Nick Baker wrote:
imo only the first photo and the camel eye really show the 3d effect. The rest are just background/subject isolation. (not saying they are bad photos in any wasy... just not good examples)
hmmmm ... It's difficult to understand what the pros keep saying about this "3d effect" then. I keep seeing photos taken with high quality lenses showing a certain feel that is unmatched by other lenses .. irrespective of the body used.
Hang out in the alt lens forum and you will hear the zeiss junkies waxing eloquent about it. lol.
I've read the same "feel" argument from owners of expensive German lenses as well.
Ok, here is ultimate proof that not only is a pro body unnessary but that you also do not need an expensive lens.
So all it boils down to is how bright the lens is?
Nick Baker wrote:
imo only the first photo and the camel eye really show the 3d effect. The rest are just background/subject isolation. (not saying they are bad photos in any wasy... just not good examples)
The so called 3d effect is NOT just subject background isolation. It is also a product of strong midtone contrast/microcontrast. Hang out in the alt lens forum and you will hear the zeiss junkies waxing eloquent about it. lol.
Ok, here is ultimate proof that not only is a pro body unnessary but that you also do not need an expensive lens.
Canon Xti + Canon 50mm 1.8 II (cost me 70$)
[image]...Show more →
I agree, although midtone/microcontrast can always be manipulated post.
Awesome picture with the gun, btw. I like how the focus is just far enough past the gun sight to make it appear as though it's "in your face"
If there is any lens that can really pop the subject though, it's gotta be the 85L. It renders out of focus areas in some sort of spherical shape, which seems to really help with the effect:
I know, I know, it was taken with the 5D2, but I swear that if I had it on the 400D at the time, it would look about the same (I wouldn't have to crop, in any case).
jeremy_clay wrote:
?? This thread seems to be a lot of random photographs of pretty much anything? I don't get much of a '3D' effect from many, am I missing something?
jeremy_clay wrote:
?? This thread seems to be a lot of random photographs of pretty much anything? I don't get much of a '3D' effect from many, am I missing something?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Who ever made such an argument?
I've never seen that particular argument made.
However, I have seen arguments that certain xx/yy (where xx = focal length and yy = max aperture) lenses are "more 3D" than others lenses with the same values.
DavidP wrote:
I've never seen that particular argument made.
However, I have seen arguments that certain xx/yy (where xx = focal length and yy = max aperture) lenses are "more 3D" than others lenses with the same values.
I've seen a lot of "5D images is just like soooo 3D and stuff"
jeremy_clay wrote:
?? This thread seems to be a lot of random photographs of pretty much anything? I don't get much of a '3D' effect from many, am I missing something?
No I dont think you are. People are confusing blurred background and subject isolation as "3d"
My educated guess is that it results as a combination of contrast, microcontrast, lighting, and lens attributes as well as composition. Sensor date likely also infulences this as it affect how all these others are captured.
Just shooting a long lens at a wide aperture do not produce this 3d illusion.
As it is an illusion the viewer is also part of the equation, just like how some people can see the hidden images in those garbled trippy posters from the 90s (not sure what they were called) and some cannot.
Oh this question should be asked on the alt gear forum where you will be told and shown that Canon glass does not have the requisite microcontrast etc to give that 3D effect, even glass like the 85L or 135L fails compared to Zeiss and Leica offerings.
