Focus Camera and Lifestyle by Focus has been providing assistance to corporate, government, and tax-exempt entities with their photography, electronics, and technology needs for over 35 years. As an authorized dealer of favorite brands, they offer the guaranteed best products. Lifestyle photography is a type of portrait photography that captures candid moments of people in their everyday lives, focusing on high living standards, fashion, advertising, family portraits, children photography, city lifestyle, and travel.
Founded by Abe Berkowitz in 1966, Focus has built a tight knit community of photographers, videographers, musicians, and other professionals in the New York City Metropolitan Area. Lifestyle photography is an artistic approach to photographing subjects in a manner that reveals their true personality rather than strictly focusing on technical perfection.
Location.focuscamera.com offers a wide range of products that enrich the lives of their customers, including The Weber Grills Q 1200 portable gas grill, Motorola’s FOCUS71, and Motorola FOCUS cameras with Wi-Fi connectivity. Focus Camera is dedicated to helping the next generation of artists achieve their creative goals and is known for its fast delivery and items being exactly as described.
Focus Camera is a family-owned photography and consumer electronics retailer that has served the New York City metropolitan area for over half a century. They offer a wide range of products, including cameras, video cameras, camera lenses, and more, with free shipping and financing available.
📹 The Leica Q3 43mm is Unlike Any Camera Out There | First Impressions!
Can everything i talked about in the affiliate links below! Leica Q3 43 ā https://bhpho.to/3XYlT73 Roughout Rambler Strap!
What is a focus camera?
The act of focusing a camera entails modifying the distance between the subject, lens, and sensor. This is achieved either through adjustments to the camera settings or by moving closer or further away from the subject.
What are the 4 types of focus?
This article explores the four types of attention: sustained, selective, alternating, and divided. Sustained attention, also known as vigilance, involves continuous focus on a task or stimulus over an extended period. It is crucial in various settings where continuous concentration is required, such as in occupational and everyday settings. It is essential to understand how these types of attention function and interconnect to better understand their significance in cognitive development, behavioral outcomes, and overall mental health.
Researching these types of attention is essential for understanding their impact on various aspects of life, including educational success, workplace productivity, clinical diagnoses, and technological advancements.
What is live focus on a camera?
The camera’s Live Focus feature allows for professional-looking shots with the right amount of background blur. T-Mobile users can easily switch, set up devices using the Sprint Migration Center app, pay bills, manage line permissions, and access account resources. T-Mobile offers various services, including in-flight texting, Wi-Fi calling, international roaming, and mobile without borders.
Is Focus app legit?
Focus apps are useful tools for improving concentration and productivity, but their effectiveness depends on the individual user. Consistent use and easy integration into a lifestyle are crucial for success. While focus apps can reduce distractions, enhance time management, and boost productivity, they are not magic solutions. Achieving improved focus requires consistency, practice, and a genuine commitment to changing habits.
NuCalm, a holistic approach to health and wellness, uses patented neuroscience technology to guide brain waves to specific states, including alpha and theta, for deep restoration and recovery. NuCalm Focus guides brain waves to beta frequencies, which are associated with heightened focus and concentration while minimizing distractions. This holistic solution complements focus apps by addressing stress, which is a significant factor in reduced focus and productivity. Effective stress management is essential for achieving and maintaining optimal focus and concentration.
What is live mode autofocus?
In the live view mode, the autofocus focus area is displayed on the monitor. The multi selector may be employed to reposition the focus to another frame part, and AF-area mode controls the selection of the focus point, which is also available for the purposes of recording movies.
What is the best focus mode for a camera?
Single-Point AF represents the optimal focus area mode for still subjects in landscape photography, as it ensures accurate focus on areas that will remain stationary. This mode is particularly useful for portraiture or images where precise focus is of paramount importance. The focus area mode is commonly referred to as Single-Point AF in Nikon, Manual AF Point in Canon, and Center/Flexible Spot in Sony.
What are the three types of focusing in camera?
The key to capturing sharp images in photography is understanding the best camera focus modes. There are three types: autofocus area mode, continuous autofocus, and manual focus. Autofocus area mode automatically selects an object in the foreground or background, while continuous autofocus adjusts as composition changes. Manual focus allows full control over focus. MF (Manual Focus) is used when you want to control focus, like in portraits. It is more reliable than autofocus in low-light conditions and certain genres like macro, architecture, and stills.
Autofocus (AF) is used when the camera automatically determines focus, ideal for close-ups of a stationary subject or when using autofocus continuous mode (AF-C). The best focus mode depends on the subject and the composition.
Should I use AF c or af s?
The camera employs AF-S for stationary subjects and AF-C for subjects in motion. Once the shutter-release button is pressed halfway, the focus is locked. The camera offers a variety of focus modes, including autofocus, AF-Area mode, focus point selection, and manual focus. In viewfinder photography, the camera employs a 51-point autofocus system, with the focus mode selector capable of switching between AF and M.
Is live focus the same as portrait mode?
Portrait mode and live focus mode are two modes on smartphones that allow users to take photos with a sharp focus on the subject and a blurred background. They differ in their capabilities and settings, but the basic concept remains the same. External lenses can be used with portrait mode to enhance the camera’s capabilities, but they must be compatible with the phone and not interfere with the camera’s ability to capture depth information.
Using flash in portrait mode can potentially affect the quality of the images, as it can create harsh shadows and disrupt the camera’s ability to accurately gauge the scene’s depth. Therefore, it is generally recommended to use natural light when shooting in portrait mode.
Is Lifestyle by focus a legit site?
A total of approximately 80 reviewers on the consumer review platform TrustPilot rated their shopping experience with Focus as either “great” or “excellent.” The ratings were based on a number of criteria, including the quality of customer service, the overall experience, the price paid, and other factors.
Are focus cameras good?
Focus has received over 31, 000 five-star ratings on Shopper Approved, a reputable online rating and review platform that collects authentic reviews from verified customers.
📹 3D Pop: WHAT IS IT? How To See It!
Some people think 3D pop doesn’t exist. It can be hard to see, I’ll admit. Certain scenes show it more than others. Here I will try toĀ …
I’ve used Leica’s APO Summicron-SL lenses on my SL system for years. One of the least talked about things regarding the APO lenses are the way they render black and white images. Because the color websites are aligned on the sensor, there is a tremendous amount of detail, contrast and microcontrast . Images almost take on a degree of hyper-reality. I’ve had the Q3 43 since last week and it seriously may replace my 35 & 50 APO lenses on the SL3.
After viewing lots of images shot with Leica lenses I am a firm believer in that almost indefinable “pop” of their lens formulas. I call it a creamy snap. There is a great snap to the info focus areas (subject) with plenty of local area contrast – while the Bokeh roll off is swift, soft, and creamy. I don’t see that with many lenses – but the lens magicians at Leica have relied on this for decades. Great review my brother – I love your passion!
Some people seem to think that just because you can take a good picture with other camera systems that somehow should disqualify Leica on the basis of it’s steeper price. If you’re on a budget your accountant might agree with this rationale but if you’re a seasoned artist this logic just misses the point. Don’t own any myself but I tend to see Leica shooters as seasoned artists who have shot so many different cameras and can get great photos no matter what. I imagine when you’re at that stage of development, when you’re so secure in your craft, that yes you may still always be chasing after that next great picture but the process is smooth, well honed and it frees up capacity to focus on the other aspect of the craft which is the man-machine connection. This is what Leica offers. Of course image quality is superb. But honestly I think it’s the combination of the image and the quality of the machine itself that makes Leica sacred. Sure there’s the rich tourist out there who just wants to be seen with a prestige camera on holiday but by far and way I see most Leica users as some of the most dedicated and passionate for the craft. You almost have to be to truly appreciate it.
12:00 I understand how he came to this conclusion, but it’s not correct. Let’s learn together! Glass, much like water causes light defraction (warping). Shorter color wavelengths, like violet, defract less than longer wavelengths, like red. A good lens design and excellent glass clarity can minimize and correct diffraction. But it’s extreamly difficult to account for diffraction on the far ends of the focus range.
Dude I have the 28 and I’ve been knocking myself on the head perusal all the reviews trying to figure out if I should get the 43 as well and this is the first article where I am 100% sure that I do want to get it now and you’re right about the sharpness but I mean this goes for all of this company’s cameras there’s a look that comes out of it that just can’t be explained and I was a Sony shooter for so long it’s just incredible what comes out of these cameras but definitely going to get the 43 now after perusal your article
As a car photographer I wish i could switch to a Leica Q3 43 becasue I need to be on the Sony Alpha system to create professional work with that versitality and quailty also the dual card slot. But all the time i wish i could do that on a Leica Q because the sony system dont inspire me as a creative. Any opinion and suggestion on this debate?
Can’t wait to see what you’ll create with this camera !! I believe the Q3 43 will be the answer to many photographers wishing for a “high end do it all EDC” who also want to enjoy the experience and process of creating photographs, in a small and beautiful form factor. This 43 APO seems to be just as stellar as we would expect from Leica. Also, in a full review, I would love to see you experiment the image quality for article of this Q3 43, especially with all your knowledge and experience in article/cinema. I know it is definitely not a article centric camera, and it is not why people will buy it. Especially in terms of ergonomic (no mic port etc…), but for a b-cam or just a photographer who wants to take nice shots sometimes with great color and rendering thanks to L-Log… still having one small camera in the bag, what do you think of it ? Anyway, enjoy it !
Come on Cam some of the greatest photographs of all time were made with old slow film camerasā¦ You don’t have to explain why you buy a camera or 10 camerasā¦ You take KILLER IMAGES with ALL of your Full Frame camerasā¦ ā¤ You love cameras.. That ok. You take amazing images! Great Race car drivers love fast carsā¦ Lots of them!!
If you buy today’s gear through my affiliate links, you can sense the depth of your sandwich better. :_Logo::_Hammer::_Toneh::_Fuji::_Nikon: Thank you for your Bitcoin donations š bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f Nikon Z6 III amzn.to/4eiMrFZ Fringer EF-NZ II amzn.to/3NltmXX Canon EF 85mm f1.2 amzn.to/4ezrLZU Canon EF 135mm f2 amzn.to/3BliNkG Sony ZVE1 amzn.to/3ZL9YLd Tascam DR10-L amzn.to/3TOfF7q All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
You can tell very well by looking at the rails, the ‘3D pop’ comes from the smoother focus falloff on the nikon lens, keeping more in focus and smoothly transitioning to out of focus. On the sony lens on the other hand, you can tell the focus goes from in to out of focus in a straight line, creating a ‘greenscreen effect’ with the paperthin focusplane.
What you have is clearly different contrast curves on both. Just need a steeper curve on the dark on the right one and it should look quite same. So of course more contrast gives more “pop”. When it comes to sharpness, i dont think you will ever see much difference when recording article. 4k is just 8MP, the lens should be really poor quality not to look sharp on 8MP. Those lenses are designed for 20-60MP.
And 3D Pop MATTERS. I used to love all my viltrox lenses but they are flat af. The small nikon 40mm f2 has the POP. I love it. The 135mm Plena from Nikon is so flat… Super sharp but flat like the earth (thats a joke). Btw in this comparison the z6iii image is popping. Colors are also beautiful. Sony is good. Nice bokeh but it is flat. Clients wont care at all at the end of the day. We chose these lenses for us
Most engaging camera equipment reviews! You’ve got a very original style amigo. You already persuaded me and ended up getting the ZV E1, but I just couldnt get rid of my A7S3. I love it too! I also got the Sony 20mm thanks to your articles. Sony should be paying you some $ for referring people to their products! Anyway. I now watch your article because they’re so enterteining!And I learn so much about cams and article equipment for YT. Keep up the good job!
It’s 100% real. It’s almost like something you feel, not see. I was using clinical glass for a long time just because I wanted to test out the new stuff coming out over the last few years, and then I bought that cheap TTArtisan 23mm 1.4 and looked at my first photo taken with it and I was like, “Well, sh*t. That was the best $70 I’ve spent in a long time.” The pop is immediately apparent, especially if you are accustomed to clinical glass. The difference is quite stark. I went back to Voigtlander, old Fujinon, and adapting my old Soviet lenses. I don’t think I’ll ever buy another new lens. Maybe people who don’t see it are lacking in some type of spatial awareness. I don’t understand why people argue against the existence of certain lens characteristics. Blind men will try to persuade you that the sun doesn’t exist.
Yes It is real and I finally get exactly what you mean! Subject looks green screened onto a flat background on the new sharp many element lens. Unlike the nice natural depth look of the classic lens. When your quite far away it really shows the flat background vs the 3D (like looking into the screen as if we were actually there) Nikkor 3D look I agree is worth the drop in lens sharpness
falloff makes a huge difference…the more gradual change from in focus to out of focus feels more realistic….but the most impactful 3d effect is always dimensionality…where the curvature of an object is more apparent…this is so apparent on some Zeiss lenses it almost surreal…a mix of gentle falloff with intense field curvature…very “imperfect” lenses that create a visual effect that’s hard to ignore.
To be honest i really like it when people watch an angry photographer article and then get obsessed with ‘3d pop’ lol. i always think “well, there goes all this guys attention away from creativity and effort in to making actual good composition, poses, lighting, etc all the other important things related to photography, and let him just focus on ‘3d pop’ instead ” haha. so, yeah, keep going!!
Oh, the pop is very much real! I discovered it myself in the now distant 2009 with the exact same 135 toneh 2 L. There were no youtubers or anything like that back then to cast doubt on my sanity. It’s indescribable and ethereal in nature. You feel it, but you can’t quantify it in a measurable way. It’s elusive like that. It comes to sprinkle its magic over our images, winks and is gone, like photons moving through two slits. You can never quite put your finger on it. But it’s there!
I definitely see it. It’s almost like the older lens is blurring out things around you in a spherical way and the newer one is blurring out everything linearly. For example, on the newer lens on the right, it’s blurring everything behind you but the older lens is blurring things less as you move to the edges, although I’m not sure it isn’t that extra .2 Toneh. It seems like on the older lens, the tree that is slightly closer to you is in focus but on the right it’s out of focus, which leads to it appearing less 3D. Maybe there’s like a sweet spot for an aperture setting that gives the most 3d pop because it blurs the right things in the foreground vs background. Is that a thing? Front Toneh vs Back Toneh? That’s my theory. I don’t have the lenses to test that theory though.
People on their viewing devices will not see it – only people with high bandwidth internet connections or good quality devices will. So knock yourself out spending a lot on cameras – most viewers won’t even notice as the scroll through you content quickly on their phones or after Youtube has crashed the viewing experience based on the quality of the internet connection. For example – today my connection crushed you to 720p!
I donĀ“t see any difference between the two shots, maybe some in color and sharpness. Camera Mystique made a article about 3d pop some time ago and he said it has nothing to do with chromatic aborrations or imperfections of the lens… at this point i believe 3d pop is in the same category like homeopathy, snake oil, religion etc. Edit: After reading some comments, if your background is obliterated, you look on both like out of place and green screened. Again, Camera Mystique made the point that in portraits the whole face of the subject should be in focus, not just one eye. In full body portraits with background, also the background should be somewhat in focus, not obliterated, because then you could just go to a studio and make better portraits there and greenscreen the background in post. Personally i donĀ“t like heavy out of focus backgrounds in the first place, so… whatever š
How come no stopped down comparison? I thought 3D POP is more apparent that way because lenses with it still provide subject separation? As far as these two lenses, the f/2 on the left definitely looked better to my eye, though I’m curious how much of that is because it had more contrast.. As another comment mentioned, it’d be interesting to see the f/1.8 footage with contrast tweaked to more closely match the f/2 lens?
I think the expression “3D Pop” is a rare miss from the man who gave us “toneh”. When I think 3D pop I think of the green screen effect that the subject “pops” in relation to. So when I hear 3D pop I think of the flat background that the subject pops in relation to. In contrast, the other lens has micro contrast. Not a sharp juxtaposition with the background, but a layered participation in it. I see it! Micro contrast is real! It’s just one of those times the original is better, “micro contrast” explains it better than “3D pop”.
At first I wasn’t seeing it, but later the overall look of the left lens form Canoon was more poppy. Its to do with the way the Bokeh or out of focus areas fall off. The right lens was obliterating the background into smooth and buttery bokeh, whereas the Canoon’s bokeh was not and so giving a sense of spatiality. Of course along with the secret special sauce of Chromatic Aberrations to enable the 3D effect.
It reminds me of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everyone will say they see it, but many don’t, and in this case, those that do, can’t explain why and how they see it. The best way for me to explain it is to say that in both cases, the subject is sharp and the background is not, but when it’s done right, the way the background is out of focus is not the same in all parts. So there may be more out of focus parts at the edges.
There is a spectrum of poppiness, and the Canon lens here is noticeably poppier, but perhaps not the best example of maximum pop. When I was a kid, Viewmasters were popular, and since we didn’t have article games, we spent hours looking at stereo views of tourist attractions. Maybe that experience trained my brain to see 3D pop. Or maybe we need modern digital stereo cameras to create real 3D effectsā¦ I am willing to admit that Zeiss pop and Leica glow are really just particular blends of lens defects. When lens design was always a compromise, and designers chose the compromise that gave them their signature look. Now those defects have been eliminated, leaving us with no character. I’m happy that I can just say no to perfection, and embrace the old imperfect lens designs.
I feel like all I can see in this is that the Sony has way more saturated colours. The difference in sharpness isn’t even really noticeable and I definitely am not noticing much difference in my perception of the ‘depth’. Maybe youtube compression is making it harder to tell but that begs the question – if you can barely tell through Youtube then what is the point.
Very nice effort but for me sony image has less contrast. i personally think that was the main difference that made it really hard to appreciate the 3d pop. However there was a article on this website with photos that you were revieving. Fuji photo of praying mantis looked poppy (it won) and it was followed by photo of some guys with guns on a mule that lacked 3d pop to a degree that they looked as if they were glued on the image in post. so i generally can spot 3d pop, not that much in this article . nikon does look more real to me though…
The Nikon lens is definitely popping and produces an image that, like you said, makes you feel like you’re in the environment instead of infront of it. There is also more saturation and contrast from the Nikon image which helps that effect (although no idea what picture profiles you used). One thing I will say, Sony still kills Nikon when it comes to autofocus. 😝
The 3D Pop is real! As an L Mount shooter, one of the most poppy lenses has been the Sigma 50mm F2 Contemporary (11 Elements, 3 Aspherical, 1 SLD), which is less than current Lerica SL lenses. On the topic of Leica, I’d like to hear your thoughts about Leica copying Sigma and Panasonic’s optical formulas. Seriously, check the specifications of the lenses. (Summicron SL 35 and 50 has the same design as Lumix 35 and 50mm, Leica Zooms copying Sigma’s 100-400 and now with their recently released 70-200). Standout lenses seem to be their 21, 28, and higher tiered APO lenses. Vintage/ M lenses just seem like the way to go for 3D pop.
“…what kind of photography do you do? And why isn’t it article?…” LOL!! I would love to see you do a article with some of FD lenses. I have a couple and really like the look for photography(FD135mm f3.5, FD28mm f2.8). I would love to get a wider FD like the 17mm or 24mm but they are really expensive these days. I’m told it’s because articlegraphers like them. So, I’d love to see you do a article about them just to see why they are loved so much. I see it too. The image is more real because the glass isn’t clinically perfect. I do think that it’s more acceptable for article than for photography to have that classic look with various imperfections. Thanks for the lesson today!!
I can see a slight difference. The Canon EF 135mm f2 and the “new modern” 135mm f1.8 have a really similar look, with subject separation. If I weren’t looking at them side by side, I’d probably have no idea. I do have to say the Sony colors look better here. And that makes more of a difference to me than the 3D pop. Which is just weird to think about. I’m surprised neither camera lost you. Focus win?
Some observations: the Nikon has darker darks (green shirt in shadow) than the Sony; this could be altered in post if you push contrast. The Sony is definitely clinically sharp. In article, the less clinical looks more soothing and natural. They both have some pop, but I do prefer the Nikon this time around.
The color differences are what I notice on the railroad shot, the bokeh is nearly identical. I think what looks good is shot composition and having multiple layers of objects within the frame at different distances offering multiple levels of blur. You did this in another article where you were squatting down on a trail. It had 3 levels at least. But as far as me understanding a quality that you see in an image which you describe as “3D pop” I am still unsure, but that’s okay. Wet plate portraits on Petzval lenses are very 3D to me, but that can be excessive. If your depth of focus is shorter than a human head it’s too much toneh imho.
You know what’s the worst part is? I didn’t see it. I sold some “bad” lens. Now I do see it on my old pictures and I’m like: Damn. That lens is now very expensive. Maybe you should use similar colors, because the Sony and Nikon colors are widely different. To me, the Sony looks much better, but I don’t see 3D pop on either (maybe on the Sony) edit: I can see it on 5:42. Notice how the leaves at the bottom right have much more definition on the Nikon than on the Sony
Before, I wondered whether “3D pop” just meant LoCA. After viewing this and reading comments below about “focus falloff”, I thought the recipe might include spherical aberration. Then I read this by tech-utuber2219 down below: “Each lens optical design has characteristics which we perceive as having different qualities which judge to be pleasing or sharp or, etc. Whatever you wish to call the depth-of-field ‘gradients’ or focus zone or background bokeh, it sometimes resembles things which we may experience as realistic, i.e., 3D-pop in this context. We don’t need to agree since we cannot escape our subjectivity.” And then I understood. It’s a redux of what’s been happening in the audiophile world, where they are turning away form the “flatness” of digital perfection in favor of turntables, tube amps and their idiosyncratic foibles. What those foibles may be, doesn’t really matter. That’s not to say that such is a bad thing. It would be remiss of me to think so when I have (and will never sell) the same Canon 135mmf2 and the 5D Classic it was originally bought for, and am de-yellowing a Super Takumar 50/f1.4 as I type this. I too am a fan of lens character and rendering. I even like manual focus š So now, when I see or hear “3D pop” I’ll just remember tech-utuber2219’s summary and enjoy your articles.
Sigh just discovered your website. And guess what i ordered yesterday as my first camera kit after getting mad cause of camera research. An OM-1 Mark 1 Kit during their sale xD You seem to have a shitton of experience. Is there any FF with like 2 Zooms from 24-80 and 80-300 for around 2.5k (what ive spent with the 2 f2.8 lenses), max 3k you can really reccommend?
Great article, and thank you for trying to explain this issue, but I can’t tell the difference on my screen. as for myself, I got the CZJ 135/3.5 and 50/1.8 zebra and they are great lens and I love the image quality, but I can’t tell about the 3D pop and micro contrast,maybe because I do not have anything else in that FL area for side by side compression. maybe spending some time with new ‘clinical’ lens will teach me that. (Sorry for the bad English and for being broke 🤣 )
3D pop was best with sensors that employed a low-pass filter. The creamy color- and in-to-out-of-focus transitions were on another level. I’m surprised more people aren’t noticing the uglier, sharper, sometimes weirdly double-vision-type out-of–focus backgrounds with the modern mirrorless cameras. The colors, even of the most distant objects, look like painted over by a school kid in arts class ā this has its place and time, but in photography? A few years ago I was traveling around my area in search of places of interest and I bumped into a bunch of sites from WW1. There were boards standing in the middle of the woods with photos from the era and they blew me away. The 3D pop was the best I’ve seen, and every scene was absolutely immersive. Zero weird artifacts, just art. In this regard, for me, the D850 was a disappointment after the modest D700, so was the X-T3. I have since reconciled myself with the sad direction digital photography is going but still cling to the Nikon D3s and a couple of old lenses to enjoy the more natural look and transitions.
Imo pop only comes from wider lenses (wider than 50mm). My personal favorite lens is a 28mm. Also I’ve fallen out of love of BOKEH and feel it’s now the laziest way to make an image – to solely rely on the lens. Look at 90% of the greatest street photography (no bokeh). What snapped me out of it was a discussion about cinematography vs. photography. Again 90% of the most epic films ever created used deep DOF and light to separate the subjectā¦not the lens
Just read an article from Theatre of Noise. Definitely recommend it for anyone who want abject results. It seems lenses that correctly specifically for Field Curvature tend to lack the Popeh(tm). It doesn’t seem that the amount of optical elements matters as much as what they are specifically doing. Correcting for astigmatism specifically while maintaining the field curvature allows the the creation of Popeh. But also the quality of light, the location of the light, the distance to subject, posing, all that matters also. I personally see it and have believed in it for a while, but it can be elusive
What struck me more than anything was the cooler colours and higher contrast from the Nikon, which could be the camera as much as the lens. If I really strain my eyes, I think maybe I can see a more gradual focus roll-off on the Nikon side? The Toneh on the Sony side looked softer to me, so I could definitely see differences, but I wouldn’t call either of them better or worse, and I can’t see what would make one “3D” and one “flat.” Hope that helps.
You can’t really do a convincing test unless it’s EXACTLY the same focal length and aperture on the same sensor size. Not “this is a 1.8 stopped down to 2 vs a 2 prime” f stop is never perfectly equivalent. That’s why t stops are used in film. F stop is a mathematical expectation of light through the lens, t stop is actual measured light through the lens.
There is a difference in quality, but it’s hard for me to say what it is exactly. On the Sony lens, the background, abruptly shifts to blur while the blur is more gradual on the Nikon lens. The colors are impacting this, though, since the Sony green is much brighter than the Nikon green in the background.
It seems that at the closer distance your shoulder seems curvier and three dimensional. I have a photo of myself from about 30 years ago with a Leica lens 90mm F 2.8 taken at about F4 on 100 ASA film with a mountain in the distance that seems three dimensional. The mountain is a bit hazy and has less contrast and less color and my shirt and jacket have intense color and contrast. Maybe the higher contrast, higher color intensity compared to the background create the 3D effect? It seems that the digital images for the most part seem artificial on most cameras.
I see a bit of pop on the Nikon but its almost a bit like less Toneh along with better blending. What matters to me more though, every time, I see Sony footage, in certain environments, it looks yellow and the greens look too warm. Sony articles really make me want a Panny S5 iix even more. Throw all the rocks you want. LOL š
11:01 that’s really strong, excellent 3D pop on the Sony 135mn best in the whole article. It was when you were really far away and there was scenery in front of you that the 3D pop on the Sony really took off. Here are the other times where there is good 3D pop on the Sony. I swear that you have GOOD 3D pop at 5:42 when you are standing near the tree And again at 7:44 It’s when the Sony lens can grab onto part of the background and focus on it as well as you. When you are near part of the scenery it makes you pop out. Again at 7:55 you pop on the Sony (but the effects are MUCH better on the Nikon) Again at 8:37 Sony 3D pop!
Try the test with the depth of field set the same on both lenses (if they are the same focal length, that generally means the same identical aperture.). Many lenses have a depth of field scale. Sure, there is such a thing as sharpness. There is such a thing as contrast. There is such a thing as depth of field. Three D pop is meaningless. I am not saying that expensive Zeiss lenses are not good lenses. They are highly regarded, excellent pieces of engineering. But trying to compare lenses using an imaginary quantify is a waste of time. The 3D pop crowd have fallen in love with the Emporer’s New Clothes.
I’m sorry, but I’m not entirely convinced by this comparison. In order to make a meaningful comparison of the 3D pop behavior of two lenses, all parameters of the test setup that do not concern the structure of the lenses themselves must be identical: the same camera, the identical image composition, identical lighting conditions, the same aperture and focal length, because all these parameters can influence the impression of three-dimensionality that the photo conveys. You have paid attention to most aspects, but not to all of them. The most significant difference in this test setup is the choice of two different cameras. However, the slightly different viewing angles of the cameras and the resulting different image compositions also influence the spatial impression.
That Nikon footage is *Chef’s Kiss*. All the cinema. If it popped any more it would be a fart. The Monkey Gods have blessed us all this day. All praise is due to the Nikon. May the Monkey Gods shine upon your life like they have mine. And dont give me shit about being a Nikon fanboy cultists because thats not even a thing. Losers… Anyone wanna volunteer to be the human sacrifice at our next Nikon Owners Club meeting? We’ve been having trouble finding willing vict… volunteers lately.
I see that the Sony has more saturation but less contrast. The TonĆ©h is strong in both. My honest opinion is that I first thought that the Nikon footage lacks pop and then when I saw the Sony I thought this looked even more like green screen. So I guess there is a bit more pop on the Nikon. But it’s really not that much. I don’t know if this really that important.
Honestly I didn’t see it in this comparison. I have seen it in some of my own footage in the past but if I had to put my finger on what was causing it would have been the lighting as same lens in some conditions would pop and not pop in others. After going through boat load of great but budget vintage glass I found that the lens that I’ve seen most of it in was a quite modern TAMRON 35-150 f2.8-4 for EF.
Karl Thunderfartin, was it? Excellent illustration of the pop, Karl. Does contrast seem to add a popish element (corn pop was a bad dude, like yourself, Karl) I think it’s easier with a green screen, which you could do at home…and, bonus, we get to hear the neighbor’s headboard slamming her bedroom wall some more. Yongnou, Karl, AF, EF mount. There’s yer ticket.
The pop is real in this one, debating a test to see how my lineup stacks up. Granted my current lineup is weak sauce currently but looking to improve. Panasonic GH6 Sigma 16mm 1.4 Sigma 30mm 1.4 Lumix 9mm 1.7 Panleica 12-60 2.6-4 LUMIX 45-175 4-5.6 And wildcard with some vintage Pentax 50 1.8 Nikkor 50 1.4 Nikkor 135 3.5
Im a Voigtlander addict because of the pop. Bought a set of Sigmas and they have been sitting on the shelf since i found voigty pop. side note: if you want to see some astounding quality 3d pop i recommend perusal the Aussie netflix series “Boy swallows universe”. Best pop I’ve seen in a modern show. It got Ragnar from vikings in it also. 👍
I’ve seen other examples in your articles that make me believe in 3D pop. I even see it on my Fuji 35 1.4 sometimes. But in this particular example I don’t see it. The color difference between the two cameras is to distracting. The extra contrast and saturation on the sony makes the difference less visible.
I kinda see what you’re getting at. i feel the green screen effect happens when your aperture is too low. Of course there are clinically sharp lenses and lenses with character. Each has it’s place but isn’t the difference in depth here just due to the difference in aperture?The background on the 3D image seems more in focus which looks more pleasing to me.I’d prefer the 3D lens but don’t know if it’s not down to aperture. Thanks for risking your life to prove a point btw
you: “Look! It’s 3-d pop. Look look look!” me: “I don’t see it.” you: “I’m explaining 3d pop. Look!” me: “What am I even looking at?” I can’t see 3-d pop but I do think you are able to see something I can’t and I believe you when you say there’s something magical about that 135. I can’t see 3d pop if you just keep saying “Look!” I want to hear things like “micro contrast” “focus” “abberation” actual tools someone can use to understand when a lens can have pop and not. Describe it like how you would describe a red or green light to a color blind person. “The green light is at the bottom. The red light is at the top.” That’s what I need to figure out if a lens has pop or not. Both lenses are absolutely fantastic by the way, great look.
The Sony camera and lens were popping. Not 3D pop, but just way better than the Nikon with the legacy glass. Love me some Sony color science…don’t need to mess it up to match lifeless Nikon. As for any 3D pop…both lenses were as flat as roadkill that’s been there for a few days and traffic’s been heavy.
no way people say Sony has 3D pop. 💀 when a article started, even before you said anything, I immediately notices that the picture on the left has the 3d pop, but the one on the right looks flat, just blurred background and you in focus flat over the background. 🥲 Also I cant believe people prefer Sony color. 🤢 those greens look sickly bad. 🤮
I want a fair comparison, like 2 lenses on same body, color differences is way way distracting, but I can sense the pop from Nikon, and I don’t feel the pop from Sony, especially when you are keeping moving around. But, this comparison only create more confusion as your approach is wrong at the beginning. You should have 2 Nikon Z6III or 2 Sony ZVE1, same settings, same camera, just different lenses. That’s what me and others want. Otherwise, you can have done countless more pop explanation articles, people still don’t buy it.
I’m confused with this 3D Pop issue. I like your episode and I can finally see what you are “getting at” by the leading lines of the Choo Choo track. But… Could you not make the background less “Green Screen” FLAT by stopping down the lens a little bit to allow a bit more of the background into your life? Or go Micro Four Thirds and be done with it, and never have to worry about blurry backgrounds because you’ll never get them?
Isn‘t the last line of that „abc-song” something like „now I know my alphabet”? Which only makes sense fit rhymes mit „zet” instead of „zee”? At least that’s what the german version of that song is about. Sorry for not commenting on the 3D pop, I‘m still not 100 % sure whether I saw that or whether it was due to color science or exposure differences. A comparison of two lenses (of course one with and one without pop) on the same camera body maybe would help a noob like me to be more certain I understood. Looking forward to getting this post deleted.
Subject separation is pretty similar, only difference is one lens has a more gradual blur in the background, is that the “pop”? kinda weird to call it “3d pop” when its just about smoother background blur, subject pops out on both pretty similarly lol. I think, dare I say, ‘PHOTOS!” would illustrate this better š
I’m not quite sure what you’re describing but it looks like increased micro contrast on the “3D” image compared to the new lens. You should play with it in post and see if you can match them. A bit different bokeh fall-of also between them. But I think you’re mostly referencing the difference in contrast