me that the same principle applies with other products as the effect is well known and is real.
And of course, manufacturers / marketers of all sorts of products have known this for yonks. Ask my wife about expensive French perfume for example. I bought her some expensive stuff for xmas a couple of years ago but boought it at about 40% off in a discount perfumery. When I accidentally fessed up to her, she became convinced that it was cheap copy perfume (although I am sure it is not) and decided that it smelled like crap. The power of the human mind!
This is exactly why proper scientific tests are done using the so called "double blind" methodology. e.g. in a trial of a new medicine, neither the person adminstering the tests, nor the person undergoing them knows whether a real medicine has been administered or whether its a placebo. This is to avoid giving accidental / unconscious signals to the person taking the medicine /placebo. It does not surprise me that the same principle applies with other products as the effect is well known and is real.
Funny thing is, placebo's often work better than the medicine.
mackigator
01-14-2008, 17:22
The good news is the expensive wine tastes better!
Valdemar,
Thanks for sharing. Interesting but not surprising :rolleyes:
The good news is the expensive wine tastes better!
Excellent one :D :D
Oh about your question, yes of course it applies to lenses. But as Peter pointed out, "this is exactly why proper scientific tests are done using the so called "double blind" methodology".
This is all about expectation that expensive products have superior quality. If you think you're using a $2000 Leica lense, of course you expect some quality and you anticipate it (it's a kind of adaptative preference). But you can be disappointed also ... so price is only one parameter of our expectations.
Nihil novi sub sole ...
I'm curious about the people who made up the sample that was tested. Did these people pass some threshold of expertise? I didn't look up the actual study (which simply shows the limits to my curiousity).
Relevant to lenses: Does this make a case for listening to "experts" and knowing at least enough to distinguish between who is likely to have reliable data and sound conclusions? People who are broadly acknowledged as being experts (according to criteria established in their field) tend to actually know more than enthusiasts, fans, amateurs, whatever.
(pause while some posters disdain the very concept of expertise)
Good grief ... now we're going to be deluged with images from J12's and 35mm Lux's by posters who didn't know which image they posted first asking us which one we like best while wearing a blindfold and drinking cheap wine!
Hey Pitxu ... chill out dude ... he only refered to us as suckers ... I've been called much worse by far better people! :p
This is perfectly understandable. I feel much more pleasure driving an Infinity than I do driving a Toyota. I also feel much better about my photography when I use a quality camera versus a cheap one. I participate in the activity (driving or photography) with a more engaged attitude.
Hey Pitxu ... chill out dude ... he only refered to us as suckers ... I've been called much worse by far better people! :p
I thought maybe we could help the guy, he's probably just spent his last dollar on some Leitz glass, then found out he only needed an Industar.:)
This is perfectly understandable. I feel much more pleasure driving an Infinity than I do driving a Toyota. I also feel much better about my photography when I use a quality camera versus a cheap one. I participate in the activity (driving or photography) with a more engaged attitude.
I think you've missed the point here. It's not quality vs cheap, but expensive vs cheap, the quality stays the same. It's the same wine in the two bottles.
waileong
01-14-2008, 18:36
http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html?tag=newsmap
I think it does. Leica lenses as opposed to FSU lenses.
Audio equipment too. It's the "chump" factor.
This is a study in psychology. However, it's flawed in two counts:
a. That the "Emperor's New Clothes" effect works, ie people will believe what the the price tag says.
But the truth is that, people can see and feel the difference between PVC and real leather, and between cheap leather and Connolly leather, for instance. You can't put a $10,000 price tag on a PVC seat and make people feel the quality of a Connolly leather seat.
b. That there is no real difference between a cheap item and an expensive item.
Clearly, the materials used in a cheap item and an expensive one are different, and this difference must translate into real-world differences, even if people can't differentiate them.
As for lenses, there are both objective and subjective tests (eg optical bench tests, pixel peeping, bokeh evaluations, etc) to show the differences.
The question is not whether people can see the difference-- train your eyes and you can certainly see it-- the question is whether it's wortg paying for.
Read the lemur article by Dante Stella if you want a counterpoint.
I'm going to Dafen:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/workshop_of_the_world_fine_art.php
There is no flaw in this study. They were testing to see if the stated price of a wine influenced subjects' enjoyment of it (even though they used the same wine in both expensive and cheap trials.) A single or double blind study is not an appropriate methodology to test this question. It needed to be done as it was, to test what was tested.
John Rountree
01-14-2008, 18:52
Vlad, first you are making a comparison that is not relevant to the wine story to which you refer. In that test they used the same wine with a different price on each bottle. In your analogy you are not comparing the same product with a different price tag, but two entirely different products. As for the vitriol and calling Leica lens users chumps ...it is both wrong and inappropriate. Your argument is exactly like the selling line of a local used car dealer. The used car salesman claims that their nicely detailed cars are every bit as good as a new car (regardless of the age) because : "If you can't see the difference, why pay the difference." I think all of us would agree that determining the value of anything goes far beyond external appearance.
foto_fool
01-14-2008, 18:54
What I find astounding is the implicit assumption that some of "us" might be immune to this effect.
I think Vlad's comparison is valid if you think of a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. Are all people capable of telling the difference (without studying)? If not, then the extra money is just the sizzle (for them). If you couldn't 'realy' tell the difference, you paid for a name printed on the lens.
Steve
waileong
01-14-2008, 19:24
There is no flaw in this study. They were testing to see if the stated price of a wine influenced subjects' enjoyment of it (even though they used the same wine in both expensive and cheap trials.) A single or double blind study is not an appropriate methodology to test this question. It needed to be done as it was, to test what was tested.
I disagree. I would not enjoy a Voigtlander lens more at 3x or 10x its market price. Indeed, my enjoyment might reduce-- I'd have higher expectations, and they might not be met.
This is precisely the issue with the entry of Zeiss-- people are questioning if Leica lenses are really worth the premium, both are venerable German names and the performance differences are slight, although there is still some build quality difference.
Hence the release of the new Summarits, to address this possible loss of enjoyment vis a vis the price tag differences.
nikonhswebmaster
01-14-2008, 19:30
I disagree. I would not enjoy a Voigtlander lens more at 3x or 10x its market price. Indeed, my enjoyment might reduce-- I'd have higher expectations, and they might not be met.
This is precisely the issue with the entry of Zeiss-- people are questioning if Leica lenses are really worth the premium, both are venerable German names and the performance differences are slight, although there is still some build quality difference.
Hence the release of the new Summarits, to address this possible loss of enjoyment vis a vis the price tag differences.
Ah but would you buy a Cosina lens with a Zeiss logo for twice as much, if you are told Zeiss had a hand in designing it? I mean who is Zeiss, other than another brand name?
The study must have been done on people who are not experienced wine drinkers.
Wine drinkers know that price does not necessarily reflect the quality, and can tell
good from bad.
Lenses are not wine! But we can all do "studies", can't we?
wgerrard
01-14-2008, 20:14
The study must have been done on people who are not experienced wine drinkers.
Wine drinkers know that price does not necessarily reflect the quality, and can tell
good from bad.
That's usually true, but the study did not ask the subjects their opnions. It measured activity in areas of the brain associated with a pleasure response.
I've heard of a similar study that measured reaction to restaurant meals. Served the same wine, some folks were told it was from California, others that it was from North Dakota (yes, really). Guess who thought the meal was better.
Perhaps believing we are drinking expensive wine by itself gives us pleasure and increases our satisfaction. Perhaps using the more expensive of two lenses, whose measurable differences can be discerned only in a laboratory, has the same effects.
antiquark
01-14-2008, 20:32
The history of an object often has its own value, separate from the object itself. That's why original paintings are worth more than identical copies.
Would you argue that this battered old M4 should be worth virtually nothing:
http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
Would you argue that this battered old M4 should be worth virtually nothing:
http://www.cameraquest.com/LeicaM4G.htm
I can only speak for myself in this case, and in the case of wines and lenses.
Just think of what archaelogists do for living :D!
After about six glasses of the cheap wine, I can't tell the difference, and I sure can't tell which lens I put on my camera. The only thing I want to know is if tax dollars funded the study. I'm tired of paying people to skew studies to get the answers they want on my dime.
Spyderman
01-15-2008, 03:02
Vlad, first you are making a comparison that is not relevant to the wine story to which you refer. In that test they used the same wine with a different price on each bottle. In your analogy you are not comparing the same product with a different price tag, but two entirely different products. As for the vitriol and calling Leica lens users chumps ...it is both wrong and inappropriate. Your argument is exactly like the selling line of a local used car dealer. The used car salesman claims that their nicely detailed cars are every bit as good as a new car (regardless of the age) because : "If you can't see the difference, why pay the difference." I think all of us would agree that determining the value of anything goes far beyond external appearance.
IMO this study applies to Leica lenses very well - the price of the lenses makes their owners think they are far above the rest...
ChadHahn
01-15-2008, 03:26
I don't know about this. I'm a Charles Shaw (2 buck Chuck) drinker and think that some of his wine is pretty darn good. I would have to be really impressed with a wine to think it was worth $90.
But then I'm cheap and would rather pay for a Toyota than a similar Lexus.
Chambrenoir.
That's the most offensive thing I've seen posted here. You have to be pretty low in the food chain to resort to that kind of humour.
Chambrenoir.
That's the most offensive thing I've seen posted here. You have to be pretty low in the food chain to resort to that kind of humour.
DITTO !!!
________
Welsh_Italian
01-15-2008, 04:18
after 6 glasses of wine, I'd be lucky if I could get the lens on my camera, never mind taking pictures with it.
After about six glasses of the cheap wine, I can't tell the difference, and I sure can't tell which lens I put on my camera. The only thing I want to know is if tax dollars funded the study. I'm tired of paying people to skew studies to get the answers they want on my dime.
Ernstk, Pitxu - I'm with you.
Chambrenoire's post #38 is in clear breech of rules #1 and #4.
This is intolerable.
Anybody remember photographs ..you know the things you get after using your box of tricks. We had one of the great picture mags here in the 30s-50s. 'Picture Post'. Their chief photographer went out with a box brownie and produced one of the greatest pics ever. Forget the glass....concentrate on whats in front of it. BTW anybody remember 'differential focus' ie in the posted pic of the 3 guys there's trees growing out of the back of all their heads. Come on guys!!!!!!!!!
That's the most offensive thing I've seen posted here. You have to be pretty low in the food chain to resort to that kind of humour.
It's a joke, lighten up. ;)
It's not nearly as "offensive" as current Leica prices, anyway. :D
It's a joke, lighten up. ;)
It's not nearly as "offensive" as current Leica prices, anyway. :D
Joke or not, I did not make rules #1 and #4.
Things doesnt always have to be politicly correct IMO. I have two friends of the family with downs syndrome and I take no offence in this.
Rules, PC or otherwise, are RULES.
The Golden Rules of RFF
Rule No. 1 - No "Flaming"
1) You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
Rule No. 4 - No "Offensive" Posts, Links or Images
4) You will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise violative of any local or international laws. This includes links in your signature, profile, bookmarks as well as posted images, photos and avatars. Staff will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not.
Well now, as is often the case, the fuss about the joke has become a bigger problem than was the joke itself. :bang:
No need to mount any moral hobby horses or put on your homemade hall-monitor hats, gents. :(
Well now, as is often the case, the fuss about the joke has become a bigger problem than was the joke itself. :bang:
No need to mount any moral hobby horses or put on your homemade hall-monitor hats, gents. :(
I would like to ask sponsoring member "kevin m" to what end serve the rules of this forum ?
ClaremontPhoto
01-15-2008, 05:20
It did not offend me.
nikonhswebmaster
01-15-2008, 05:21
Things doesnt always have to be politicly correct IMO. I have two friends of the family with downs syndrome and I take no offence in this.
I would kindly suggest you email these two friends of your family with this photo, and tell them you find this humor funny, and ask them to explain to you why (outside of the personal embarrassment to the child in the photo) this is not funny to them.
Although you may find that their children have been so subjected to "humor" during their lives, that they have developed a thick skin.
Pitxu, you were wrong about certain member's humor, I return to my original position. sitemistic, what are you thinking? that this is OK? Kevin, you and I often disagree, but this is ugly stuff. Not the end of the world, but still really ugly stuff.
Yes the Special Olympics is rigged to make people feel better about themselves, sure is funny. I am not personally offended, I don't have down's, as Richard I am ashamed.
And above all, Mattia Marchi, you are a rather good photographer, this is beneath you. Perhaps you do not understand what the special olympics in the US is about?
.
It did not offend me.
I'm sorry Jon, but how many people have to be offended before the rules are applied?
I personally found it extremely offensive but if Chambrenoire chose to remove the post I would bear him no resentment and would consider it a rather naive error of judgement!
I'd delete this tout d' suite if I were the admin. Most people would find that pretty offensive.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.