philber wrote:
So you are saying that the pic is not "3D", wickerprints? And how do you find that in the EXIF?
I'm implying that people will assume that if it was shot on a 5D2 that it was taken with a "crappy" EF L lens, not a "real" Zeiss/Leica lens. Of course, they don't really know that for sure...
Some people (in particular, I'm thinking of a fellow with the initials "KR") look at a photo and if they are told it was taken by an M9, it instantly becomes fine art. Somehow, the act of capturing light--any light--through a sufficiently expensive camera, makes that light more aesthetically pleasing. I think it's more likely a post hoc justification for having spent so much money.
I'm not sure, since English is not my native language. I meant that its not an inherent quality of the lens, for reasons stated above. It is merely the result of the interaction between the spectator and the produced photo.
The fact that many photo's are interpreted as having 3d effect by many people does imply that some lenses may render like our own eyes perhaps? This is perhaps the most interesting part, because if that were to be true and we could find ways to design lenses to be the most 'accurate' it would be a quality of the lens. (but you would have to like that of course, because that would mean clinical photo's)
*Disclaimer: if above doesn't make any sense to you, it might be because its badly written by a Dutchman
How come a Zeiss/Leica could not have a 5D2 on the back ? One of the reasons Leica R lenses are still a good buy is the fact that those lenses can get a second life in front of a Canon or Sony, of course a DMR or a film-R would be also a good fit.
As to the expensive part, I saw so many images made by talented people over at flickr with just a DRebel and a kit lens that it started me asking myself if I am douing the right thing hanging around in forums like these
(in reaction to Philber)
I don't need to answer that. Its up to himself if he feels the depth. I know I've seen better examples (love the colours though!)
It seems to me the equation goes something like this. {[(focal length + subject)/perspective + (lens resolution*drawing style)/sharpness of focus](light + DoF)}/the audience = an image focused precisely, be it in a selective area or across the entire image, with sufficient detail and contrast to confound the viewer's visual perceptions, giving a two-dimensional image the appearance of depth. Not everyone can "see" it. Not everyone can "see" it in the same images. You can only confound some of the people some of the time, after all. Can every lens do it? Maybe. If everything else in the equation aligns perfectly, resolution and drawing style might not make the difference, but it's certainly easier to achieve with a high resolution lens with high fine contrast.
freaklikeme wrote:
It seems to me the equation goes something like this. {[(focal length + subject)/perspective + (lens resolution*drawing style)/sharpness of focus](light + DoF)}/the audience = an image focused precisely, be it in a selective area or across the entire image, with sufficient detail and contrast to confound the viewer's visual perceptions, giving a two-dimensional image the appearance of depth. Not everyone can "see" it. Not everyone can "see" it in the same images. You can only confound some of the people some of the time, after all. Can every lens do it? Maybe. If everything else in the equation aligns perfectly, resolution and drawing style might not make the difference, but it's certainly easier to achieve with a high resolution lens with high fine contrast....Show more →
freaklikeme wrote:
It seems to me the equation goes something like this. {[(focal length + subject)/perspective + (lens resolution*drawing style)/sharpness of focus](light + DoF)}/the audience = an image focused precisely, be it in a selective area or across the entire image, with sufficient detail and contrast to confound the viewer's visual perceptions, giving a two-dimensional image the appearance of depth....
Are you sure that you don't need to multiply the LHS of the equation by '42'?
I agree. I did it on purpose, with a Zeiss 21mm. Which shows that some lenses "can" do it, but the Z lens alone is not enough... I told you I was going to stir a bit of trouble...
philber wrote:
Don't forget the Navyblue, we were all noobs, once... come and join the fun...
Yes, I forgot the smiley.
It sure looks like fun. However it seems that most of these lenses in question are too rich for my blood. If there are any "cheap" ones, especially in the macro department, feel free to recommend.
nice.