*See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples)* at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
Well thank you very much - though this video is more about gear. My most photography-related videos are in the *Playlists* "Photo Essays" and "Art of Photography".
@@CameraMystique I have just understood the Zeiss 3D pop effect, I haven’t own any Zeiss lenses yet but I’m planning to get one, but I have tried a Fujifilm GFX 50R with GF 110 F2 lens, and all I can say about the results were remarkable, specially at F2. It looks like a real 3D image. Maybe it’s the FEILD CURVATURE. It has very sharp image, good separation and soft edges. You have to try a medium format system one day.
@@yousef474 I have tried (tested) the GFX 50. And my first medium format camera was when I was 13 (the Lubitel 2 at the time). GFX lenses don't have field curvature. It's item separation, interplay between light and shadow, the appropriate angle, the layers of separation and events, that will give you the most 3D effect, long before any lens can have an effect.
Most you tube creators do not make videos for professionals . There made for those of us who just enjoy chasing a new thing or a creative look using gear. I do it because I just really enjoy it and different gear allows my to keep shooting and searching for inspiration even if I walk in same park 1000 times a different lens and I start intentionally looking for new beautiful things in everyday places
That's a positive way of thinking about it. And if you seek beauty, that's a blessing in both life and photography. I made a whole video about it, including references to architecture (ua-cam.com/video/TKpDwKfbcrk/v-deo.html) But I would not say "most youtubers". Because most of them are not "creators" - it's a modern euphemism for *Telemarketers.* Their videos are the very definition of Infomercial: a produce presentation and the phone number/affiliated link to buy it. Unfortunately this approach has led to endless gear talk and fake product characteristics. At some point it reached epic proportions with the scam of the Nocturnus, some people paid $3,000 for a Chinese mockup: petapixel.com/2019/03/07/meyer-optik-gorlitz-admits-nocturnus-was-a-modified-chinese-lens/ Before the news were revealed, there were suspicions, but hypnotized photographers insisted it was genuine...
@@CameraMystique thank you photographer changed my life and how I see the world I took up photography 7 years ago after getting sober and well my life is amazing and how I see the world now is intentional.
That does not mean that these UA-camrs should start spiting their opinion as "facts" without doing the proper research, like all of that "3D Pop" nonsense.
UA-camrs are very eager to make videos without thinking first. It's an impulse. Classic example was the angry photographer (who was never a photographer, not even a hobbyist). He correctly mentioned the topic of "pop lenses", but he didn't know how to explain it, so he rushed to impose his own couch theory on it. The results are haunting UA-cam to this day. Even respected photographers got carried away confusing the topic of "contrast" with the topic of "abrupt transitions".
*CORRECTION ISSUED 08/09/2024 AT 11.52 am: VAHAGRAPHY DOES NOT CONTAIN AFFILIATED LINKS. A VIEWER ALLERTED ME TO THIS, AND I CUT OUT THAT PART. SORRY VAHAGRAPHY! AND THANK YOU VIEWER FOR LETTING ME KNOW*
Thanks - though I have exhausted these topics in the past videos (check the Playlists - that's how this channel is organized), and there won't be any more videos about gear. Bits and pieces and ideas/inspirations in future videos, within the context.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
Ah yes, that Tamron was the best in their series. One of the best AF lenses I've ever had for black and white photography (sharp, clear of chromatic aberrations, balanced rendering).
I think it was actually the Leica guy ("von" something) who said it in an Infomercial he made for Leica: something like "if you take a picture and nobody knows when or where it was taken and it doesn't matter anyway, that's a good picture". But I'll go further in.
I didn't quite understand. The 3D effect in the distagon was created due to the elliptical line of the focusing plane. On the graphs, this is expressed as the lens being sharp in the center and blurred at the edges?
Yes. The area immediately behind the subject is more blurry than the edges. This gives an enhanced separation effect. Of course, lights, shadows, and color interaction will play a much stronger role. *For example, give me a model wearing electric blue, a flash, and green bushes behind her, and I'll make her more 3D with the flattest lens that anything you can do with a "poppy" lens.* MTF charts only tell a tiny part of the story, but here they are: www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/industrial-lenses/datasheets/en/classic-lenses/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-228-industrial-lens.pdf
Now all this is for this particular lens. Because the two most dimensional lenses I've ever had (the Milvus 35 f1.4 and the Otus 55) do not have any field curvature or other anomalies. They are dimensional for different reasons. The Distagon 28 is not "exceptionally" dimensional, but it's charming and mysterious. That is, for the trained and tasteful eye.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
All you have to do is the test you see at 01:12 - focus on the German vase (keep the focus there), place the printouts (large letters), and take a pic at every aperture. Compare center papers with those in the corners. If the corners are sharper than the center, you have field curvature. Then you need to test for different distances on how to maximize it, if that is your goal. Be careful with possible focus shifting (if focus changes when you stop down), because in this case the field curvature is variable and unpredictable in the three dimensional space.
Would the trick work in a similar (but not identical) manner if you placed the prints on a flat surface (relative to the camera) like a wall or the floor if the camera was directly overhead? Could this detect abberation at the corners/edges? Would this 2D test have application to the 3D look? Probably not. My guess is that 3D pop strictly need the "third dimension" to it. Thank you for your consideration.
If you place them on a wall, and your lens has field curvature, the areas of the focus curvature will be either in front of the wall or behind it. And you won't see them.
On Canon DSLRs you can remap one of your buttons to engage the aperture preview mechanism so that you can focus through the viewfinder and get an accurate preview of the focus field and preview the image and focus plane as it would be captured.
Same in Nikon. But the focus confirmation dot deactivates if you do that, plus if you're not close enough you can't judge critical focus through the viewfinder. With apo lenses that exhibit no field curvature, no problem. But with lenses such as the Voigt 58 (both field curvature + focus shifting + chromatic aberrations), it's a gamble. You have to use live view.
@@CameraMystique Thanks for responding. I will have to test this out. I am confused, though.does this only apply if were using autofocus? Otherwise, how would the image preview with the aperture stopped down be different through the viewfinder vs live view? Or is this a result of slight misalignments of the mirror and focusing screen? How did people accomplish this with mechanical and analog cameras? Or did the thickness of the film emulsion compensate? Does this also apply when stopped down?
@@Dstonephoto The Voigt 58 is a manual lens. Autofocus is a different ball game. When you are using your viewfinder in a DSLR, the aperture is open. It closes to the desired value (say, 5.6) when you press the shutter, then it opens again. So, say you are using a manual lens, the focus confirmation indication inside the viewfinder tells you that you are in focus. That's at f/1.4. And you have set the camera to take the pic at f/5.6. So you press the shutter button, the aperture closes at 5.6, the focus point moves away from the point you focused, and takes the field curvature along with it. In Live View, the image you see is with the lens already at 5.6. So the aperture won't change when you take the picture.
@@Dstonephoto In FILM cameras... a) Film almost never had the high contrast of digital. b) We would see our pictures in print only (that's less than 15% of a monitor's contrast). c) Most of our pictures were out of focus but they looked just fine on print. Prints hide noise, and hide most imperfections too (low contrast, small size). d) Professionals made sure to use lenses with no such imperfections.
@@CameraMystique right right. Okay, we are on the same page. This is why I remapped the aperture preview button on my Canon , in order to be able to compensate for any focus shift. It took me two years from the time that I picked up a camera to realize that the aperture is at its widest setting when using throught the mirror focusing. Two extra questions for you. I purchased an old Chinon camera and really found myself loving the ingenious split diopter focusing screens on them. Hats your opinion on using these with DSLRs ? I presume we get less light, and need to ensure screen alignment. How do you think the Voightlander 58 1.4 compares to the Nikon 58mm 1.4g? I love the images that I see taken with the 1.4g, but as it’s a a non manual lens adapting it to Canon is a no-go. Does the Voightlander 58 1.4 match the Nikon ? I normallu shoot above f4, so the 1.4g doesn’t concern me . Thank you again for responding.
The Voigtlander 58 f/1.4 came from the tribute of the Topcor 58 f/1.4 that cosina made in a limited lens run. Then took that optical formula to the Voigtlander 58 f/1.4. The original Topcor, which I own was much better especially when it came to chromatic aberrations. All the Topcors for their time 1960s-1970s have color correction and resolution not seen for decades to come later.
The Voigt 58 is an exceptionally sharp lens stepped down, as I showed in the detailed test 5 years ago or so, and it's got personality for sure, but at some point one gets tired of fixing CAs and always focusing in Live View etc. I don't keep difficult lenses anymore. *Oh, by the way, I finally concluded that Corporate America does not satisfy the IQ requirements to be reasonably included into the realm of the human species. Maybe under the American (very wide) definition, but not by any classical or scientific-linguistic definition.*
@@CameraMystique So is the original Topcor. Stopped down the Topcor can be sharper than the Voight at f/2.8-f/4. By f/5.6-f/8 hard to make out any difference. Topcor has much less CA, however. Actually, those 1960s-1970s Topcors are some of the sharpest non-native lenses I own. Although, I have a feeling there is in camera sharpening applied in those native lenses as some of what I see output wise doesn't look natural making me suspect. Corporate America pulls from all sorts of third world countries with average IQ's of around 80 in order to suppress wages. Today they don't even pretend they hire based on merit or intelligence or excellence.
It's not about wages in my case. Same wages. They're all H1-Bs. And they all behave like NPCs. They are prime candidates to be replaced by AI, and I mean the cheap version of AI.
Dynamic, Timeless and Relevant? The easiest of all in this category, are your family pictures. The harder ones are those that reflect your own taste. This was easy in the old days, because we only consumed 20-30 pics per month back then (1-2 magazines, no internet). Nowadays you have to stay off the internet for about 48-72 hours to clear your head before you start... one simplistic example I showed in the beginning of the video "Writing" (photographing dried leaves as musical notes).
Great video, you are so underrated man! That "discussion" of the Nikon lens was simply embarrassing. If "3D Pop" was the "end all, be all" of photography manufacturers would push for that. And I honestly think the "3D pop" thing is mostly subjective anyways. Or fine, let's say that a better transition from in-focus to out of focus is the closest thing.
Any lens maker can make them. But then Professionals would complain that the focus doesn't extent as much as they want, bridesmaids pop more than the bride, and companies would start getting calls "Hi, this is Bob from Indiana and my lens stopped popping yesterday".
@@CameraMystique Bwahahaha. I am starting to get worried. I see youtubers recognizing the old Fuji X-T1 for its great color output that didn't carry over to the subsequent models. I even saw the comparison between a X-T5 and X-T1 showing not much gain. I have felt this way for years thus I never upgraded. However, if this continues the dirt-cheap X-T1 gravy train will come to an end.
My pictures from my Canon T2i (18mp) were always sweeter than from my Canon T6s (24mp - too "crunchy"). Fuji (and Canon and Nikon) should have never pushed the resolution of a crop sensor into diffraction territory and also sacrifice color charm in the process. Incidentally, the X-Pro 1 was the most reliable X ever. I had the XT-2, XT-3 and XH-1, and all acted like defective randomly resetting cheap devices. I feel so much better today with only two cameras (D850-D500) which are practically identical (the one is the crop of the other).
@@CameraMystique After a point my opinion is if you need more resolution then you need a bigger sensor. I compared the new 24mp version to the old 16mp version and the colors were worse on the 24mp. Less saturated and bold; quite dull. When I upscaled from 16mp to 24mp just using old style upscaling software there really wasn't a detail difference that had any practical impact. Also, dynamic range was maybe a 1/3 of a stop. Sure, the video was better, and auto focus was better, but for just stills and from an IQ perspective I didn't see the need. I think digital tech has reached a point of diminishing returns a decade or so ago.
These two are unrelated. Micro-contrast is basically visible resolution/line pairs per mm etc. "Pop" is just strong separation of subject from the background.
Hi as a fellow photographer what should I be looking for when looking for a wedding photographer for my wedding? I'm not really satisfied with the portfolio of the ones within my budget but also I don't want to demand them of the results that I want. Any recommendations? If you are to get married what will you look for in a wedding photographer?
If he uses good lights (speedlights, strobes, umbrellas, etc), and if it's a big wedding he must have at least one assistant to help him. No lights no deal. I'll make a video tonight with "Responses to comments" and I will have more info for you.
Ah, I found the part I was looking for: From time point 5.08 to 7.22 at ua-cam.com/video/833wvFAZEiA/v-deo.html so I don't have to make a new video. Also, I would look for *natural colors* (not this new fashion with the colorized preset bullshit), reasonable apertures (not this "1.4" nonsense), how HAIR looks (in high ISO pics, they look like mud), etc. Check out this channel www.youtube.com/@TimKellysMasterPhotoTechniques/videos -- it's intermediate level, but it's great to get an idea. ON THE PROFESSIONAL SIDE, he must have a telephone number, an email address, and a basic portfolio with good prints. No "instagram handles" and all that childish bs. *In the old days* (including my two marriages) wedding photographers would give you a finished wedding album (the actual high quality album with the prints arranged appropriately), plus extra smaller prints etc.
Good video. Glad you're calling out that low element shit. It's just such a low information take, but then given the sorts of folks who repeat it I guess that fits? :shrug: Funny enough Leica M lenses still tend to have a lot of field curvature. To this day I've yet to see anything in 35mm match the 50mm Summilux ASPH for the _walking out of the frame_ effect. Very high contrast, very noticeable field curvature. At any rate, none of this stuff is a secret. It was hardly an uncommon discussion a decade and a half ago when I first got into photography, and I'm sure it must have been common for decades prior. Just that some "do your own research people" are actually hysterically bad at doing that lmao.
How many people in UA-cam photography say "ah, all those silly girls on Instagram following influencers", but then they're doing it themselves by following their own influencers-personalities. *Meanwhile, ACTUAL photographers are doing exhibitions and art shows, local museums and clubs feature their work, and the so-called hobbyists are at home watching infomercials.*
...and you are right about field curvature, old and well-known. The problem with the Voigt 58 was also focus shifting, which made the field completely variable. Unless you set up a tight focus trap or have the subject still while focusing in Live View, it's a tripod lens.
@@CameraMystique yeah focus shift is a killer. Lot of great old lenses have it though, and sharpness isn't everything so I occasionally put up with it. Unfortunately at 58mm it starts to become an issue pretty quickly especially given the sorts of subject magnification you're likely to be going for. FWIW I don't find the infomercials here on youtube universally bad, afterall I can just mute the video and look at the sample images. For better or for worse, UA-cam is now a central resource for seeing a lens' character. Flickr is dead and Instagram is the worst photography viewing format of all time probably. I had gotten out of photography and had to buy some stuff getting back in and UA-cam was largely helpful for deciding on stuff, though I went and dug up old contacts and got stuff through those people.
The Zeiss Planar 85 has focus shifting, but since I was dealing with problematic lenses in my film days, I made "mental notes" for correcting it. Lots of portraits of my kid with that lens, good results, but I never liked 85mm (or 35mm), and the CAs were hugely annoying (ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html) so when I bought the Otus 55 and saw the printed results, all the 85s were sold. The Nikon 85 1.4G was actually a better lens than the Planar (less CAs, better bokeh, less focus shifting), and *I think that the 1.4G is more CHARMING than the new Z 1.2* Of my manual lenses, the one which monopolizes my large wall prints (true-life non-reflective acrylics, expensive) is the Distagon 28, *shot like a point-and-shoot* believe it or not, always 5.6-8, always one shot. The least was the Milvus 35 1.4 (most dimensional lens ever, and I can't frame 35) - sold! (twice).
Of the *Leicas* I've tested for a client, I purchased myself my most favorite (and I don't have the camera - that's how much I liked it): the *Biogon 28* - if I ever win the Lotto I'll buy an M10 and weld that lens on it.
00:01 An intro from 2018 00:37 FIELD CURVATURE & "POP" Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.0 01:13 Example of field curvature in studio (Distagon 28) 02:07 Field curvature effect examples (Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 - tracing the field curvature and problems) 03:55 HIGH CONTRAST-RAPID FALL OFF & "POP" Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 05:44 BS Theories, Infomercials & Hard Truths 07:25 The Actual Photo Industry 08:03 Perspective Control Lens "miniature look" and how to "Pop" them 08:32 UA-cam Photography vs. the Actual Photo World 10:46 Over 65 years old...
Yes, focus field curvature can create that "miniature" effect in an image. Distagon 28mm f2 as well as Mamiya 45mm f2.8 has this effect at most, at least among the lenses I photographed with. I also happen to have voigtländer 58 mm f1.4 nd Zeiss Classic 85mm f1.4, and I found image quality extraordinary, but I normally shoot under f4- f11 appertures at most. For those who are using Nikon DSLR (with screwdrive motor) or SLR with autofocus then you'll be more than happy with Af-D Nikkors. If you are using manual focus slr then just Nikkors Ai-s. Those are all a professional grade optic equipment used to create stunning images. All those Zeiss lenses while great, they are so expensive in maintenance. Trust me, to do a small repair (relube) Zeiss lens cost a fortune, cause you'll be obliged to go to the authorized service center and third party repair shops most likely simply will refuse to take your order. Though I might be a different opinion on the "pop" partly. But those would be my personal speculations I can take from my own experience but not meassured anyhow in a lab.
Those (and the Zeiss) are not really professional lenses, except their cinema line. More like hobbyist lenses. Professional lenses are practical f/2.8 zooms (24-70, 70-200), and the occasional portrait lenses, very rarely 1.4s and almost never manual focus, unless it's a landscape or product photographer. But generally speaking, the consumer line of Voigtlander, Zeiss and the like, are mostly hobbyist lenses, despite the fact that they are superior in image quality. Let's not forget that the kitchen of a hobbyist cook is usually more expensive (and cleaner) than the kitchen of a 5-star chef, and the audio equipment of a hobbyist audiophile is more expensive than that of a pro musician. That's because hobbyists tend to love the equipment itself more than the actual product. As Alan Parsons said, “Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment”.
@@CameraMystique Of course modern professionals use Modern superior lenses. My point was that those old Nikon lenses from the past were used to create images by serious photographers so in my opinion should be enough for us nowadays who take photography as a hobby. According to Allan Parson "Without an Idea, music is just music (sound)".
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
100% on everything here. Real pro's either use old beat up gear or VERY expensive rented gear, Depends on your industry. They don't waste money buying expensive stuff most of the time ESPECIALLY camera bodies, they are not investments at all.
Hobbyists always spend a lot more money. My old boss had a gigantic stove (99% unused to this day) that was far more expensive than a Michelin chef would have in his own restaurant.
From the perspective of a theoretician, sure. But it protects the common artist too, not only the rich guy with the extensive portfolio or connections.
@@CameraMystique To me there's no sensible logical explanation of subject to protect it can be questioned endlessly from any given point. only thing it shows claeary thats person is cheap and believe that if he "working" "thinking hard" (idk what's more laughing ) everybody around owned. to the rest of his days. what's enjoyable the most, thats usually one and only argument of "true artist" to do his work and advocate existence. I believe they do not shit on weekend for freee
APO lenses are better (generally speaking) in pretty much everything. Most modern lenses are near-APO or APO. Kasey is teasing you. Use the search field in this channel, many instances with APO lenses. But of course the easiest and shortest example is a short one 5 years ago: ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html
I took a pair of pictures with my analog SLR and my modern camera. All exactly the same settings, FOV, composition, etc (as reasonably possible). Some pictures were similarly mediocre, but some of them were widely different. One image stood out to me as being particularly "3D" compared to the digital one, and I just can't change the digital one in lightroom to match. Once I saw that picture, I noticed the same effect on many of the other pictures. First of all, my Sony camera's colors are flat and boring (when imported to lightroom) and some colors (greens!) are just wrong, and I have no clue what slider can fix it. All sliders just look wrong. Some less bad than others. The analog pictures, scanned by the company that developed the film, look over saturated and yellow. The pictures are also much fuzzier. However, you can clearly see depth inside multiple levels of foliage (where you can see trees through the bokeh of other grees) while the digital pictures doesn't show it at all. There also seems to be a subtle color shift happening over distance that doesn't show on digital. Maybe that's UV haze? I don't use UV filters, but I'm sure my digital camera filters UV while analog might not. I really want to replicate the analog/"3D" look on my modern digital camera. I might actually find out what the F is going on, at some point. I'll try the same lens on my digital camera next, comparing the old, analog lens to my modern high-end 50mm. I also have a full spectrum converted digital (Sony) camera. I can use that one to see how a UV filter effects the image for cameras that are UV sensitive (film, or full spectrum cameras) Also: Can you see "3D pop" in B&W? Related: My (Analog) SLR allows aperture preview (Olympus OM-1) through the viewfinder. Don't modern DSLR allow this?
Yes, but: a) you can't really see from such a distance whether something is in perfect focus or not in the viewfinder, b) you lose the good-focus dot indicator inside the viewfinder when you do that. Which means, you have to switch to Live View, where you can magnify etc. No such problems with apochromatic lenses without field curvature (Sonar 135, Otus 55, Voigt 125, etc), where my focus is almost 100% and quick. Mirrorless have an advantage there, that you magnify "live-view screen" inside the viewfinder so you don't need to hold the camera in front of you.
now i understand "3D pop" lol. also the last part and long term licensing is mighty interesting, gonna give Dan Milnor a visit as well. thanks for the very insightful video.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
How many people are able to live off of their "archive"? It were a few before the internet and it are a few today. And how do they get famous and successful? Connections. This whole world of showings in galleries and book deals is a small, private club in which only a few chosen people get in. Without the internet and social media that would still be the case today. If there is a perceived decline in importance of certain "big" photographers it's because it got just a little more democratic due to the internet.
![[tech] Obsolete Cameras || ETTR colors || Histogram || Unstabilized Low ISO Night Photography](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LW2D-IKbIUo/mqdefault.jpg)
*See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples)* at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html
to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
This is one of the best videos I have ever watched on youtube about photography!
Thanks a lot.
Well thank you very much - though this video is more about gear. My most photography-related videos are in the *Playlists* "Photo Essays" and "Art of Photography".
@@CameraMystique I have just understood the Zeiss 3D pop effect, I haven’t own any Zeiss lenses yet but I’m planning to get one, but I have tried a Fujifilm GFX 50R with GF 110 F2 lens, and all I can say about the results were remarkable, specially at F2. It looks like a real 3D image. Maybe it’s the FEILD CURVATURE. It has very sharp image, good separation and soft edges. You have to try a medium format system one day.
@@yousef474 I have tried (tested) the GFX 50. And my first medium format camera was when I was 13 (the Lubitel 2 at the time). GFX lenses don't have field curvature. It's item separation, interplay between light and shadow, the appropriate angle, the layers of separation and events, that will give you the most 3D effect, long before any lens can have an effect.
Most you tube creators do not make videos for professionals . There made for those of us who just enjoy chasing a new thing or a creative look using gear. I do it because I just really enjoy it and different gear allows my to keep shooting and searching for inspiration even if I walk in same park 1000 times a different lens and I start intentionally looking for new beautiful things in everyday places
That's a positive way of thinking about it. And if you seek beauty, that's a blessing in both life and photography. I made a whole video about it, including references to architecture (ua-cam.com/video/TKpDwKfbcrk/v-deo.html)
But I would not say "most youtubers". Because most of them are not "creators" - it's a modern euphemism for *Telemarketers.* Their videos are the very definition of Infomercial: a produce presentation and the phone number/affiliated link to buy it. Unfortunately this approach has led to endless gear talk and fake product characteristics. At some point it reached epic proportions with the scam of the Nocturnus, some people paid $3,000 for a Chinese mockup: petapixel.com/2019/03/07/meyer-optik-gorlitz-admits-nocturnus-was-a-modified-chinese-lens/
Before the news were revealed, there were suspicions, but hypnotized photographers insisted it was genuine...
@@CameraMystique thank you photographer changed my life and how I see the world I took up photography 7 years ago after getting sober and well my life is amazing and how I see the world now is intentional.
That does not mean that these UA-camrs should start spiting their opinion as "facts" without doing the proper research, like all of that "3D Pop" nonsense.
UA-camrs are very eager to make videos without thinking first. It's an impulse. Classic example was the angry photographer (who was never a photographer, not even a hobbyist). He correctly mentioned the topic of "pop lenses", but he didn't know how to explain it, so he rushed to impose his own couch theory on it. The results are haunting UA-cam to this day. Even respected photographers got carried away confusing the topic of "contrast" with the topic of "abrupt transitions".
*CORRECTION ISSUED 08/09/2024 AT 11.52 am: VAHAGRAPHY DOES NOT CONTAIN AFFILIATED LINKS. A VIEWER ALLERTED ME TO THIS, AND I CUT OUT THAT PART. SORRY VAHAGRAPHY! AND THANK YOU VIEWER FOR LETTING ME KNOW*
Amazing eye-opening content!!! Thank you a lot! We wait for more! 🙏🏻
Thanks - though I have exhausted these topics in the past videos (check the Playlists - that's how this channel is organized), and there won't be any more videos about gear. Bits and pieces and ideas/inspirations in future videos, within the context.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html
to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
God bless you Sir,from tamron 35mm f1.8 lens comparison i knew you are best lens reviewer on youtube
Ah yes, that Tamron was the best in their series. One of the best AF lenses I've ever had for black and white photography (sharp, clear of chromatic aberrations, balanced rendering).
Dynamic, timeless and relevant…based on universal laws or perspective? Interesting topic.
I will cover this topic in the next two videos. It's already in the content. But it will be subtle. Going back to the mystique.
I think it was actually the Leica guy ("von" something) who said it in an Infomercial he made for Leica: something like "if you take a picture and nobody knows when or where it was taken and it doesn't matter anyway, that's a good picture".
But I'll go further in.
I didn't quite understand. The 3D effect in the distagon was created due to the elliptical line of the focusing plane. On the graphs, this is expressed as the lens being sharp in the center and blurred at the edges?
Yes. The area immediately behind the subject is more blurry than the edges. This gives an enhanced separation effect. Of course, lights, shadows, and color interaction will play a much stronger role. *For example, give me a model wearing electric blue, a flash, and green bushes behind her, and I'll make her more 3D with the flattest lens that anything you can do with a "poppy" lens.*
MTF charts only tell a tiny part of the story, but here they are: www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/industrial-lenses/datasheets/en/classic-lenses/datasheet-zeiss-distagon-228-industrial-lens.pdf
Now all this is for this particular lens. Because the two most dimensional lenses I've ever had (the Milvus 35 f1.4 and the Otus 55) do not have any field curvature or other anomalies. They are dimensional for different reasons.
The Distagon 28 is not "exceptionally" dimensional, but it's charming and mysterious. That is, for the trained and tasteful eye.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html
to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
Huh! Now I know why my favorite lens pops like that, it's also field curvature. Very interesting, thanks!
All you have to do is the test you see at 01:12 - focus on the German vase (keep the focus there), place the printouts (large letters), and take a pic at every aperture. Compare center papers with those in the corners. If the corners are sharper than the center, you have field curvature. Then you need to test for different distances on how to maximize it, if that is your goal. Be careful with possible focus shifting (if focus changes when you stop down), because in this case the field curvature is variable and unpredictable in the three dimensional space.
@@CameraMystiqueThis trick is the best!
Would the trick work in a similar (but not identical) manner if you placed the prints on a flat surface (relative to the camera) like a wall or the floor if the camera was directly overhead? Could this detect abberation at the corners/edges? Would this 2D test have application to the 3D look? Probably not.
My guess is that 3D pop strictly need the "third dimension" to it.
Thank you for your consideration.
If you place them on a wall, and your lens has field curvature, the areas of the focus curvature will be either in front of the wall or behind it. And you won't see them.
@@CameraMystique Thank you!
On Canon DSLRs you can remap one of your buttons to engage the aperture preview mechanism so that you can focus through the viewfinder and get an accurate preview of the focus field and preview the image and focus plane as it would be captured.
Same in Nikon. But the focus confirmation dot deactivates if you do that, plus if you're not close enough you can't judge critical focus through the viewfinder. With apo lenses that exhibit no field curvature, no problem. But with lenses such as the Voigt 58 (both field curvature + focus shifting + chromatic aberrations), it's a gamble. You have to use live view.
@@CameraMystique Thanks for responding. I will have to test this out. I am confused, though.does this only apply if were using autofocus? Otherwise, how would the image preview with the aperture stopped down be different through the viewfinder vs live view? Or is this a result of slight misalignments of the mirror and focusing screen? How did people accomplish this with mechanical and analog cameras? Or did the thickness of the film emulsion compensate? Does this also apply when stopped down?
@@Dstonephoto The Voigt 58 is a manual lens. Autofocus is a different ball game.
When you are using your viewfinder in a DSLR, the aperture is open. It closes to the desired value (say, 5.6) when you press the shutter, then it opens again. So, say you are using a manual lens, the focus confirmation indication inside the viewfinder tells you that you are in focus. That's at f/1.4. And you have set the camera to take the pic at f/5.6. So you press the shutter button, the aperture closes at 5.6, the focus point moves away from the point you focused, and takes the field curvature along with it.
In Live View, the image you see is with the lens already at 5.6. So the aperture won't change when you take the picture.
@@Dstonephoto In FILM cameras...
a) Film almost never had the high contrast of digital.
b) We would see our pictures in print only (that's less than 15% of a monitor's contrast).
c) Most of our pictures were out of focus but they looked just fine on print. Prints hide noise, and hide most imperfections too (low contrast, small size).
d) Professionals made sure to use lenses with no such imperfections.
@@CameraMystique right right. Okay, we are on the same page. This is why I remapped the aperture preview button on my Canon , in order to be able to compensate for any focus shift. It took me two years from the time that I picked up a camera to realize that the aperture is at its widest setting when using throught the mirror focusing. Two extra questions for you. I purchased an old Chinon camera and really found myself loving the ingenious split diopter focusing screens on them. Hats your opinion on using these with DSLRs ? I presume we get less light, and need to ensure screen alignment. How do you think the Voightlander 58 1.4 compares to the Nikon 58mm 1.4g? I love the images that I see taken with the 1.4g, but as it’s a a non manual lens adapting it to Canon is a no-go. Does the Voightlander 58 1.4 match the Nikon ? I normallu shoot above f4, so the 1.4g doesn’t concern me . Thank you again for responding.
The Voigtlander 58 f/1.4 came from the tribute of the Topcor 58 f/1.4 that cosina made in a limited lens run. Then took that optical formula to the Voigtlander 58 f/1.4. The original Topcor, which I own was much better especially when it came to chromatic aberrations. All the Topcors for their time 1960s-1970s have color correction and resolution not seen for decades to come later.
The Voigt 58 is an exceptionally sharp lens stepped down, as I showed in the detailed test 5 years ago or so, and it's got personality for sure, but at some point one gets tired of fixing CAs and always focusing in Live View etc. I don't keep difficult lenses anymore. *Oh, by the way, I finally concluded that Corporate America does not satisfy the IQ requirements to be reasonably included into the realm of the human species. Maybe under the American (very wide) definition, but not by any classical or scientific-linguistic definition.*
@@CameraMystique So is the original Topcor. Stopped down the Topcor can be sharper than the Voight at f/2.8-f/4. By f/5.6-f/8 hard to make out any difference. Topcor has much less CA, however. Actually, those 1960s-1970s Topcors are some of the sharpest non-native lenses I own. Although, I have a feeling there is in camera sharpening applied in those native lenses as some of what I see output wise doesn't look natural making me suspect. Corporate America pulls from all sorts of third world countries with average IQ's of around 80 in order to suppress wages. Today they don't even pretend they hire based on merit or intelligence or excellence.
It's not about wages in my case. Same wages. They're all H1-Bs. And they all behave like NPCs. They are prime candidates to be replaced by AI, and I mean the cheap version of AI.
Those last few seconds, that's the bit I am interested in.
Dynamic, Timeless and Relevant? The easiest of all in this category, are your family pictures. The harder ones are those that reflect your own taste. This was easy in the old days, because we only consumed 20-30 pics per month back then (1-2 magazines, no internet). Nowadays you have to stay off the internet for about 48-72 hours to clear your head before you start... one simplistic example I showed in the beginning of the video "Writing" (photographing dried leaves as musical notes).
I learned a lot from this video. Thank you very much for posting and to @Camera Conspiracy for sending me here.
Great video, you are so underrated man! That "discussion" of the Nikon lens was simply embarrassing.
If "3D Pop" was the "end all, be all" of photography manufacturers would push for that. And I honestly think the "3D pop" thing is mostly subjective anyways. Or fine, let's say that a better transition from in-focus to out of focus is the closest thing.
Any lens maker can make them. But then Professionals would complain that the focus doesn't extent as much as they want, bridesmaids pop more than the bride, and companies would start getting calls "Hi, this is Bob from Indiana and my lens stopped popping yesterday".
@@CameraMystique nuff said!
I see it! I see the pop!
People starring at it too long have turned into columns of salt.
@@CameraMystique Bwahahaha. I am starting to get worried. I see youtubers recognizing the old Fuji X-T1 for its great color output that didn't carry over to the subsequent models. I even saw the comparison between a X-T5 and X-T1 showing not much gain. I have felt this way for years thus I never upgraded. However, if this continues the dirt-cheap X-T1 gravy train will come to an end.
My pictures from my Canon T2i (18mp) were always sweeter than from my Canon T6s (24mp - too "crunchy"). Fuji (and Canon and Nikon) should have never pushed the resolution of a crop sensor into diffraction territory and also sacrifice color charm in the process. Incidentally, the X-Pro 1 was the most reliable X ever. I had the XT-2, XT-3 and XH-1, and all acted like defective randomly resetting cheap devices. I feel so much better today with only two cameras (D850-D500) which are practically identical (the one is the crop of the other).
@@CameraMystique After a point my opinion is if you need more resolution then you need a bigger sensor. I compared the new 24mp version to the old 16mp version and the colors were worse on the 24mp. Less saturated and bold; quite dull. When I upscaled from 16mp to 24mp just using old style upscaling software there really wasn't a detail difference that had any practical impact. Also, dynamic range was maybe a 1/3 of a stop. Sure, the video was better, and auto focus was better, but for just stills and from an IQ perspective I didn't see the need. I think digital tech has reached a point of diminishing returns a decade or so ago.
Hi i would like to know if zeiss 50mm 1'5 sonnar has microcontrast and pop/ I watched your video on microcontrast and it was very informative
These two are unrelated. Micro-contrast is basically visible resolution/line pairs per mm etc.
"Pop" is just strong separation of subject from the background.
Hi as a fellow photographer what should I be looking for when looking for a wedding photographer for my wedding? I'm not really satisfied with the portfolio of the ones within my budget but also I don't want to demand them of the results that I want. Any recommendations? If you are to get married what will you look for in a wedding photographer?
If he uses good lights (speedlights, strobes, umbrellas, etc), and if it's a big wedding he must have at least one assistant to help him. No lights no deal. I'll make a video tonight with "Responses to comments" and I will have more info for you.
Ah, I found the part I was looking for: From time point 5.08 to 7.22 at ua-cam.com/video/833wvFAZEiA/v-deo.html so I don't have to make a new video.
Also, I would look for *natural colors* (not this new fashion with the colorized preset bullshit), reasonable apertures (not this "1.4" nonsense), how HAIR looks (in high ISO pics, they look like mud), etc. Check out this channel www.youtube.com/@TimKellysMasterPhotoTechniques/videos -- it's intermediate level, but it's great to get an idea.
ON THE PROFESSIONAL SIDE, he must have a telephone number, an email address, and a basic portfolio with good prints. No "instagram handles" and all that childish bs.
*In the old days* (including my two marriages) wedding photographers would give you a finished wedding album (the actual high quality album with the prints arranged appropriately), plus extra smaller prints etc.
Good video. Glad you're calling out that low element shit. It's just such a low information take, but then given the sorts of folks who repeat it I guess that fits? :shrug: Funny enough Leica M lenses still tend to have a lot of field curvature. To this day I've yet to see anything in 35mm match the 50mm Summilux ASPH for the _walking out of the frame_ effect. Very high contrast, very noticeable field curvature. At any rate, none of this stuff is a secret. It was hardly an uncommon discussion a decade and a half ago when I first got into photography, and I'm sure it must have been common for decades prior. Just that some "do your own research people" are actually hysterically bad at doing that lmao.
How many people in UA-cam photography say "ah, all those silly girls on Instagram following influencers", but then they're doing it themselves by following their own influencers-personalities. *Meanwhile, ACTUAL photographers are doing exhibitions and art shows, local museums and clubs feature their work, and the so-called hobbyists are at home watching infomercials.*
...and you are right about field curvature, old and well-known. The problem with the Voigt 58 was also focus shifting, which made the field completely variable. Unless you set up a tight focus trap or have the subject still while focusing in Live View, it's a tripod lens.
@@CameraMystique yeah focus shift is a killer. Lot of great old lenses have it though, and sharpness isn't everything so I occasionally put up with it. Unfortunately at 58mm it starts to become an issue pretty quickly especially given the sorts of subject magnification you're likely to be going for. FWIW I don't find the infomercials here on youtube universally bad, afterall I can just mute the video and look at the sample images. For better or for worse, UA-cam is now a central resource for seeing a lens' character. Flickr is dead and Instagram is the worst photography viewing format of all time probably. I had gotten out of photography and had to buy some stuff getting back in and UA-cam was largely helpful for deciding on stuff, though I went and dug up old contacts and got stuff through those people.
The Zeiss Planar 85 has focus shifting, but since I was dealing with problematic lenses in my film days, I made "mental notes" for correcting it. Lots of portraits of my kid with that lens, good results, but I never liked 85mm (or 35mm), and the CAs were hugely annoying (ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html) so when I bought the Otus 55 and saw the printed results, all the 85s were sold. The Nikon 85 1.4G was actually a better lens than the Planar (less CAs, better bokeh, less focus shifting), and *I think that the 1.4G is more CHARMING than the new Z 1.2*
Of my manual lenses, the one which monopolizes my large wall prints (true-life non-reflective acrylics, expensive) is the Distagon 28, *shot like a point-and-shoot* believe it or not, always 5.6-8, always one shot. The least was the Milvus 35 1.4 (most dimensional lens ever, and I can't frame 35) - sold! (twice).
Of the *Leicas* I've tested for a client, I purchased myself my most favorite (and I don't have the camera - that's how much I liked it): the *Biogon 28* - if I ever win the Lotto I'll buy an M10 and weld that lens on it.
00:01 An intro from 2018 00:37 FIELD CURVATURE & "POP" Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4, Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.0 01:13 Example of field curvature in studio (Distagon 28) 02:07 Field curvature effect examples (Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 - tracing the field curvature and problems) 03:55 HIGH CONTRAST-RAPID FALL OFF & "POP" Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4, Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 05:44 BS Theories, Infomercials & Hard Truths 07:25 The Actual Photo Industry 08:03 Perspective Control Lens "miniature look" and how to "Pop" them 08:32 UA-cam Photography vs. the Actual Photo World 10:46 Over 65 years old...
Yes, focus field curvature can create that "miniature" effect in an image.
Distagon 28mm f2 as well as Mamiya 45mm f2.8 has this effect at most, at least among the lenses I photographed with.
I also happen to have voigtländer 58 mm f1.4 nd Zeiss Classic 85mm f1.4, and I found image quality extraordinary, but I normally shoot under f4- f11 appertures at most.
For those who are using Nikon DSLR (with screwdrive motor) or SLR with autofocus then you'll be more than happy with Af-D Nikkors. If you are using manual focus slr then just Nikkors Ai-s.
Those are all a professional grade optic equipment used to create stunning images.
All those Zeiss lenses while great, they are so expensive in maintenance. Trust me, to do a small repair (relube) Zeiss lens cost a fortune, cause you'll be obliged to go to the authorized service center and third party repair shops most likely simply will refuse to take your order.
Though I might be a different opinion on the "pop" partly. But those would be my personal speculations I can take from my own experience but not meassured anyhow in a lab.
Those (and the Zeiss) are not really professional lenses, except their cinema line. More like hobbyist lenses. Professional lenses are practical f/2.8 zooms (24-70, 70-200), and the occasional portrait lenses, very rarely 1.4s and almost never manual focus, unless it's a landscape or product photographer. But generally speaking, the consumer line of Voigtlander, Zeiss and the like, are mostly hobbyist lenses, despite the fact that they are superior in image quality.
Let's not forget that the kitchen of a hobbyist cook is usually more expensive (and cleaner) than the kitchen of a 5-star chef, and the audio equipment of a hobbyist audiophile is more expensive than that of a pro musician. That's because hobbyists tend to love the equipment itself more than the actual product.
As Alan Parsons said, “Audiophiles don't use their equipment to listen to your music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment”.
@@CameraMystique
Of course modern professionals use
Modern superior lenses. My point was that those old Nikon lenses from the past were used to create images by serious photographers so in my opinion should be enough for us nowadays who take photography as a hobby.
According to Allan Parson "Without an Idea, music is just music (sound)".
@@alexanderpopov4691 Yes, most lenses we have in the last 20-30 years are good enough for most cases.
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html
to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
100% on everything here. Real pro's either use old beat up gear or VERY expensive rented gear, Depends on your industry. They don't waste money buying expensive stuff most of the time ESPECIALLY camera bodies, they are not investments at all.
Hobbyists always spend a lot more money. My old boss had a gigantic stove (99% unused to this day) that was far more expensive than a Michelin chef would have in his own restaurant.
The real fun stuff comes from old wide angles that have moustache or wave curvature.
Not very old. I had a Samyang 14mm once, bought it from Amazon for night sky. I returned it in panic.
intellectual property is opposite of freedom of speech
From the perspective of a theoretician, sure. But it protects the common artist too, not only the rich guy with the extensive portfolio or connections.
@@CameraMystique To me there's no sensible logical explanation of subject to protect it can be questioned endlessly from any given point. only thing it shows claeary thats person is cheap and believe that if he "working" "thinking hard" (idk what's more laughing ) everybody around owned. to the rest of his days.
what's enjoyable the most, thats usually one and only argument of "true artist" to do his work and advocate existence. I believe they do not shit on weekend for freee
All my photos taken with my mamiya 645 and sekor 80 f2.8 lens have 3D pop on them at all apertures.
Kecay just said APO lenses take half the Bokeh. I saw you did a video on APO, can you explain that?I only knew APO has higher contrast.
APO lenses are better (generally speaking) in pretty much everything. Most modern lenses are near-APO or APO. Kasey is teasing you. Use the search field in this channel, many instances with APO lenses. But of course the easiest and shortest example is a short one 5 years ago: ua-cam.com/video/L-yLsgeP1JY/v-deo.html
I took a pair of pictures with my analog SLR and my modern camera. All exactly the same settings, FOV, composition, etc (as reasonably possible). Some pictures were similarly mediocre, but some of them were widely different. One image stood out to me as being particularly "3D" compared to the digital one, and I just can't change the digital one in lightroom to match. Once I saw that picture, I noticed the same effect on many of the other pictures.
First of all, my Sony camera's colors are flat and boring (when imported to lightroom) and some colors (greens!) are just wrong, and I have no clue what slider can fix it. All sliders just look wrong. Some less bad than others.
The analog pictures, scanned by the company that developed the film, look over saturated and yellow. The pictures are also much fuzzier. However, you can clearly see depth inside multiple levels of foliage (where you can see trees through the bokeh of other grees) while the digital pictures doesn't show it at all. There also seems to be a subtle color shift happening over distance that doesn't show on digital. Maybe that's UV haze? I don't use UV filters, but I'm sure my digital camera filters UV while analog might not.
I really want to replicate the analog/"3D" look on my modern digital camera. I might actually find out what the F is going on, at some point. I'll try the same lens on my digital camera next, comparing the old, analog lens to my modern high-end 50mm.
I also have a full spectrum converted digital (Sony) camera. I can use that one to see how a UV filter effects the image for cameras that are UV sensitive (film, or full spectrum cameras)
Also: Can you see "3D pop" in B&W?
Related: My (Analog) SLR allows aperture preview (Olympus OM-1) through the viewfinder. Don't modern DSLR allow this?
Yes, but: a) you can't really see from such a distance whether something is in perfect focus or not in the viewfinder, b) you lose the good-focus dot indicator inside the viewfinder when you do that. Which means, you have to switch to Live View, where you can magnify etc. No such problems with apochromatic lenses without field curvature (Sonar 135, Otus 55, Voigt 125, etc), where my focus is almost 100% and quick.
Mirrorless have an advantage there, that you magnify "live-view screen" inside the viewfinder so you don't need to hold the camera in front of you.
NEW ANSWER:
those oversimplified rules are borderline from people who make rules and those who obey and like and subscribe
now i understand "3D pop" lol. also the last part and long term licensing is mighty interesting, gonna give Dan Milnor a visit as well. thanks for the very insightful video.
I'm assuming you already saw the previous ua-cam.com/video/DWo2-8gscRw/v-deo.html
See also on FIELD CURVATURE (more examples) at time from 4.25 to 7.00 in the video ua-cam.com/video/bP64z_ipObk/v-deo.html
to better understand the phenomenon and its problems.
All I want now is 3D pop lenses. Don't care about anything else. Really sorry lol!
The Chordettes had the first review on the topic...
How many people are able to live off of their "archive"? It were a few before the internet and it are a few today. And how do they get famous and successful? Connections. This whole world of showings in galleries and book deals is a small, private club in which only a few chosen people get in. Without the internet and social media that would still be the case today. If there is a perceived decline in importance of certain "big" photographers it's because it got just a little more democratic due to the internet.
Connections are No. 1. Everywhere. But Social Media (and lately, the entire internet) is a thief.