no one can really define what a \"3D effect\" is in a consistent way.
whatever it is, it seems to be the result of a whole range of things that can be described separately.
whatever it is, it is not fundamentally caused by which sensor you use or which body you use.
I agree with the first two.
On the third, it depends on the first. Certain bodies/sensors are better, IMO, at preserving accutance/sharpness/contrast (or some combination thereof) . . . and that may very well be what some people are claiming is part of the \"3D effect\".
But, it is my suggestion/opinion that it\'s better to talk about the speific things (#2 in your list) individually, rather than trying to lump them all together into some nebulous/mystical term like \"3D\".
What\'s wrong with simply saying something like:
This lens is so much sharper/contrasty than others I\'ve used
This camera body gives much sharper detail than the last body I had.
Etc?
If the lens actually is \"sharper\" and the body actually \"gives much sharper detail\" than some other body, there is certainly nothing wrong with quantifying that. I certainly didn\'t say anything (or at least didn\'t intend to say anything) to contradict that idea.
I stand by my response to the original question regarding whether so-called \"pro bodies\" as a breed are more able to produce some thing called a \"3D \'effect\'\" than so-called non-pro bodies.
Of course, anyone who believes the that the bodies they imagine to be \"pro\" are clearly able to better produce something they describe as \"3D effect\" than the bodies they categorize as \"non pro\" can easily check the validity of their assumption. There is a simple alternative to working backwards via the inductive logic that is more or less \"this is a really expensive body; it must be produce better images; I think that better images will have a \"more 3D\" effect; therefore this more expensive body produces a better 3D effect.
The alternative is to look at many, many photographs without reference to or knowledge of what camera body was used to make them. Categorize them using whatever standard works for you into two categories: \"have 3D effect\" and \" does not have 3D effect.\" (Or substitute \"really sharp\" and \"not really sharp\" or \"pop\" and \"no pop\" or whatever pleases you.) After finishing the blind categorization of the photos check to see what camera, lens, process was used to make them and verify (or more likely fail to verify) that your categorization matches up with a particular body, lens, etc.
That is a test I might believe.
Dan
Nov 27, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #7826511 « 3-D "effect" from non pro bodies? »
