p.1 #1 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
First, these images were not taken with this comparison in mind, so there are variations in subject magnification and lighting which ideally would not be here. But I think they still offer a stepping-off point for my broad question:
Why does the Zeiss 100/2 image look more 3D, and the Nikkor 135/2 image look flat and cardboard cutout-ish by comparison? Is it entirely due to the Zeiss' "3D" rendering capability, said to be from its superior microcontrast, and CA control? Or is it simply due to the difference in focal length? I have a feeling it's a combination of the two, but which is more important?
With each subject below, one image was shot with the Zeiss 100, and the other with the Nikkor 135. To me, the subject is clearly more "present" with the Zeiss shot in both cases. Don't pay attention to the EXIF, as it comes from only one of the images in both cases, due to the way I made the diptychs in Photoshop. Some of you already know which is which, from info in other threads....but if you don't know, is it obvious? It's quite possible I am nuts, and since I KNOW which was shot with which lens, I am mentally compensating for my uncertainty that it was a good idea to drop the cash for the Zeiss.
p.1 #3 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
The first two shots look a bit more "3d" to me, I believe due to lighting and the fact that the subject is within the depth of field, rather than lens differences. The subject has some rim lighting (hair & shoulders, particularly in the 2nd shot down) that defines the subjects very well. This seems to be lacking in the last two shots.
On the depth of field, in the last two shots, particularly the last one (shoulder on the right side), the subject is not fully within the depth of field and is starting to blur into the background.
I think this accounts for it more than any particularities to the lenses used. The last two shots probably could have looked similarly "3d" with more deliberate choice of aperture, subject distance, and lighting as the first two.
p.1 #4 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
The "3D" of Zeiss lenses is old news. Though I can't spot it in these shots, because of way too little sharpening when downscaling, I know exactly what you talk about from my own experience with Zeiss lenses. And I believe it's all about local contrast. They aren't necessarily optimized for highest possible resolution, but for a certain look.
The most interesting thing is that the "3D" is even more present in shots without blurry backgrounds. So it's not about the bokeh.
p.1 #6 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Makten wrote:
The "3D" of Zeiss lenses is old news. Though I can't spot it in these shots, because of way too little sharpening when downscaling, I know exactly what you talk about from my own experience with Zeiss lenses. And I believe it's all about local contrast. They aren't necessarily optimized for highest possible resolution, but for a certain look.
The most interesting thing is that the "3D" is even more present in shots without blurry backgrounds. So it's not about the bokeh.
Maybe it's the types of images we're used to looking at, or, like I said, maybe I am convincing myself of something that isn't there. Your image, while remarkable for its detail and color, doesn't yield the 3D effect for me. I agree it's not about the bokeh, because I think the bokeh is beautiful and well-separated with both lenses.
p.1 #7 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Zebrabot wrote:
I'm confused here.
Was the question "Why do photos taken with different focal lengths look different" or were you asking what bogus terms like "microcontrast" mean?
Not sure where you became confused.
My question is whether the difference I'm seeing is due to FL compression, or to the way the lenses render. I never asked the definition of microcontrast, and in fact assumed that it was a useful term. But if it's "bogus," I'd really like to know why?
p.1 #8 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
wellsjt wrote:
The first two shots look a bit more "3d" to me, I believe due to lighting and the fact that the subject is within the depth of field, rather than lens differences. The subject has some rim lighting (hair & shoulders, particularly in the 2nd shot down) that defines the subjects very well. This seems to be lacking in the last two shots.
On the depth of field, in the last two shots, particularly the last one (shoulder on the right side), the subject is not fully within the depth of field and is starting to blur into the background.
I think this accounts for it more than any particularities to the lenses used. The last two shots probably could have looked similarly "3d" with more deliberate choice of aperture, subject distance, and lighting as the first two.
Just my $0.02, and great shots, by the way....Show more →
Thank you for your reply.
I just want to be clear: of each set of two images, one was shot with each lens. So there are two lenses at work in the first two, and two lenses in the last two.
p.1 #9 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Micro contrast is a completely legitimate term when discussing the nuances of lens design and rendering style.
There's been a great deal of discussion regarding 3D look in the Alternative Gear forum. One of the things that's often overlooked and IMHO the most important part is the mystical 'usual edge effect' that Zeiss lenses render on the OOF edges, near OOF edges, and in even in focus edges. High edge contrast and micro contrast is part of this.
Another part of the 3D effect seems to be a lowering of the contrast in the OOF areas, though this isn't always the case. The OOF areas of a lens that displays amazing 3D generally is not smooth and does not classify as technically perfect boke.
Comparatively DOF plays a smaller role than you'd think. Framing can help greatly. Many folks will never be able to identify the '3D' look, their eyes just can't see it or they don't know how to recognize it.
The lens that I've seen that creates the strongest 3D with the least work seems to be the 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss. There will soon be a ZF and ZE version of this lens.
p.1 #11 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I would say definitely #2 and probably 3 are ZF 100. Look at the great separation in #2 giving the feeling he is about to jump off the page. Obviously it would really help shooting same objects at same views. As Martin said, getting 3D with that lens doesn't even require an OOF area, planar objects show plenty of pop with this lens that is missing in the Nikon. Not one Nikon lens can match the pop you get from the micro contrast found in Zeiss lenses
Jammy, in addition the ZF 35 f/2 gets the 3D pop without even trying. But I sure am looking forward to that 35 1.4
p.1 #12 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Zebrabot wrote:
I can't wait to start seeing things I may not be able to see in photos.
This is cutting edge stuff- sign me up for an entire set of zeiss lenses, but first I have to get back to installing a $900 audio cables.
Welcome to FM. Skepticism is fine. It's a good thing. But empty sarcasm with no associated contribution might not be the best way to integrate into what has become for me a very beneficial and friendly community. Just a thought, take it or leave it.
Honestly, I have had similar thoughts to yours in the past. I assumed the legendary Zeiss IQ was stuff for pixel peepers and measurebators, not to be of concern to people who just wanted to get out and shoot. I also wasn't too interested in finding out about Zeiss, because I thought manual focus would be ridiculous and impossible for me. But, as luck would have it, I fell into some MF lenses, and realized I could do it. Which piqued my interest in all the Zeiss hubbub. So I started looking through images....thousands if them, over and over on filckriver and the alt forum. It didn't take long for me to realize there was something there that's real. A legitimate difference in the way the lenses render. Not saying better or worse, just different. And it's subtle, and indeed not everyone can see it. But the more I look at images, the more obvious and striking the difference becomes. It's there. I also suspect that people who can't see it will still experience a subliminal effect of it, and might consistently be able to identify a Zeiss image vs one from another lens. They may prefer it, or they may not, but I think there's a definite quality there which will be noticed on some level. Particularly for NON-photographers, who don't have any kind of bias.
p.1 #13 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
There is something different in Zeiss and Leica shots. Not everyone can see it (and not every shot has it, but in general). The Zeiss shots generally do 3D very well. I would pick #1 in the first pair and #2 in the second pair as the Zeiss shots, btw.
I sold/traded a MF digital back for a Zeiss ZF 21 and a wad of cash, and although I was initially going to sell it to get the 14-24G, I am now considering keeping it, due to the great look of the photos I make with that lens on my D3. There is definitely something going on, and I am considering adding a ZF.2 50/2 Makro as my next Zeiss lens. Having the Nikkor 60/2.8 Micro makes this a hard choice though.
p.1 #14 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
here are a few shots from Zeiss lenses that should help with the 'pop'/'3D' effect that one gets. If you think any of these suck...its me, not the lens
p.1 #15 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Zebrabot wrote:
I can't wait to start seeing things I may not be able to see in photos.
This is cutting edge stuff- sign me up for an entire set of zeiss lenses, but first I have to get back to installing a $900 audio cables.
Cheapskate!
I have cables that range from $125 to $4000 and the differences are notable. Even non-audiogeek friends can easily hear and describe them. Most of them don't find them significant enough to spend their own cash on the cables, but that's a different issue than whether they hear them and consistently describe them. Just as with certain lenses, the differences are there and can be seen/heard in blind tests (well, blind in audio tests, however it is best to use your eyes when viewing pictures). Whether these differences mean enough to you to look for and pay for is an altogether different question. So, enjoy your gear but just because you don't examine your shots close enough to see the Zeiss thing is a personal issue.
p.1 #16 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
carstenw wrote:
There is something different in Zeiss and Leica shots. Not everyone can see it (and not every shot has it, but in general). The Zeiss shots generally do 3D very well. I would pick #1 in the first pair and #2 in the second pair as the Zeiss shots, btw.
I sold/traded a MF digital back for a Zeiss ZF 21 and a wad of cash, and although I was initially going to sell it to get the 14-24G, I am now considering keeping it, due to the great look of the photos I make with that lens on my D3. There is definitely something going on, and I am considering adding a ZF.2 50/2 Makro as my next Zeiss lens. Having the Nikkor 60/2.8 Micro makes this a hard choice though....Show more →
Here are some ZF 50 for you shot over the weekend I had the 60 AF-S...this is sharper, and yes, it is possible
p.1 #17 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Jammy Straub wrote:
Micro contrast is a completely legitimate term when discussing the nuances of lens design and rendering style.
There's been a great deal of discussion regarding 3D look in the Alternative Gear forum. One of the things that's often overlooked and IMHO the most important part is the mystical 'usual edge effect' that Zeiss lenses render on the OOF edges, near OOF edges, and in even in focus edges. High edge contrast and micro contrast is part of this.
Another part of the 3D effect seems to be a lowering of the contrast in the OOF areas, though this isn't always the case. The OOF areas of a lens that displays amazing 3D generally is not smooth and does not classify as technically perfect boke.
Comparatively DOF plays a smaller role than you'd think. Framing can help greatly. Many folks will never be able to identify the '3D' look, their eyes just can't see it or they don't know how to recognize it.
The lens that I've seen that creates the strongest 3D with the least work seems to be the 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss. There will soon be a ZF and ZE version of this lens.
Lloyd's excellent ZF review article contains many images that show this unique quality. ...Show more →
Hey, Jammy, you often make very specific comments about how lenses draw stuff....I'm wondering if the Zeissness is obvious to you in either or both of the pairs I posted?
As an aside, and in reference to Diglloyd: this is something else I was very skeptical about. Paying for info I could dig up on the internet?? Hmmm......but I was finally convinced to subscribe, and I have zero regrets. Great information there, and LOTS of it. Sure, I could probably eventually find most of it by Googling, asking questions on forums, etc. But on diglloyd.com, it's tight, organized, flows logically, etc. A high quality resource.
p.1 #18 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Speaker cables aren't necessarily bogus, but when you hardly can even measure the difference between a $900 (speaker) cable and a simple lamp cable, something is terribly wrong. The difference in lenses can however easily be measured and seen if you throw away any prejudiced thoughts.
There is no bogus in "microcontrast", as it is the same as "sharpness", but at a coarser level. I've seen some of the 3D-look from Olympus lenses too, but not as strong as with Zeiss. And I've owned enough Nikkors to know that they seldom give the same look. In some cases it's unwanted because it might actually be distracting.
You'll get close with Nikkors, but not all the way to the cigar. The most interesting part is that the "effect" can be seen with very different optical designs from Zeiss. The Makro-Planar 100/2 is in the top, but even the "simple" 50/1.4 gives stunning results that I haven't seen from the other seven 50 mm lenses I've owned, including the AF-S and 50/1.2 Nikkors.
The term "3D" might make some of you laugh out loud, since the screen obviously can't show anything but 2D. But to my eyes there's an impression of looking through the screen here. Not to mention the incredible "color resolution". Look at all the different colors and tones in the wall.
p.1 #19 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Warnke wrote:
Cheapskate!
I have cables that range from $125 to $4000 and the differences are notable.
What's your $4000 cable?
While all these posts were going on, I want out to lunch and took some photos instead of staring at picture of some dude trying to figure out how 3D he looks.
p.1 #20 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Makten wrote:
Speaker cables aren't necessarily bogus, but when you hardly can even measure the difference between a $900 (speaker) cable and a simple lamp cable, something is terribly wrong. The difference in lenses can however easily be measured and seen if you throw away any prejudiced thoughts.
.
interesting sub-thread here. I have $2400 speaker cables and the difference in the sound quality is night and day! Like two totally different systems! Couldn't give a monkeys what they measure on these things, the only measurement that counts is plugging them in and listening. Power cables also make a massive difference in a high end audio system.
I suppose the lens analogy is that some people over-analyse what can be measured (eg MTF) and miss the whole point, which is: do you like the way the lens renders the image captured? I personally prefer the second image in each pair of examples posted above.
