Originally posted by northcoastgreg I'm with those who regard pixie dust as real; the problem is that it is often ill-defined and poorly explained. Pixie dust is merely those subtle, immeasurable qualities which distinguishes an outstanding lens from a slightly less outstanding lens. The qualities in question may involve bokeh, color rendition, the so-called "3d look," and the overall "beauty" of the rendering. The ability to perceive and appreciate such "pixie dust" involves a discriminating sense that has to be developed; it is not something that everyone automatically has. Therefore it is pointless to post photos which supposedly manifest pixie dust, as only those with the ability to appreciate such qualities will have a chance of noticing them.
I agree with that. A novice user is unlikely to have the discriminating knack for noticing the extra subtle fine qualities manifested in pixie dust lenses and his belief that he nonetheless discriminates such qualities will probably be an illusion. Moreover, I would also note that pixie dust is of little (if any) practical use to professional photographers, since most (if not all) of their customers would be incapable of appreciating it. Appreciation of pixie dust is confined to connoisseurs of outstanding glass. For such people, the subtle qualities of an expensive lens can give real enjoyment, just as drinking fine wines or listening to exquisitely performed music gives enjoyment to connoisseurs of wine and fine music. To most people, however, such qualities are of little, if any, importance whatsoever.
Awesome post, great points, well-made. The part I've bolded sounds elitist as hell; bordering on Leica territory. But I agree fully, so I guess I am an elitist.
When I bought my first Zeiss lens, I was just highly curious to see if all of the hype was real. I was quickly caught up in the arguments about whether "Zeissness" was really a thing, or just some BS that people who dropped way too much cash on a lens needed to sell to themselves. Initial comparison testing with similar-but-way-cheaper glass led me to favor the "BS" theory; but over time, as I shot more and more with the lenses, and gained a feel for their rendering, I was swayed, and I firmly believe the Zeiss lenses I own have
something outside and above the standard array of mass-produced lenses. I believe the FA77 also has that. It does take a familiarity with the results that can only come from spending a lot of time with the lenses, shooting under a variety of scenarios.
Could I always pick out the images shot with the "pixie dust" lenses under blind tests? Not likely. But I guarantee I would get it right more often that would be predicted by random guessing. The fact that I can see it/not see it in my own images is evidence enough for me that the quality resides in the lens and not the shooter, though I'd love to take credit for having pixie dust in my personal technique. The very fact that it's not objectively identifiable is sort of what makes it "pixie dust," so endeavoring to find actual hard evidence for it is of debatable value.
And of course, it's always possible that I am a textbook case of Confirmation Bias.