Well I forgot to mention the Zeiss... that's true. I don't see it on Canon, sigmas, nikons etc but once in a while... I see them better than Zeiss'. Well I guess we see things differently.
To be clear, I'm only seeing it on some of the really new designs; I almost never saw it from the likes of Canon and Sigma before, oh, 4 years ago or so? Never noticed it from a Nikon, tbh. And it's also hard to say anything about the regularity of the effect without owning them, as some lenses seem to be able to deliver the effect, but with less regularity than others.
Hi Fred, my post was slightly tongue in cheek. The entire subject of 3D on a screen or piece of paper makes me think of all the adjectives used in the world of stereo to argue for tubes, or a certain speaker, or special wire that works in only one direction. I guess I'm not sure that "3D" is a characteristic of a lens, beyond basic contrast. In the day, the 4x5 day, we worked hard to get everything in focus. All sharp, not much 3D. My suggestion of selecting the subject and making a layer for the subject and for the background was just an additional approach to separating the main subject from everything else. I have a nice photo of a huge rock on the Oregon coast. I wanted to make the rock stand out so I did what I described. The image after the manipulation of the layers is much more 3D, eg the rock stands out from the surrounding ocean. May be I'm entirely missing the point of the discussion, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. In any case, thanks Fred for what you do for this forum and website.
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Does larger format than FF count? I used RX1R and A9 but and since switched to GFX system and have seen 3D pop that's nothing like before.
Feel free to post..
My own belief regarding this subject is that the whole “microcontrast” and 3D thing started with some vintage by now Zeiss designs, especially the 6 and 7 elements Planars. The optical character of the design, combined with above average coatings and thus contrast, produced lenses very usable at larger apertures, and Zeiss owners explored this avenue (while others were rather constrained to use f/2.8 or smaller as to avoid obvious “soft glow” and lack of sharpness and contrast of the main subject). This produced some distinctive images from the Zeiss users and established the “Zeiss microcontrast and 3D pop” legend.
As of today, I don’t think of the FE 50/1.4 as being a “true” Planar in character. They made it even better.
doc4x5 wrote:
Hi Fred, my post was slightly tongue in cheek. The entire subject of 3D on a screen or piece of paper makes me think of all the adjectives used in the world of stereo to argue for tubes, or a certain speaker, or special wire that works in only one direction. I guess I'm not sure that "3D" is a characteristic of a lens, beyond basic contrast. In the day, the 4x5 day, we worked hard to get everything in focus. All sharp, not much 3D. My suggestion of selecting the subject and making a layer for the subject and for the background was just an additional approach to separating the main subject from everything else. I have a nice photo of a huge rock on the Oregon coast. I wanted to make the rock stand out so I did what I described. The image after the manipulation of the layers is much more 3D, eg the rock stands out from the surrounding ocean. May be I'm entirely missing the point of the discussion, maybe I'm just a curmudgeon. In any case, thanks Fred for what you do for this forum and website....Show more →
As a long-standing audiophile I can tell you that I have a far easier time seeing "3D' in images than I did hearing magic in audio cables.
I commented earlier in the thread that I felt that all lenses can produce it under certain circumstances.
Those "certain circumstances" will exist far more often for some lenses then for others.
I have a copy of the Zeiss 35/2; once elected the "most 3D" on these forums and I can attest that that optic can produce the effect all day long.
I have others in which I rarely see it.
IMO - yeah; it exists but more so for some gear than others.
Incidentally - my wife has depth perception issues and cannot see "3D" in any of my images.
Sort of reminds me of the deaf old farts on audio sites who would argue with young men over the characteristics of speakers.
Now that I'm a deaf old fart I spend more time in "I'll take your word for it" mode.
Yeah exactly, that is what I'd define as "3D effect" in a flat image. That's usually what I can obtain for example out of 35mm quality fast Zeiss glass.
DaveFP wrote:
Yep; tremendous dimensionality there. Very nice.
What lens?
Definitely 3d but also a lot in these goes to composition with strong leading lines giving depth associated with shallow dof and use of moderate wide-angle (35mm).
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Does larger format than FF count? I used RX1R and A9 but and since switched to GFX system and have seen 3D pop that's nothing like before.
+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.
