Audii-Dudii wrote:
Although I wish things were otherwise, this is largely my experience as well (and this despite using lenses that are frequently credited with capturing / creating this effect, too!)
Which isn't to suggest it doesn't exist or never happens, only that in my experience, it's not very often that it does, including with my photos.
But on those rare occasions when it does ... wow! 8^0
Sadly, this is also true, but understandable given the image theft that occurs regularly these days. <sigh>
Image theft like someone making > thousands on an image posted here. Thieves are not going to pay you anyways. Maybe I am just too naive.
Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 stopped down to f/4 on 33x33 mm sensor size. Unfortunately it's only usable from ~f/2.8 unless you shoot quite close, but the rendering stopped down a bit is still the nicest I know of.
Yes, large image. Click on it to fit your screen if it's too large
bobby350z wrote:
Maybe my eyes no good or my monitor sux but I am not seeing any 3d is most of the shots. And lot of people post small size shots in this age which to me doesn't do any justice even if the original shot is great.
Agreed
Makten wrote:
Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 stopped down to f/4 on 33x33 mm sensor size. Unfortunately it's only usable from ~f/2.8 unless you shoot quite close, but the rendering stopped down a bit is still the nicest I know of.
Yes, large image. Click on it to fit your screen if it's too large
👆🏻 An excellent example of 'pop', as opposed to subject isolation, which as Bobby mentioned, is prevalent in most of the images posted lately
helimat wrote:
👆🏻 An excellent example of 'pop', as opposed to subject isolation, which as Bobby mentioned, is prevalent in most of the images posted lately
That's one of a bunch of reasons that I'm so happy with the GFX. I can get a ton of "pop" without blurring the background excessively. It's mostly due to the GF lenses though, but now and then I use a few adapted lenses that also sort of do what I want.
Edit: Don't know why but when I upload images at 2048 pixels width, they look much larger than that on my screen, and also pretty blurry. Once I click on it to fit the screen it looks reasonably good though.
Edit 2: Maybe it isn't larger, but my browser (chrome) is doing a poor job interpolating pixels compared to "preview". The drawbacks of high res screens...
Edit 3: Checked with my job computer with standard rez screen and it looks absolutely crap unless I open the image in a new tab and view it at native size. Weird.
Makten wrote:
That's one of a bunch of reasons that I'm so happy with the GFX. I can get a ton of "pop" without blurring the background excessively. It's mostly due to the GF lenses though, but now and then I use a few adapted lenses that also sort of do what I want.
Edit: Don't know why but when I upload images at 2048 pixels width, they look much larger than that on my screen, and also pretty blurry. Once I click on it to fit the screen it looks reasonably good though.
I really like the GFX system too, I've dabbled with both the 50R & 50S. They're both fantastic! If I could justify another relatively expensive system, it would be GFX for sure.
FWIW; It looks crystal sharp on my old Cinema Display, on Chrome
Makten wrote:
Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 stopped down to f/4 on 33x33 mm sensor size. Unfortunately it's only usable from ~f/2.8 unless you shoot quite close, but the rendering stopped down a bit is still the nicest I know of.
Yes, large image. Click on it to fit your screen if it's too large
Makten is another one of the relatively few who actually understands what "3D pop" actually means!
I've seen 3D pop from many lenses. Even ones you wouldn't expect to have it. A lot of the "pop" is how the image is shot. The angle, the light, background, background distance etc.
Is there something that differentiates depth from 3D pop? Does this have any depth, or 3D pop, or none of the above? This was shot at f/8, so it doesn't rely on separation as much to provide visual cues.
Makten wrote:
Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 stopped down to f/4 on 33x33 mm sensor size. Unfortunately it's only usable from ~f/2.8 unless you shoot quite close, but the rendering stopped down a bit is still the nicest I know of.
Yes, large image. Click on it to fit your screen if it's too large
Doesn't the ZE/ZF 50/1.4 have some focus shift? I remember it being challenging to compensate for in the time before EVFs in the f/2-2.8 range.
Also, bold move bringing a camera out mountain biking. I have a lot of practice saving myself falling off my mountain bike...
kezeka wrote:
Doesn't the ZE/ZF 50/1.4 have some focus shift? I remember it being challenging to compensate for in the time before EVFs in the f/2-2.8 range.
Probably, but you won't notice when using an EVF because you focus at shooting aperture. I think I've had three of them and unfortunately it doesn't fare well with the extremely thick sensor stack of the GFX, making it very soft wide open. Which also makes it harder to focus, so because of these reasons I only use it stopped down to at least f/2.4.
Also, bold move bringing a camera out mountain biking. I have a lot of practice saving myself falling off my mountain bike...
Ha, I almost never fall, because I don't like taking risks. Therefore it's no big risk bringing the camera either. I'm a lot more worried for my own safety than the camera.
I think the picture has a lot of 3d pop. I thought about why that is. It doesn't have much to do with editing with LR. The RAW has the same effect. It doesn't have much to do with the sharpness gradient either. The picture was taken with f2. The sharpness goes to the door handle of the passenger door. But I also took the picture with f2.8. The entire vehicle is sharp here. Nevertheless, the same 3d pop can also be seen here.
I think the picture has a lot of 3d pop. I thought about why that is. It doesn't have much to do with editing with LR. The RAW has the same effect. It doesn't have much to do with the sharpness gradient either. The picture was taken with f2. The sharpness goes to the door handle of the passenger door. But I also took the picture with f2.8. The entire vehicle is sharp here. Nevertheless, the same 3d pop can also be seen here.
)
I'm a lot more worried for my own safety than the camera. 