Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
IMHO .. some "pros" take too much pride in their costly equipment and have to justify it by saying that other equipment is below them. It's just a mental thing. Some swear by Leicas and claim they see a big difference in the quality of Leica images compared to Canon/Nikon, etc.
DavidP wrote:
But you never see them identifying those images in a double-blind test.
David, you are on a crusade! ...I will agree with you by adding that "3-D" (whatever it is) is more a matter of composition than any other single element.
saaketham wrote:
Just to refute the argument that only pro bodies can produce that famed "3-D Effect", .
Where did you hear such argument ?
Following the thread, it seems that you are talking about combination of shallow DOF and/or the distance to the subject relative to the size of the subject. Anyway, those have nothing to do with the body !
Pondria wrote:Where did you hear such argument ?
In other threads on FM and elsewhere where a few pros diss on xxD models.
Following the thread, it seems that you are talking about combination of shallow DOF and/or the distance to the subject relative to the size of the subject. Anyway, those have nothing to do with the body !
You're arguing my point now.
DavidP wrote:
There is no such thing as a 3D effect.
If there is, somebody could actually define it.
The 3D effect of height, width, and depth on a 2 dimensional plane is the central illusion of photography. Even a pinhole camera can do it. Nick Baker's gunman and Jordan Steele's cityscape accomplish it, both admirably in their own fashion. Now if it were the same cityscape from the 30's, or a gunman with a cowboy hat and revolver, would the illusory passage of time give it a 4D effect?
I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but the so-called 3d effect is simply shallow depth of field, and is a function of a wide aperture, not camera body used. Some "pro bodies" are full frame, which has a very slight advantage to producing shallow DOF, but some "pro bodies" also have crop sensors so the point somebody told you really doesn't make any sense once you understand these fundamentals. For example you can put an 85L on a Digital Rebel and shoot at f1.2 for an incredible "3D effect", much moreso than say a 1Ds Mark3 shooting with the 24-105L. It's simply about the lens, not the camera body.
I would say that the 3-D effect is more a case of sufficent DOF to render the subject sharp but at the same time enough separation from the background to render the background OOF. Seems that with some lenses (zeiss comes to mind) the DOF falls of more abruptly then with other lenses. Some of the best examples of this effect that I have seen has actually not been wide open....
gdanmitchell wrote:
No they don't. They allow you to tilt the plane of focus. They allow you to adjust for convergence. Etc.
That's precisely the point. The plane of focus isolates the the subject creating greater DOF on the subject more from the OOF areas. It creates a 3D diorama effect that is independent of what body is being used.
sarebro wrote:
I would say that the 3-D effect is more a case of sufficent DOF to render the subject sharp but at the same time enough separation from the background to render the background OOF. Seems that with some lenses (zeiss comes to mind) the DOF falls of more abruptly then with other lenses. Some of the best examples of this effect that I have seen has actually not been wide open....
I think this is part of the equation too. I noticed with say, a lot of 200/2 shots that there would be an abrupt falloff between sharp and blur, while with the 85L, the blur starts slower and then ramps up.
This is all user prefrence, of course. 3D doesn't always = better, and not everyone likes the Zeiss "look"
What we see "look 3D" because we have two eyes. All that talk about some lens having a 3D look, it's all in your head. That's why noone can describe precisely why an image has that "3D effect".
n0b0 wrote:
What we see "look 3D" because we have two eyes. All that talk about some lens having a 3D look, it's all in your head. That's why noone can describe precisely why an image has that "3D effect".
I agree 100%. Some just say it because they're trying to justify wanting a FF or a 1d series, etc. While some say that to justify to themselves, the need to get overpriced German cameras/lenses. As long as they're happy - that's all that matters. But, recently, someone made fun of my "AWESOME" 30D and that's what ticked me off. I believe a good lens and a capable person can produce equally good photos with even a D30.
rrxjon wrote:
The 3D effect of height, width, and depth on a 2 dimensional plane is the central illusion of photography.
Interesting. All I ever see is a 2-dimensional picture. But it's clearly a 2-D representation of a 3-D image, too. Doesn't seem to matter what lens or camera body is used.
...I will agree with you by adding that "3-D" (whatever it is) is more a matter of composition than any other single element.