Makten wrote:
I'm still amazed by how different the GFX photos look with "f/2 equivalent" lenses...
...There is some funkiness in the bokeh towards the corners, but still better than anything equivalent on FF that I've seen. It goes away completely if you focus closer and/or stop down a bit.
It looks as you say. Quite a mellow out of focus look.
Curious, I think it was you who (correctly IMO) pointed out you don’t need wide open but rather f/3.2-4ish to get a great 3D feel, unless you’re going for the cut out look with a fast lens. How does the Fuji fare in that regard? Say shooting f/4-5?
Makten wrote:
+1
I'm still amazed by how different the GFX photos look with "f/2 equivalent" lenses. I have the 45/2.8 and 63/2.8, and both are better than anything I've tried on FF. I almost feel sorry for those who buy Otus lenses instead of a camera with larger sensor. Both GF lenses have a sort of "large DOF" with very abrupt transition to out-of-focus, and low contrast bokeh as well. Samuli Vahonen would love these.
And, it's not about short DOF. I also have the Mitakon 65/1.4 and it's not even close to the 63/2.8 when it comes to "pop" and "3D".
There is some funkiness in the bokeh towards the corners, but still better than anything equivalent on FF that I've seen. It goes away completely if you focus closer and/or stop down a bit. ...Show more →
Here is one with the Sony kit lens 28-70. Sometimes that 3D pop is just light and timing. I would say though that Zeiss lenses have the magic sauce for me. And the Voigtlander 40mm Nokton is the most magical lens for me.
I'm still amazed by how different the GFX photos look with "f/2 equivalent" lenses. I have the 45/2.8 and 63/2.8, and both are better than anything I've tried on FF. I almost feel sorry for those who buy Otus lenses instead of a camera with larger sensor. Both GF lenses have a sort of "large DOF" with very abrupt transition to out-of-focus, and low contrast bokeh as well. Samuli Vahonen would love these.
And, it's not about short DOF. I also have the Mitakon 65/1.4 and it's not even close to the 63/2.8 when it comes to "pop" and "3D".
There is some funkiness in the bokeh towards the corners, but still better than anything equivalent on FF that I've seen. It goes away completely if you focus closer and/or stop down a bit. ...Show more →
oh man... I like the bike shot.... that's the typical rendering i like...
Makten wrote:
I'm still amazed by how different the GFX photos look with "f/2 equivalent" lenses. I have the 45/2.8 and 63/2.8, and both are better than anything I've tried on FF. I almost feel sorry for those who buy Otus lenses instead of a camera with larger sensor. Both GF lenses have a sort of "large DOF" with very abrupt transition to out-of-focus, and low contrast bokeh as well. Samuli Vahonen would love these.
And, it's not about short DOF. I also have the Mitakon 65/1.4 and it's not even close to the 63/2.8 when it comes to "pop" and "3D". ...Show more →
these look great and i agree about larger formats even if i think 3D is a pointless ill defined term. as a counterpoint though, here's a bunch of shots on aps-c (NEX-7) with the contax g 28/2.8, many of which have everything in focus:
If you ever have the opportunity to study the works of the great masters of the 15th century you will see that three-dimensionality was greatly valued by them.
Take the time one day to visit Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan.
On one wall you will see "The Last Supper" by Leonardo Da Vinci. On the opposite wall is Donato's masterwork "Crucification".
One of the reasons that "The Last Supper" is considered one of the most important paintings in history is Da Vinci's uncanny ability to create the impression of "three dimensionality" in a two dimensional medium.
Turn and look at Donato's work. It has none of that quality (but a masterwork nonetheless).
A very informative juxtaposition in that it shows you one of the reasons that one painting is known by all and the other known by none.
In fact Da Vinci's dimensionality is considered a turning point in Renaissance art.
Thereafter everyone become obsessed with this development and "graphical" painting came to an end.
Also - I might suggest that "3D" is not an ambiguous, ill-defined term.
I have spent 40 years attempting to create dimensionality in my professional work so that allowed me to become very familiar with the topic.
(Any quick review of the literature will be very helpful in coming to terms with it)
Photographers and painters face the same challenge; striving to create "3D" in a "2D" medium.
Isn't that what "tonality" is all about? Isn't that what gives MF the "MF look".
I don't find it particularly odd that some here are curious as to the gear and circumstances necessary to achieve this result.
I have to admit that is it not something I am consumed with but when I manage to achieve it I find it quite delightful.
It's not enough to make a bad photograph compelling but it can add an interesting element to a good photograph.
DaveFP wrote:
Also - I might suggest that "3D" is not an ambiguous, ill-defined term.
my apologies, i did not mean that 3D is an ambiguous term on it's own, I meant that it is a meaningless term as it is used photography forums. you will see if you look in the old posts in this thread (or the many others on this forum) that everybody uses the term differently and nobody can even remotely agree on what photos have "it" and what photos don't.
yes, i am familiar with the development of perspective and methods of providing 3D feel in art history.
Mathieu18 wrote:
Great, now I want a GFX50R and 45mm... thanks.
You're welcome! But seriously, I think it's a great alternative for those who constantly search for the best lenses for FF, because that will end up being more expensive in the end.
Curious, I think it was you who (correctly IMO) pointed out you don’t need wide open but rather f/3.2-4ish to get a great 3D feel, unless you’re going for the cut out look with a fast lens. How does the Fuji fare in that regard? Say shooting f/4-5?
The reason for it is (was) that many lenses have very nervous rendering wide open, focused at a few meters away. Just like in the images I posted (edit: referring to distance, not nervousness!). Stopping down can make the bokeh better, and of course you get better sharpness as well. If "3D" is what you desire, I personally think it is defeated by a too blurred background. It's got to be just enough.
The GF lenses get better when you stop down, but it's really not necessary. They are great from wide open. The rapid transition to out-of-focus stays all the way to f/16 though, so I have to stop down A LOT if I want everything in focus. But it also means I can get nice separation at f/5.6 or so.
The general rendering is kind of smooth, so for maximum punch and "in your face", they won't beat the Zeiss 35/2 ZF. I've been thinking of getting one again to shoot with a square crop (which I do with the Planar 50/1.4).
------------
Edit: It's a bit funny, but I actually think I get better "medium format look" with the GFX than with 6x7 film. DOF is of course not as shallow, but there so much more bite and definition, that it's not needed.
sebboh wrote:
my apologies, i did not mean that 3D is an ambiguous term on it's own, I meant that it is a meaningless term as it is used photography forums. you will see if you look in the old posts in this thread (or the many others on this forum) that everybody uses the term differently and nobody can even remotely agree on what photos have "it" and what photos don't.
yes, i am familiar with the development of perspective and methods of providing 3D feel in art history.
Gotcha.
Well; it might be helpful if we all understood it as it should be understood.
Perhaps that would lead to more meaningful contributions/exchanges.
I would provide links but there are just so many of them I think folks can do it on their own.
sebboh wrote:
these look great and i agree about larger formats even if i think 3D is a pointless ill defined term. as a counterpoint though, here's a bunch of shots on aps-c (NEX-7) with the contax g 28/2.8, many of which have everything in focus:
Yeah, I agree. And I think it's the lenses that do it (whatever "it" is), not the size of the format.
A well corrected lens is gonna give more "pop" and sometimes images look "3D" (to some people), which means that it's easier to achieve on a larger format where a slower lens still gives some background blur. But it's not necessary.
I’ve posted it before but since the discussion has gone there again it’s worth repeating.
ProfHank over on DPR, an actual professor from UK (Kentucky) tried to research what lens properties gave a 3D look. To do that, he tried to study which lenses gave a 3D appearance across a wide range of viewers. He found no concensus as to which images had or didn’t have a 3D look.
If people can’t agree on what is or isn’t 3D, than just like color and so many other things with optics it’s about personal perception and preference.
Doesn’t mean I don’t like it when I see it, but I also don’t think it’s an inherent quality in any lenses.
Mathieu18 wrote:
I’ve posted it before but since the discussion has gone there again it’s worth repeating.
ProfHank over on DPR, an actual professor from UK (Kentucky) tried to research what lens properties gave a 3D look. To do that, he tried to study which lenses gave a 3D appearance across a wide range of viewers. He found no concensus as to which images had or didn’t have a 3D look.
If people can’t agree on what is or isn’t 3D, than just like color and so many other things with optics it’s about personal perception and preference.
Doesn’t mean I don’t like it when I see it, but I also don’t think it’s an inherent quality in any lenses. ...Show more →
Hi Matt -
With all due respect to ProfHank:
The fact that he was unable to elucidate the characteristics in optics that contributes to "3D" doesn't mean that optics don't play a role.
Perhaps there are optical engineers at Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, etc., that would have no problem helping us come to terms with this topic.
Today there are thousands of first-tier researchers slaving away at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., in order to come to terms with as yet unexplained phenomena. Perhaps this knowledge lives in the future (IF, in fact, it is not available today).
With regard to 3D:
We don't really need people to "agree" or "disagree".
3D as an optical/visual phenomenon is best understood through facts rather than feelings.
That someone can't see it doesn't make it less real. My wife can't see 3D due to depth perception issues. Should we include her opinion in this topic?
One reality that can be hard to hear is that not everyone with expensive gear has the sense and sensibilities of artists.
Those with the best "eye" for such things make better mentors than those that don't.
I am, at best, a "capable" photographer but I have eyes that are very highly trained with regard to color and dimensionality.
As such I have no problem "reading" the relative presence or absence of dimensionality in an image.
The fact that "SonyBoy96" on DPR can't see it doesn't enter into the equation; at least not for me.
Wouldn't it be nice if Dr. Nasse could lend us a hand?
Mathieu18 wrote:
I’ve posted it before but since the discussion has gone there again it’s worth repeating.
ProfHank over on DPR, an actual professor from UK (Kentucky) tried to research what lens properties gave a 3D look. To do that, he tried to study which lenses gave a 3D appearance across a wide range of viewers. He found no concensus as to which images had or didn’t have a 3D look.
If people can’t agree on what is or isn’t 3D, than just like color and so many other things with optics it’s about personal perception and preference.
Doesn’t mean I don’t like it when I see it, but I also don’t think it’s an inherent quality in any lenses. ...Show more →
I see it in some lenses more than others, like the zm 35 1.4, CV 40 1.2 or CY 35 1.4 or G21. But even this look seems to be light and processing dependent and at certain distances and f-stops.
But even in this thread, half the photos people have posted I don't see it at all.
I am with Makten though. I have been surprised how much 3-D or separation I have seen from the GFX 45 2.8 specifically, even web sized JPGS just on FM.
The fact that he was unable to elucidate the characteristics in optics that contributes to "3D" doesn't mean that optics don't play a role.
Perhaps there are optical engineers at Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, etc., that would have no problem helping us come to terms with this topic.
Today there are thousands of first-tier researchers slaving away at Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., in order to come to terms with as yet unexplained phenomena. Perhaps this knowledge lives in the future (IF, in fact, it is not available today).
With regard to 3D:
We don't really need people to "agree" or "disagree".
3D as an optical/visual phenomenon is best understood through facts rather than feelings.
...Show more →
Prof Hank is a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and is fairly well known for his technical report on building a digital fisheye camera for under $20. I suspect he can easily see 3D because he wrote this report here for regular people and it's directly about traditional 3D (e.g., as in glasses): https://www.instructables.com/id/Use-Your-Camera-To-Capture-3D-Anaglyphs/
I guess I tend to believe Prof Hank more than anything because the concept is still, at this time, yet to be explained in the scientific literature . . . it's simply a concept that some of us want to believe because some images look 3D for some users, but I can go on Flickr and find plenty of captures with the same lens and camera that doesn't have the 3D look. Post processing probably comes into play (e.g., adding saturation and contrast, perhaps) and certainly the light and scene are even more important. I'd love to be convinced to believe with a controlled test, though.
seanj wrote:
but I can go on Flickr and find plenty of captures with the same lens and camera that doesn't have the 3D look.
When I first started noticing the effect, it was at a time when I would pour through images online, not knowing/looking at what the hardware info was beforehand. If I saw an image with that appealing rendering, I would take a look at the exif. Very clear patterns emerged - at that time it was overwhelmingly Zeiss lenses that caught my eye. Other did, too, here and there, but none nearly so frequently as Zeiss, even though it was safe to assume that Zeiss was far less common.
At that point, I stopped caring whether other people saw it or not.
Both GF lenses have a sort of "large DOF" with very abrupt transition to out-of-focus, and low contrast bokeh as well. Samuli Vahonen would love these. 
. if you think a forum post is that what grade would you have gotten at the Univ of Kentucky?