There's a little bit of brand snobbery going on here, I suspect. To my eye there are a few excellent shots which exhibit a remarkable sense of depth on that thread. There are also a few who seem to think depth = depth of field (or lack thereof), but that always happens. I've had impressive results from some of my Canon lenses - especially the 24-105 and 70-200 4IS - and often they have exhibited a strong sense of depth. The main reason I prefer non canon lenses is size, discretion and cost (though I now have more invested in lenses than I ever would have had had I stuck with Canon lenses). Depth has much more to do with the kind and quality of light than it ever has to do with equipment IMO. Hopefully I'm starting to learn that.
Justin D wrote:
There's a little bit of brand snobbery going on here, I suspect. .
there is always some pressure to justify all the $$$$ paid for top brand-name gear. justification through an elusive and subjective aspect/characteristic has always been the easiest... but i agree, there are a few really good shots in that thread, a few of them probably as good if not better then a few of the self-proclaimed 3D samples in the dedicated thread here.
eosslr wrote:
there is always some pressure to justify all the $$$$ paid for top brand-name gear. justification through an elusive and subjective aspect/characteristic has always been the easiest...
Seems to me it's the other way around. The Contax Yashica lenses are generally quite cheap for their specs, with a few notable exceptions. Most of them do very well for 3D. Some Canon lenses do 3D quite well, and it's not only the expensive ones. There is a great 3D shot on that thread taken with a 35-135. Meanwhile some quite expensive Leica lenses, while excellent in all other respects, seem to struggle to create any 3D impression at all.
3D impression is an aspect of performance which might lead you to prefer a cheap Contax over a pricey Canon L, Nikkor or Leica.
Justin D wrote:
There's a little bit of brand snobbery going on here, I suspect.
To my mind it's the other way around. Leica is IMO the brand which enjoys the greatest snob status, but also the brand which arguably has made many lenses which don't give an especially strong 3D impression.
As a once upon a time scientist, I could not resist the challenge. So I went to the canon 3D thread... At the same time thinking of my own experience. Just now I´m blinded by my ZE21. But before that, in my own opinion, my Love, the 50L, and perhaps my 135L do it from time to time.
Well I nailed all Zeiss lenses. Not a single error. Some sort of Minolta got me tricked, the 135L´s got me looking close and decide, yes, 3D. And then: 50L+450D! Thank you, brainiac. On a sample size of 2, I hereby conclude that a 50L do at times produce a 3D effect on a 450D. QED.
brainiac wrote:
To my mind it's the other way around. Leica is IMO the brand which enjoys the greatest snob status, but also the brand which arguably has made many lenses which don't give an especially strong 3D impression.
I think Justin means "here" as in "alt forum". The Canon forum would be "there". To say that none of the images except a Contax shot exhibit 3D is at least ridiculous if not brand snobbery. There are lots of pics over there that exhibit 3D, at least to my eyes.
StevenPA wrote:
I think Justin means "here" as in "alt forum". The Canon forum would be "there". To say that none of the images except a Contax shot exhibit 3D is at least ridiculous if not brand snobbery. There are lots of pics over there that exhibit 3D, at least to my eyes.
Yes, there are more of them now, but when most of the above comments were made there were very, very few.
wickerprints wrote:
I often see photographers claim to know that a particular image was taken with a particular lens, or has a particular "look." Yet not a single one of them has defined it, nor have they passed a blind test designed to verify their ability to do so.
In all fairness, the KR gentlemen has quantified certain characteristics of lenses that denote the brand and model. Sunstar points from bright lights at night, for instance.
However, I've lurked in many of the 3D threads and after reading them, I've found a decided lack of quantification and qualification of what makes an image 3D. Thus, I find myself not worrying about it.
Though for the amateur noob who only has (cheap) Canon lenses, please school me on what your definitions and perceptions of 3D are. Not the lens or the reasoning behind it, but what about an image is 3D. Thanks
kakomu wrote:
In all fairness, the KR gentlemen has quantified certain characteristics of lenses that denote the brand and model. Sunstar points from bright lights at night, for instance.
However, I've lurked in many of the 3D threads and after reading them, I've found a decided lack of quantification and qualification of what makes an image 3D. Thus, I find myself not worrying about it.
Though for the amateur noob who only has (cheap) Canon lenses, please school me on what your definitions and perceptions of 3D are. Not the lens or the reasoning behind it, but what about an image is 3D. Thanks...Show more →
I don't disagree with your point about the number of diaphragm blades. But not all photos show this--in fact, I would say only a tiny minority do. And among those, it's hardly a unique indicator. There are many lenses with the same number of blades.
But please tell me you did NOT just mention KR.
In case you didn't know:
KR is a bigmouth who takes mediocre images and makes sweeping oversimplifications that are known to be false. He has also made borderline racist comments that allude to the superiority of German (read: white, western) optics and the poor quality of "Oriental" equipment. (His terminology, not mine...used by him to refer to Japan and China, demonstrating complete obliviousness to the historical usage of that word.) Oh, and he calls film "RealRAW," as a sort of slap in the face to all the rest of us who got with the times. He justifies film because he is too ignorant to know how to process digital. Yet he practically has an orgasm over the M9--a digital body.
Is he always wrong? No. But as the saying goes, even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day. In short, he is a joke. I visit his site from time to time, when I need a good laugh, because after shooting for 6 months I take better shots than he does.
That being said, whether or not I agree with him, I still find his website interesting.
Nevertheless, I was hoping someone could point out some characteristics of photos that make them potentially 3D.
Indeed I did... guilty as charged. My bad.
Ugh. I better learn not to bring him up. Just gives him more publicity, with which he apparently feeds his growing family. They must be giants by now.
As for the 3D thing...yeah. I'm kinda waiting for that too. But not holding my breath. Don't own a single piece of non-Canon gear (yet), and I have plenty of images that almost literally jump out of the screen, how vibrant they are.
so which lens did wayne seltzer and pingflood use? In wayne's picture the lighting is quite strong adding a bit to the full details; however I think pingflood picture is more natural.
