As photographers, we all tend to see with our memory, if you know what I mean. This image is intended to show what is possible, but would not be coming from a Sigma lens, for argument's sake. And vision is highly variable, but no one can focus on more than one object at a time. Many studies show that our eyes move from sharp to unsharp, from saturated to less saturated and light to dark. Artists/DPs and photographers use this knowledge to point the viewer where they want them to look, and in what order.
Here the 'story' is the unworldly machine, not its operator. And TBH, we are all on a journey to see things in new ways. It is often said that stills photographers want more detail in their images to make them seem 'more real', and this is one of the drivers pushing the industry to obsess over ultra-thin focal planes and relative disdain for bokeh. They don't even design for it! At least there is disagreement in the cine community about its importance.
It's amazing how little has been written about the finer points of bokeh (the size and rate of change in the transition zone, and contents presentation inside the bokeh field to name just two), indicating the industry has been very successful in containing the debate to their preferred schema. But they do listen, given time, and of course whatever user feedback they care to listen to. Not that they do much of that, from what we read here and elsewhere.
They appear to tend to move together, and then police anyone operating outside the agreed box. Times are changing rapidly on them now however, with the advent of serial market disruptor Sony and their affordable and highly competent FX series, and the emergence of M lenses are the 'lingua franca' of mounts. Movies are still down 23% from 2019 and the medium-light cine/video segment is growing very fast. We'll get there, I'm hopeful that beauty wins out in the end. Solo operators are pushing this along, and they want something very different - character!
What exactly is it, this ‘dimensionality' that all in the cine world speak of?
'It is essentially the qualities that allow an image to resemble real life. It should be effortless to discern how close or far away objects are in relation to the foreground, middle ground and background.’
Grenache wrote:
A key factor for how we perceive depth with our own vision is what we choose to focus on. The rest of the scene then melts away deeper in the scene. In our vision, we can rapidly hop from one focal point to another, so a misfire one second can be instantly “corrected “ to give the 3D impression. In photographs, we serve up only a single “answer” to the choice of focal plane, and that either reinforces the 3D sense or works against it.
In your image, I can’t get past the person not being in focus. That blurring in front of the focal plane makes it impossible for me to see the 3D character of the rest of the image, no matter how much depth and blurring (steep or not) the background has.
I agree with you regarding the person being out of focus. The person and the machine makes this image…one being out of focus takes away the impact. No matter how other parts fade away…if the main subject of the image is not in focus, the strength of the image degrades.
Another factor involved is the fascinating story of leaded glasses, I get the distinct feeling it would be hard to get very accurate information on the use of lead oxide in modern lenses, or should we say lenses sold at market.
So a couple of quotes as I see LLL saying this about their 35/2 8-element:
‘The number of available glasses is fewer. In the mid-2000s, the EU announced regulations on products containing lead, which most optical glasses did, so the catalog of Schott alone was decimated from over 400 materials to about 75.’
‘It is now (2017) closer to 150-200, but will never reach its former size’ ‘This makes the glass map less continuous, which is a problem for the optimizer in CAD.’ ‘The high refractive materials have expanded. In the past, you could only get up to an index of maybe 1.8 or so, now you can get up to say 2.2 in materials suitable for visible optics.’
‘On the low index side, the ultra-low dispersion and anomalous partial dispersion glass lists have expanded from a single material to many in the past 30 years, enabling better color correction, a requirement for digital cameras, without unduly increasing size.’
So, was (is) lead important to image depth, a.k.a. dimensionality?
'Lead was used in photographic lenses to improve optical glass properties, particularly increasing the refractive index to make lenses thinner and lighter, and to reduce dispersion for better image quality.
Lead was used specifically: to significantly increase the refractive index of glass, which means the glass bends light more effectively; less curvature is needed in the lens elements, allowing for thinner and lighter lens designs; *photographers and manufacturers noted that lead-containing glass contributed to superior image qualities such as clarity, tonality, depth, and a "3D pop".* Despite some photographers expressing a preference for the optical qualities of older, leaded lenses..'
Yes, yes it was very important. It was so important that the very elite Schott catalog was virtually wiped out twenty years back, when they lost 80% of their materials. And it is still in play:
‘What’s nice about Signatures (ARRI Signature Primes) is that they are not perfectly neutral, they are a little bit on the warm side. Part of this is because we don’t use leaded glass – *there are still so many manufacturers that can still use this.’* Art Adams, August 2025.
I find it remarkable time and again how, on the one hand, people never tire of describing the optical advantages of certain lenses in such expansive and verbose ways, while, on the other hand, they shy away like the devil avoids holy water from the simplest and most impressive approach, in the form of direct 1:1 comparison shots. One might think that photography isn't a visual matter, but a poetic one.
philip_pj wrote:
So, was (is) lead important to image depth, a.k.a. dimensionality?
Two thoughts.
1. Jeez, is this thread STILL alive?
2. No. It isn’t. Weaver difference there might be between a lens with lead and one without pales by comparison to the differences among photographs produced by the vision of photographers.
Photography is no more about lenses than cooking is about spoons.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Photography is no more about lenses than cooking is about spoons.
Cooking is about INGREDIENTS and PREPARATION. Subpar ingredients with great preparation can still be good, but not close to what it would be with the best ingredients.
Philip is talking about the ingredients of the lens leading to better output. I get what you’ve been saying, but a great lens AND great vision will always give better photographs. You’re discounting the lens too much.
mudlake wrote:
Cooking is about INGREDIENTS and PREPARATION. Subpar ingredients with great preparation can still be good, but not close to what it would be with the best ingredients. Philip is talking about the ingredients of the lens leading to better output. I get what you’ve been saying, but a great lens AND great vision will always give better photographs. You’re discounting the lens too much.
Yes, his analogy is totally garbage. A spoon has zero affect on the taste of the meal. A lens has a great affect on the aesthetics of an image. To think otherwise is just ignorance.
chez wrote:
Yes, his analogy is totally garbage. A spoon has zero affect on the taste of the meal. A lens has a great affect on the aesthetics of an image. To think otherwise is just ignorance.
I mean, the decisions of whether to use Spherical elements vs. Aspheric or (extreme) Anamorphic (et al) lenses can provide significantly differentiated images projected on the film plane. Sometimes those differences present a radically different (anamorphic) projection, sometimes they are matters of correction vs. aberration (SA / Glow ... thinking Mandler vs. Karbe), while yet other aspects are more nuanced to taste (bokeh, transition rates, flare, contrast / acutance, color, micro-contrast, etc.) ... BUT, yes the differences in glass / lens design are inescapably an intentionally, inherent, contributing PART of the aesthetic.
For some, the differences don't make a hill of beans to them. For others, their palette is differently considered. If folks want to ignore the fact that some folks have preferential palettes that are different from their "I don't care, it's all the same." perspective ... then they should REALLY ignore the conversation, entirely ... rather than interloping for the sake of interloping.
I am quite certain that my 40/2 Summicron-C renders differently than a Voigt 40/1.2 in this regard ... both shot at equal aperture, e.g. f/2 (i.e. not referring to the larger aperture difference, itself).
I'd gladly put up comps to present for the naysayers, but I don't own the VM (yet). Similarly, that goes for things like the Vintage Line of Voigts vs. the APO Lanthar's, where the Vintage line retains more SA (by intentional design).
2. No. It isn’t. Weaver difference there might be between a lens with lead and one without pales by comparison to the differences among photographs produced by the vision of photographers.
Photography is no more about lenses than cooking is about spoons.
You certainly remember lenses with radioactive elements ... think about it (rhetorical).
Although, that's kinda like saying that drawing is no more about pencils, than ...
I understand that what you are trying to suggest is that there are more aspects to what makes for good photography than lens design (gear), and it is your opinion that folks are too obsessed with the matter of gear and should get over it, past it and beyond it.
If folks want to talk "engines", and you don't because you'd rather be driving ... great, so be it. Then maybe, just maybe leave the conversation alone for those who do want to talk engines.
P.S. This IS a GEAR Forum, so why all the squalor when folks want to talk about gear.
I mean, when engine gear heads start talking about 0.030 inches ... what, you're gonna blow in and start telling them there are more important things than engine design, and engine design isn't what driving is about and you can still get to the grocery store with any car, and engine design isn't something they should still be talking about ... (even, decades later). I'm sure when you waltz into that garage conversation, your reception will be, well ... (I hope) you get the gist.
After watching a lot of camera conspiracy's youtube videos (a man seemingly forever hunting 3d pop) I realised I don't need all the pop. Too much pop can be weird.
Sometimes it's nice to have a flatter image, sometimes some pop. Maybe it's the scene or look, maybe it's just for variety.
Yogifi wrote:
After watching a lot of camera conspiracy's youtube videos, I realise I don't need all the pop. Too much pop can be weird.
Sometimes it's nice to have a flatter image, sometimes some pop. Maybe it's the scene or look, maybe it's just for variety.
+1
I chased "max pop" for a while ... about a decade ago. I've since pulled back on where I like the rendering / transition rates to be. Everyone has their own palette pref's ... all good. My only "thing" is those who make it their business to put down others with different palette pref's in a dismissive, condescending manner.
As you noted, matching the amount of "pop" to the mood that you want to convey ... so, yes flatter has its place, too.
Of course, if there are lenses that render "flatter", then the inverse is inherent, too.
RustyBug wrote:
P.S. This IS a GEAR Forum, so why all the squalor when folks want to talk about gear.
Why? Because the whole thing feels like a crude commercial for Thypoch on a continuous loop. Own assumptions are interwoven with well-known quotes in an attempt to create the illusion of objectivity, and every now and then photos are posted that supposedly have a magical effect that would be unattainable with other glass. I'm sorry, but in my eyes this is nothing more than suggestion through endless repetition. Just look at a few comparison images and be outraged by the lifeless rendering of the Summilux, and delight in the inimitable, cinematic rendering of the Thypoch Simera. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1878983/6
You know, nobody claims that there aren't differences in the rendering of lenses; they definitely exist, and some of them are pretty strong, but I don't even find this constant Thypoch fairy tale hour amusing anymore.
But okay, I admit, I should basically just avoid following this thread.
mudlake wrote:
Cooking is about INGREDIENTS and PREPARATION. Subpar ingredients with great preparation can still be good, but not close to what it would be with the best ingredients.
The “pop” lens stuff is equivalent to neither ingredients nor preparation.
The “ingredients” of a fine photograph are subject, composition, light, color — the things in the photograph.
The “preparation” in a photograph has to do with knowledge of how to operate your camera/lens, ability to find a good subject, choosing time to photograph, knnowing locations, understanding light, compositional skill, and awareness of what elements make an effective photograph.
Indeed, in the context here the obsession over the Perfect Pop Lens is like debating the best spoon for 70 pages. ;-)
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Why? Because the whole thing feels like a crude commercial for Thypoch on a continuous loop. Own assumptions are interwoven with well-known quotes in an attempt to create the illusion of objectivity, and every now and then photos are posted that supposedly have a magical effect that would be unattainable with other glass. I'm sorry, but in my eyes this is nothing more than suggestion through endless repetition. Just look at a few comparison images and be outraged by the lifeless rendering of the Summilux, and delight in the inimitable, cinematic rendering of the Thypoch Simera. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1878983/6
You know, nobody claims that there aren't differences in the rendering of lenses; they definitely exist, and some of them are pretty strong, but I don't even find this constant Thypoch fairy tale hour amusing anymore.
But okay, I admit, I should basically just avoid following this thread.
It's just Thypoch marketing that people blather about using terms like cinematic (and other) and such with little objective fact. Their lenses, at least the 35, 50, 75 and 21 are near replicas of CV or Leica lenses with lower contrast (worse for my taste), different flare (unbecoming usually IMO) and rounded aperture blades (good work here). The prices are also quite attractive (sweet) compared to Leica's while I find the ergo generally poor (quite dumb).
While I respect Fred's and Bastian's reviews, there is more to a story than largely unprocessed compressed JPG's at websize.
You'll be happier if you just ignore (it can be challenging) the loop'ed youtube hype videos and words and use the lenses and draw your own conclusion
gdanmitchell wrote:
The “pop” lens stuff is equivalent to neither ingredients nor preparation.
The “ingredients” of a fine photograph are subject, composition, light, color — the things in the photograph.
The “preparation” in a photograph has to do with knowledge of how to operate your camera/lens, ability to find a good subject, choosing time to photograph, knnowing locations, understanding light, compositional skill, and awareness of what elements make an effective photograph.
Indeed, in the context here the obsession over the Perfect Pop Lens is like debating the best spoon for 70 pages. ;-)
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Why? Because the whole thing feels like a crude commercial for Thypoch on a continuous loop.
Not sure I totally follow that, per se.
Plenty of other glass that was advocated for / about along the way. Maybe there has been some recent interest shown in that direction, but on the whole ... I don't get that vibe, wrt Thypoch. Maybe, that's because I have a much longer exposure to Zeiss / Voigt / Leica and their variants of glass they've been producing for several decades ... than just the recent interests in Thypoch's approach.
One person takes a liking Thypoch's vibe on it. Another, digs on Zeiss's approach to it, etc. And, then we have folks who don't give two hoots about the differences in the glass.
