Thank you Carsten for the detailed explanation 50 and 50 MP comparison for 3D is interesting since i thought MP has more 3D according to normal 50.
By the way doesn't your explanation about foreground, background and standing alone subject apply to all lenses even if they're not Zeiss, i mean i sometimes catch this feeling with my Nikkor lenses either. IMO, what makes Zeiss different is beyond 3D it gives life to the photo which is really hard to describe.
carstenw wrote:
Thanks prosep! I am sure that you can also produce shots like this. Try it!
That leaf/branch shot has a lot of 3D, to my eyes. I wonder if it would have a little more with slightly more DoF, maybe f/4? The root looks like it was resized in a single step and then over-sharpened. Could it be? In my experience, resizing in one step tends to kill detail, in shots which have a lot of small detail.
Thank you carstenw for the feedback.
2nd shot is not that bad on original resized file. Some files become like that when I upload on flickr. I don't yet know the reason! Previous file is linked to the large size file (1024 x 683) of flickr. Flickr Orginal file (1123 x 749) is here -
Can you see the huge difference in sharpness?
Sharpness of my original file is somewhere in between.
Maybe it is just Flickr's algorithm which does this then. Was the original shot as sharp as the leaf/branch shot? The first version is sharper, but it has this chunkiness and lack of real micro-detail which comes from wrong sharpening. I guess it is too much to expect perfect sharpening from an automated algorithm.
carstenw wrote:
Maybe it is just Flickr's algorithm which does this then. Was the original shot as sharp as the leaf/branch shot?
For the larger file size, it's quite close. But the original is less sharp on flickr.
carstenw wrote:
The first version is sharper, but it has this chunkiness and lack of real micro-detail which comes from wrong sharpening. I guess it is too much to expect perfect sharpening from an automated algorithm.
I always feel that sharpness of original file is in between larger and original flickr files (well, most of the time ).
Uzay wrote:
Thank you Carsten for the detailed explanation 50 and 50 MP comparison for 3D is interesting since i thought MP has more 3D according to normal 50.
By the way doesn't your explanation about foreground, background and standing alone subject apply to all lenses even if they're not Zeiss, i mean i sometimes catch this feeling with my Nikkor lenses either. IMO, what makes Zeiss different is beyond 3D it gives life to the photo which is really hard to describe.
Yes, you are right, many lenses would respond to this approach. I think the keys are colour, micro-detail and general sharpness. Beyond that, processing can enhance it. The Zeiss lenses give it very easily though, and the quality of the boke (boke-aji) is different than with most other lenses. A few Leicas come close, a couple of Nikkors, but very little else, that I have experience with. If the boke is too soft, or wrong in a way which I cannot yet quantify, then it removes the 3D feeling.
By the way, I find the bicycle shot above borderline, w.r.t. 3D look. The car shot has it more clearly, as does the tricycle shot, IMO.
One thing I find interesting: I am more and more able to see the 3D scenes which translate well to photos. In the past, I would see 3D in places where I could never capture it, but now my eye is becoming sensitized. I think that looking carefully at a lot of shots in this thread has really helped, as have the 3D threads. Like so many things, generating believable 3D in a photo requires a sensitive eye and lots of practice.
Carsten: nice to see that the 50MP has already grown on you!
Bob: congrats on the c-biogon 35. I've been contemplating the nex with that lens too, but I'm not quite there yet (and the lens is always out of stock everywhere)
One thing I really dislike about flickr is that it sharpens the smaller sized versions too much. I always link the -already resized before uploading- originals.
Many people would like to see an extra feature that allows you to change the amount of sharpening flickr does.
One last shot for tonight. From the 3rd of April. Panorama based on 15 100MP shots. I think it is very slightly over-sharpened, yielding that painterly look I got in another previous panorama. Very interesting.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Well, Happy Anniversary!
What camera and lens did she get you? ;-)
Hah, I wish She's now got an upgrade around her finger. Combine that with a new AC unit I just had to pay for, I won't be seeing anything new for quite a while Luckily I'm set for the most part, though if I keep looking at Lars' 100MP shots I'm going to be forced to somehow acquire one.
Here's a type of shot we don't see every day 5D2 and 35/2 ZE
cputeq wrote:
Hah, I wish She's now got an upgrade around her finger. Combine that with a new AC unit I just had to pay for, I won't be seeing anything new for quite a while Luckily I'm set for the most part, though if I keep looking at Lars' 100MP shots I'm going to be forced to somehow acquire one
But her blog said she got you a new camera and lens! And I quote, "And what did my husband get for our Anniversary? A new camera complete with a new lens...both of which he used to take the picture of my ring with " Do you mean she lied on her blog? People don't lie on blogs, do they? ;-) Nice picture of the ring, BTW (a little bit of CA on the edge of the center stone, though).
You can tell her that I will try her recipe the next time I make a big pot of sauce. It sounds decidedly artery-clogging, so it will be in measured quantities. You can also tell her that she needs to proofread the text ("adiment", "purposal", and "hamberger", for example).
carstenw wrote:
So I started trying to work around the fat DoF by finding subjects which stood alone in space, padded by a bunch of air before the next foreground/background object.
...
Anyway, starting with my daughter's trike, I started hitting what I feel is the right formula for generating 3D with the 50MP. It isn't super strong, like Martin's leather chair shot, but it is there. The foreground needs to be absent, the subject must stand alone in the plane of focus, more or less, and the background needs to be removed, but not completely absent.
....
Anyone who has a 50MP and is interested in the experiment could follow along with their own shots. This lens clearly has 3D potential under the right circumstances. I am still not producing shots which pop right out of the screen, but I am getting closer.....Show more →
Hmm, nice shots Carsten, but I couldn't agree less with your theory. In my experience the 50 MP excels close up and at infinity but is really nothing special at medium distances (compared to other ZE's that is). The 50 Planar on the other hand is really superb at medium distances. Your car shot and bike shot would have IMO rendered much better with the Planar, and I'll explain why.
The key can be found in the MTF charts for both lenses (you can find them here: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php). The distinct feature of both the 100 and 50 Makro Planars is the very high fine detail contrast (look at the 40 lp/mm). The Planar on the other hand has a low contrast in the fine detail and high contrast in the medium detail. When you shoot an object like the car with the MP you get a more fine detailed texture. With the Planar on the other hand more low frequency components would be emphasized - i.e you would get the appearance of a higher contour contrast. For objects with simple colors this means a lot, making them pop much more.
So if we go through the distances:
First close up. High contrast, high detail, excellent bokeh. Like it's 100mm big brother the 50 MP really shines here:
You can move back a bit, and it's a great portrait lens:
However, as you move further back the problems start. The increased DOF near the focal plane and the further sharp dropoff to blur are really not the strong point of this lens. Where the Planar would have had a graceful transition here we get a rapid jump and relatively dodgy bokeh.
..in short, not particularly impressive, but rather messy.
Alternatively at medium distances, as we see in your car shot when there is no busy background to interfere we get a rather mediocre transition from sharpness to blur. The colors are still excellent of course, but the rendering as a whole is really nothing special. The car shot implies a perspective and thus gives a 3D effect, but that's not the real thing. Here's another example of implied perspective:
This has nothing to do with the lens though. Here's the same effect with a Canon 135mm:
You can find some special cases for the 50 MP where you want to bring out a detailed texture of an object without emphasizing the contours of it, but I have found few real world examples where that works.
As we move to infinity, we have a superb lens again with an exceptional rendering of high frequency detail:
So in my experience the sweet spot of the 50 MP is close up - from macro to headshot portrait distances. In the medium distance range the 50 Planar is king. For larger distances to infinity and stopped down it becomes much more a question of personal preference. The Planar will give you high contour contrast while the Makro Planar will give you the fine detail.
Congrats cputeq on you 10 yr anniversary!
Sounds/looks like your bank account will need some time to recover before your next Zeiss baby.
Like the shot with your son and the colored wood blks.
Luka, I agree for close up I prefer the 50 MP and for larger distance I like the MP and for mid distance with better 3-d and less contrasty bokeh I like the 50P.
What I wonder is if the C/Y 100/2 Planar and the ZE 100/2 MP are like these two 50's in relationship?
I have the C/Y 100/2 Planar which I like at mid distance over shots I see with 100MP because of its less contrasty bokeh and more 3-d look. But when I look at my 100/2 P large distance landscape shots I wonder if I would be better off with the ZE 100MP to get extra detail.
I don't usually see to much long distance 100MP landscape shots in this thread. Usually close to mid distance.
denoir wrote:
Hmm, nice shots Carsten, but I couldn't agree less with your theory. In my experience the 50 MP excels close up and at infinity but is really nothing special at medium distances (compared to other ZE's that is). The 50 Planar on the other hand is really superb at medium distances. Your car shot and bike shot would have IMO rendered much better with the Planar, and I'll explain why.
The key can be found in the MTF charts for both lenses (you can find them here: http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf.php). The distinct feature of both the 100 and 50 Makro Planars is the very high fine detail contrast (look at the 40 lp/mm). The Planar on the other hand has a low contrast in the fine detail and high contrast in the medium detail. When you shoot an object like the car with the MP you get a more fine detailed texture. With the Planar on the other hand more low frequency components would be emphasized - i.e you would get the appearance of a higher contour contrast. For objects with simple colors this means a lot, making them pop much more....Show more →
I think I see what you mean, but looking at your medium distance shots, I also see that they are not particularly fair examples, in that the foreground and background colours also blend much more than in the other shots, especially the first shot. I did exactly the same thing myself when I first got the 50MP, which is one reason I was disappointed with it.
It could be that the car, bicycle and tricycle would have been rendered better with the 50P, I don't know, because I stopped shooting everything twice, and just work with the 50MP now, to see what I can get. I disagree that the car shot has 3D only because of the implied perspective, though the effect is probably milder than what the 50P can get. Olaf's last shot in the post before mine also has some mild 3D, IMO, around the decorative trim just under the edge of the upper floor. I can almost "feel" the bumpiness of the metal there.
Ultimately, I think that the 50MP can be a satisfying lens at medium distances, but it is a lot more work than with the 50P, at least in some cases. That is fine, I am not looking for a free ride.
Btw, another data point in our differing 3D perception is the two tube shots you posted. I see little 3D in the first one, and zero in the second one, which looks as flat as can be.
P.S. I have used my 50MP very little at macro distance and infinity, probably another reason I was initially disappointed. Berlin is not the best place for these two types of shots.
I love my 50MP, but indeed mostly for landscaping or closeup shots. I'm often the least impressed by the medium distance shots I take with it.
How does the 100MP perform in this regard?
On top of that I got an itch for the 1.4 lenses, something I didn't have when switching to zeiss in 2009. I started to appreciate the gentler rendering style more and more for many kinds of shots and now my head is a mess
).
She's now got an upgrade around her finger. Combine that with a new AC unit I just had to pay for, I won't be seeing anything new for quite a while 
Luckily I'm set for the most part, though if I keep looking at Lars' 100MP shots I'm going to be forced to somehow acquire one.
