Thread 4459803

So I have been shooting an urban landscape project in the suburbs at night and my primary go to has been the Voigtlander 40mm f1.2. It's a great lens and I have been very happy with it's rendering. That being said I have seen some discussions about apo chromatic lenses on this board and how there is more benefits to the image quality coming from them than just reducing chromatic aberration. I have seen a couple people recommend the Voigtlander 35mm F2 apo and was considering renting one for a weekend. Anyone here have any experience with apo chromatic lenses? Is there actually much IQ differences or rendering differences?

meaningless marketing term. plenty of lenses are "apo" but don't live up to the name. at the same time, plenty of lenses are not "apo" but have no chromatic aberrations. a lens is good if you try it and you like it. plus, these terms mean different things to different manufacturers

>>4459803 (OP)
Low light and apo don't really mix since apo lenses tend to be slower. Plus, your 40/1.2 sharpens up pretty well at f/2 (pic rel), so what purpose would the less-versatile 35/2 apo serve you?

>>4459829
I don't really know if it would serve a purpose for me that's kind a why I was asking. It seemed odd to me that people were reccomending an apo lens since as far as I could tell really justs corrected for chromatic abberation. Which is not really an issue in most of my shots. I was wondering if there was something else I was missing about the rendering of apochromatic lenses. I couldn't find much useful info online about it so I figured I would ask here.

>>4459833
anyone saying "rendering" is either grasping at something they saw or dont undersand or making shit up based on the placebo effect+dunning kruger

optics is a literal science. lenses are made by mathematicians and every last detail of how they refract light is extensively studied and analyzed during the design process. photographers are ill equipped to tell you about finer differences. go find an actual optical scientist if you dare. i think you'd get an answer like "depending on how will ___ element was made you might get __% less transmittance between __nm and __nm" and then walk away confused.

>>4459803 (OP)
Shot with the 50 f2 apo a ton, but the 35 is pretty similar. I definitely treated my 50 apo like and f2.8 because of the high optical vignetting, and sold it because the 50 f1.8 S is just as good (+weather sealing and af). I stick with noktons (50 f1.5 II and 35 f1.2 III) for low-light shooting. Sunstars at f2 are too good.
>pros
Incredibly sharp across the frame
Perfectly specular highlights at f2, f2.8, 5.6 and f16
Virtually no aberrations wide open, no coma
>cons
Bokeh wide open can look busy or over sharpened
Mediocre sunstar capability
Specular highlights look bad when not at the above apertures


The FM review has tons of example images and test shots, as well as direct comparisons to the 40 f1.2.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1695782/

>>4459835
Or you can just look at examples like and see how it "renders" relative to other similar lenses. Picrel.

>>4459835
take your meds anon

>>4459850
He needs to get his prescription checked and take a course on visual literacy. Bro is blind as a bat.

>>4459833
Ok, think about it like this.
Apo
>will be quite sharp across the frame from f/2
>will be razor sharp across the frame from f/2.8
Nokton
>gives you the option to shoot at f/1.2
>won't be as sharp at f/2 as the Apo, but still good relative to f/1.2
This means the Apo will technically be better for shooting architecture during the day (although if you're really dedicated to shooting archi, why aren't you using tilt-shift?), while the Nokton will better enable you to shoot in the dark, and be more versatile (in other words nice for other genres too, like portraits). The Nokton is essentially two lenses in one (a character lens and a sharp modern lens) depending on the aperture.
The only reasons I see to pick the 35/2 are if you want the extra 5mm and feel you need more corner sharpness than you're getting from the Nokton.

>>4459851
>>4459850
3d pop and rendering schizos will never be able to cite anything real. Its all in your heads.

>>4459858
Sounds like cope from a visually illiterate gearfag.

>3d pop/rendering/microtonal harvesting etc schizos calling other people gearfags
You are the audiophiles of photography. Million dollar shoots are done with standard zooms on standard canikony FF bodies. Some oppenheimer publicity shots were done with a fuji xh1 and a kit zoom.

>>4459858
>*pops your bubble*

>>4459862
>Million dollar shoots are done with standard zooms on standard canikony FF bodies.
A michelin star restaurant using a cheap wine in their pan sauce doesn't invalidate the existence of fine wine.

>>4459865
But blind tests rendering people unable to consistently differentiate wines from $50/bottle up, on the other hand...

>>4459864
Oooh, foreround bokeh! In JAPAN! This must be the lengendary agfa-kreuzschnach colortron 33.2mm f2.1!

>>4459866
Sulphite and histamine content are measurable quality differences between cheap and expensive wine that are not subject to blind testing.
>>4459866
It's just a 90/2, and you're visually illiterate to point out the foreground blur, because the sense of depth really comes from the leading lines and defocus gradient of the train and surrounding wires. This isn't anything controversial.

>>4459835
The qualities of "rendering" probably could be defined scientifically. But they don't get defined scientifically. I'm sure optical designers at the companies could explain it, but it's missing in laymen's understanding of optics.
Most lenses these days aren't designed based on the optical qualities that result in what we perceive to be aesthetic results, they're just designed to maximize MTF charts and reduce aberrations absolutely.
This is despite that under-corrected spherical aberrations are often considered to produce aesthetic bokeh, and the well-corrected spherical aberrations in modern lenses is why vintage lens enthusiasts think vintage lenses look better.
There's also some hypothesizing that chromatic aberrations in older lenses actually plays with the way our brains detect edges to enhance acutance (the perception of sharpness, rather than literal measured sharpness), in a way not dissimilar to unsharp mask, and may be why some lenses exhibit a "3d pop" effect on textures while modern lenses mostly don't.
Compare the perceived depth produced by the EF 135mm f/2 compared to a Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8. The latter is blatantly "flatter" in appearance. Things just smoothly turn to bokeh, while on the EF lens you can watch the focus fall-off as different depths produce distinct degrees and qualities of bokeh. I don't know what the scientific optical qualities it is that produces that effect, but generally lenses these days aren't designed for it. If a new lens produces it, it's usually because they're basing a newer formula off of an older one. And no Sigma lens since their Global Vision platform was introduced produce it (and lenses before that mostly sucked).

>>4459872
I forgot to also explain that a smaller image circle basically means that those front elements don't need to be as wide and as large in order to "fill in" the image circle behind the iris.
Consider a loupe and a handheld magnifying glass that both produce 5x magnification. The loupe uses a much smaller lens, but the image circle is so small you have to put your eye right up to it.

>>4459872
That's why Double Gauss chads ALWAYS win, even the snapshits are high art.

>>4459872
>Most lenses these days aren't designed based on the optical qualities that result in what we perceive to be aesthetic results, they're just designed to maximize MTF charts and reduce aberrations absolutely.
This is false.

Blind tests have completely failed to demonstrate this.

>>4459874
Woops replied to the wrong comment.
>>4459875
Basically. A lot of those vintage designs were chosen in part because they're "good enough", producing acceptably sharp results and giving a degree of capability to correct the offending aberrations.
The Xenon/Biotar/Planar/Sonnar/etc. era of lens design was basically peak lens design, and Takumar basically perfected them.
>>4459878
Every attempt to test this I've seen is done by some autist that's usually a Sony fanboy, who can't understand the difference between "3d pop" and subject separation, and thus all the test images are usually just a subject with little potential to demonstrate depth in front of a background that innately has little depth and blurred-to-fuck by bokeh.

>>4459880
3d pop comes from a combination of factors. The lens is just one of those factors.

>>4459880
>SONY is why 3d pop cant be proven!
Yannick Khong's own vintage lens fanboy blind tests also failed to demonstrate this

>>4459842
>f1.7 on a f2 lens
What

>>4459885
1) I'm not blaming Sony, although Sony lenses don't have 3D Pop. I'm blaming Sony fanboys, who are mostly autists who can't understand cameras and photography beyond measuring specs and megapixels, think good photography "isn't art," and think the point of photography is "documenting" in a sterile, accurate manner.
2) A quick google can't find Yannick Khong doing any sort of blind test.

>>4459892
Strict adherence to rules they've read about also.

>>4459892
You sound like an audiophile.

I look at people shooting for vogue and gucci and I see lenses that break every rule of 3d pop... rf 24-70 f2.8 l, etc. It doesn't matter and doesn't exist.

>>4459892
>sony has no ~magic~ and people who use sony cameras arent creative because they is mmmkay
>now us leica fuji people we r creative because we buy the lenses that make our photos creative and artistic
this is the worst type of gearfag.

i bet you shoot some nonart like street "photography"

>>4459899
Proofs? Why do fashion photographers also use phase ones?

>>4459887
Some Leicas have an aperture estimation sensor since the lenses aren't chipped and there's no other way to get aperture in exif. They do so by measuring the light coming into a little window on the shoulder versus the light coming through the lens. It's not very accurate but at least gives you a ballpark
>>4459899
>some photographers don't use old lenses, therefore old lenses don't render differently from modern ones

>>4459908
Clout

>>4459915
Visually illiterate response. You're part of the undesirable mass of /p/ gearfags that have a severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

>>4459908
Color accuracy, 16 bit raws, real medium format dynamic range, and 100-150mp for clients who want art reproduced or an ad for luxury goods

A lot of phase one users, i’d dare say most of them, have them rigged up as scanners and never use them handheld. Universities, museums and forensics labs use them. Artistic photographers are a minority among users of high end mfdbs and its usually a rental to meet strict client demands or make genuinely enormous prints (building size). They are the most soulless and purely spec oriented cameras on earth. No one is using them for any "character". The few people who have been successful enough to afford a phase one are experienced enough to know 3d pop, rendering, and soul don’t come from the camera.

3d pop/"rendering" is an amateur experience. They buy some shitty gear, have to use settings they "shouldnt" (like a wide aperture for a landscape) and stick to more diffuse light to get around its limitations (like limited dr or bad flare), and inadvertently learn to take a better photo. Sometimes extra setup time gives them time to think about leading lines and stuff. Rather than realizing they had just been thinking about photos slower than they were taking photos or realizing soft light is easier to work with they think they have discovered a magical piece of equipment that generates better photos, with basic artistic qualities like the illusion of depth.

>>4459922
>most modern professional lenses have neutral and accurate color because the target market is more serious photographers who color grade everything, and on digital that works better if its closer to a reference point
>their photos look better than everyone elses as a result
>clueless gearfags buy this stuff thinking the camera has "good color science"
>all of their photos have boring, accurate, neutral color
>"wtf this color sucks! editing doesnt count! no sovl! mirrorless bad!"
>uses le quirkay vintage lens or le quirkay vintage camera
>has crazy color shifts all over the place because it's just older glass (ie: dslrs were not purposefully "more soulful" than mirrorless, they were just the best upgrade at the time following even more wonky shit)
>automatic color grading
>"rendering! sovl!"

>>4459864
4.88MB of board space wasted on a retard argument using a flat boring snapshit
>muh rendering and pop
If it wasn't for the foreground blur this would be considered a phone photo

>>4459931
you just dont see the microtonal harvesting and color stretching

>>4459908
>Why do fashion photographers also use phase ones?
1) Only in studios and tethered to computer
2) Because so editors can crop whatever they want out of the original picture, bypassing the photographer's chosen framing if needed
3) Because fashion shoots double as product shoots, and clothes need a high resolution and color accuracy to represent the their texture without annoying artifacts
4) Because they use in-lens leaf shutters that can sync flash at all speeds

"3D pop" and other bullshit are nowhere to be found, especially because they shoot at closed down apertures since they use backdrops and can control the perspective.

>>4459862
Yeah and those looked like shit

>>4459957
Real 3d pop can be achieved at any aperture. It is not necessarily related to bokeh. I would say a phase one more easily produces 3d pop because they are high resolution and have excellent color/tonality.

>>4459917
Marketing illiterate response. It's about making the clients you're ripping off feel like they're getting their money's worth.

>>4459931
>>4459935
>>4459957
>sour grapes posters that fell for snoy marketing and spent $10000 on equipment that produces soulless flat images with fucked up colors
Lmao, you could've just bought any midrange milc, a couple adapters, and a set of old primes, and been better off for it too

>>4460010
lmao, schizophrenic sony hater blindly replying to posts where sony is not even mentioned

>>4460015
the snoyfag cries out as he strikes you

>>4460016
lmao schizophrenic sony hater allucinates people striking him

>>4459887
Digital M's estimate aperture for exif purposes

Awful lot of comments for so few picture examples, why does no one bother with the bare minimum of effort?

>>4460021
>ask opinions on a niche $1000 ens
>ERMMM GUISE??? WHERE ARE ALL THE HEKKIN EXAMPLES???

>rendering is FAKE because....because i said so!!
Pic rel taken with the 35mm apo. Seems pretty poppy to me.

>>4460025
You'd have a point if people were staying on topic and only talking about that specific lens

>>4460029
remove the frame
get less pop
remove the vignetting
get less pop still
stop down so there is no longer progressive subject separation with 1.5 ducks in focus
get even less pop

3d pop does not exist as a property of lenses

it is a property of photographers that gearfags sometimes accidentally stumble into when using shit gear forces them to break the "rules" like "shoot at f8 to get everything in focus"

>>4460010
sony makes better cameras than canon and nikon

nikon only temporarily surpassed their market share in japan and japan only because the z5ii literally has sony colors by dropping all the saturation leaving only the neutrality, accuracy, and green skin. also i find it curious that is common knowledge among the entire photography community that nikon has green skin, and has always had green skin - even the z6ii and z7ii shoot green tinted images by default without the insane delta (+3 magenta in C1 and +21 magenta in ACR) but /p/ never mentions it and if you do, /p/ has a spazz out and says you're lying and it's just 3 boomers with d5200s shooting jpegs

nikon has green color science. all of the shades of green blend together. without white balance corrections nikon files are green tinted. and yet /p/ is constantly blaming sony, reposting faked comparisons, and.... shilling nikon extremely hard. curious.

>>4460034
>3d pop does not exist as a property of lenses
false, 3d pop is a mixture of microcontrast and quality of the DoF blur. good lenses can create separation even at f/8

>>4460034
>implying that vignetting and wide-open rendering are not properties of a lens
Why are you so personally desperate towards the concept of 3d pop not existing, or more broadly, the obvious and commonly accepted fact that old/old-inspired lenses render differently than modern ones? Do you have buyer's regret after spending a ton of money on clinical modern glass?
>>4460034
>nikon only temporarily surpassed their market share in japan and japan only because the z5ii literally has sony colors
>implying people buy sony for the colors
So you think that the broader consumer base has the acuity to identify minute changes in color reproduction from body to body (assuming you're even right about this), to the point that they would flock to one camera over another? No, absolutely fucking not, you schizophrenic troglodyte. The Z5ii is popular because it is simply a good camera, priced well. Not pointlessly crippled to push consumers into upgrades and with a very attractive price to value ratio. As a matter of fact Nikon could have charged more for it, but didn't, as a gambit to increase their market share (which worked). It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with (as you spuriously claim, without evidence) some notion of Nikon copying Sony colors.

>>4460037
>microcontrast
>a literal made up word
almost 20 years of 3d pop schizophrenia on the internet and not one single real scientific explanation that consistently predicts noticeable levels of "3d pop" has surfaced

most of the early proponents of "pop theory" have admitted they were wrong about element counts and ED glass and have criteria for a "pop" lens that is essentially arbitrary

the closest anyone has come to a real world explanation is coating efficiency and glare reduce contrast in some poorly made, high element count lenses (AKA sigma and tamron) and shitty 70s coatings and their associated flare issues encourage users of vintage lenses to shoot in directional soft light that generally produces nicer looking images with a lower skill floor

>>4459989
Extreme sour grapes vision and visual illiteracy maxxed response. You are the god of cope and really need to get your eyes checked.

>>4460041
I just told you, microcontrast and pleasant DoF rolloff

>>4460043
This is the real answer. I feel like some chromatic abberation can add to the affect on closer focused things as well.

>>4460041
Just because there isn't a graph for it doesn't mean it's not real. If you look at pictures with it and you can't see it it's because you are aesthetically blind. That's good news for you though. You can buy whatever dpreview says is the sharpest lens and be happy. Or you could waste more time arguing with photographers online.

>>4460043
Microcontrast does not exist retard. 3d pop is made up. Stay off the internet and it becomes bullshit only uttered by the room temp iq consoomerists that will casually pay $1000+ for a manual focus prime while thinking it will objectively allow them to take better photos.

You are a room temp iq consoomerist who thinks skill can be purchased. At best you are not self aware, not creative, and unironically require gear limitations to forcibly alter your behavior because you are incapable of introspection and initiative. Believe it or not this is common and can be observed in hobby communities ranging from cars to guitars. You could learn to be self aware. But the dopamine cycle from researching, arguing, shopping, buying, waiting, receiving, and trying is preferable to the gearfag whether their obsession is real or fake, specs or rendering, horsepower or soul, tuning stability or tonewood.

>>4460048
Just because it exists in pictures does not mean it is a property of a lens

Lenses are a science. Everything they do has a corresponding graph.

3d pop comes from the PHOTOGRAPHER and their control of leading lines, lighting, and subject separation. You only blame the lens because you are not self aware and required the lens to delay your photo taking until you finished thinking. Maybe you needed a limited ISO range to stick to easy soft light and force you to try subject separation for more than bokeh portraits.

Try being self aware and consciously not taking a photo until you are done thinking about it.

>>4460049
that's a lot of words to cope for the simple fact that those two lens characteristics contribute to 3d pop

>>4460052
one of them is made up and the other isnt a characteristic. did you mean to refer to the field curvature charts? tangential or saggital?

micro-contrast literally does not exist. it is not a term in optical science. did you mean mtf at 60 lp/mm? consoomers like you have often blamed lenses with such small scale contrast on their images being flat so it can’t be that. did you maybe mean, glare? aka contrast? its just called contrast period.

skilled photographers get 3d pop with flat field lenses and have gotten 3d pop out of glare prone glass so methinks you are a room temp iq consoomerist and lack self awareness

>>4460049
>casually pay $1000+ for a manual focus prime while thinking it will objectively allow them to take better photos
My Pentax-A 50/1.4 has 3D pop out the ass. The latest form of it costs $100 used. It has virtually the same optical formula as the 67 105/2.4 that is famous for its special rendering.
You simply overpaid for sharp modern glass, and the realization that you could've been taking nicer pictures for less is too much for you to handle.

To determine the reality of 3d pop behold its biggest proponents on /p/

Doghair (a bitchy narcissist gearfag who went from an amateur with 120 and 35mm to an excuse making amateur with lf film)
Some crop sensor argument fags who make shit up back and forth
Yannick khong shitposted here once (he also revoked his own theories)
Maybe the corgi gearfag (he clearly has issues)

>>4460054
>3d pop/"rendering" is an amateur experience. They buy some shitty gear, have to use settings they "shouldnt" (like a wide aperture for a landscape) and stick to more diffuse light to get around its limitations (like limited dr or bad flare), and inadvertently learn to take a better photo. Sometimes extra setup time gives them time to think about leading lines and stuff. Rather than realizing they had just been thinking about photos slower than they were taking photos or realizing soft light is easier to work with they think they have discovered a magical piece of equipment that generates better photos, with basic artistic qualities like the illusion of depth.
congratulations on not being self aware

wow you used shit gear that took longer to set up and were forced to shoot at a wider aperture than recommended by the user manual and notice perspective

that wasnt the lens that was you

wow look the light isnt harsh

but thats not the lens

skilled photographers have taken photos exactly like this with sony GMs. gear does not matter, full stop. 3d pop does not come from the gear. forcible behavior modification induced in NPCs by equipment limitations, well… there is no excuse for being an NPC! learn to control your self instead of needing gear to do it for you.

>>4460054
If you squint you can perceive the horses head and front two legs all on the same plane

Depth rendition is composition and lighting. Lenses dont have it. They can only force NPCs to stumble into it by not letting them snap mindlessly. But that is no excuse for being an NPC.

>>4460056
>>4460057
>cope
>cope
>reddit spacing
>cope
>more cope

>>4460056
>forced to shoot at a wider aperture
Nobody was "forced" to shoot at a wider aperture. It was an intentional creative decision to establish subject separation. You'd know that if you actually took photos.
>skilled photographers have taken photos exactly like this with sony GMs.
Then post one. Oh wait, you can't, because Sony users have no pics.

>>4460058
You lost

>>4460060
So you admit there is no undiscovered lens magic, and the illusion of depth is all defocus blur, lighting, and composition?

>>4460055
Absolute sour grapes seethe. Comedic.

>>4460061
>the illusion of depth is only created by leading lines, soft light, and defocus, lenses have nothing to do with it
Here's a shot that satisfies your criteria. Sony GM 50 1.4, random off flickr.
Flat as a fucking board and awful colors to boot.

>>4460063
It has that nasty cardboard cut out effect.

>>4460063
$1400 lens btw
This is what happens when you fall for the marketing of an electronics company that got into photography less than 20 years ago

>>4460053
>one of them is made up
microcontrast is contrast at the higher frequencies of tonal change
>the other isnt a characteristic
the quality of the blur depends entirely on the lens, so how can it not be a characteristic? lmao
optical engineers take the character of the blur into consideration and deliberately make certain changes to the design to obtain the one they want

>>4460063
It looks the same. If you didnt know it was a sony you’d love it. Sadly you are an NPC consoomerist and unable to realize why blind tests exist.

Here’s the 3d pop of the nikkor 35mm f2 D. POPPY?

>>4460067
The edit on sony guy is nasty, literal digislop edit, while your edit is a lot more tasteful. Entirely different lighting also.

>>4460066
Can you please tell us what characteristics of field curvature graphs produce 3d pop? At which frequency and mtf% 3d pop is produced?

Can you explain why better photographers can get so called 3d pop from any lens and why people have tried making up bullshit about ed elements, element/group counts, and even leaded glass?

3d pop is of photography, not lenses.
You are a consoomer
You are low IQ and have very little self awareness in practice. In the moment you operate on instinct and it is poor. You have no true introspection. Neurotic self talk at best.
You blame things on lenses when it was not the lenses manipulating the photos. It was the lenses manipulating your behavior without your knowledge.
3d pop is a term for NPCs. Stop being one. Think before speaking. Think before snapping.

>>4460068
Oh good. So you agree this boat has 3d pop?

>>4460071
Not really, snoyboy

>>4460069
>Can you please tell us what characteristics of field curvature graphs produce 3d pop?
acutance, now kys
>Can you explain why better photographers can get so called 3d pop from any lens
sure, post a photo proven to have been taken with a shitty lens and that has 3d pop. then we can talk
>3d pop is of photography
correct
>not lenses.
false, those two aspects of lenses contribute to 3d pop. you seem really stupid for not understanding that contribution =/= sole cause

>>4460073
Nope. 3d pop is not an optical property. Try again.

>>4460072
You were going to say yes before you reverse image searched it.

Now lie.

>>4460076
>narcissist thinks he can play low IQ tricks on people significantly smarter than him.

Cope harder lil dummy.

>>4460076
>3d pop is not an optical property. Try again.
if you start with the baseless assumption that 3d pop is not an optical property then there is literally nothing I can tell you LMAO take your fucking "try again" smug nigger bullshit down to the AIDS center you visit every week

>>4460078
>he didnt even lie - because i told him to
I am in control. You lose, sucka.

>>4460079
3d pop is, flat out, not a recognized optical property among anyone who designs lenses. It exists only in the heads of low iq consoomerists who are so accustomed to spending their worries away they no longer associated $500 with the word "expensive"

^narcissistic cope

Hilarious

>>4460083
>The narcissist always accuses you of what he is. It is his first line of defense.

>>4460082
>3d pop is, flat out, not a recognized optical property among anyone who designs lenses
3d pop in lens design is caused by microcontrast (acutance) and the character of DoF blur. these two are measurable differences and lens designers take them into consideration when deciding which character to give a lens. cope

>He ALMOST said a 35mm f1.4 GM had 3d pop and needed to learn what lense it actually was to decide it didnt
LMAO

>>4460067
There is no 3D pop in this image.
Also, this is a Sony 35/1.4 GM, not a Nikkor.

The absolute cope by the low IQ retard. What a beautiful day.

>>4460085
Wrong again. I already asked you to explain in real terms and you could not.

Already we have seen the true nature of the pop schizo. They almost admitted a GM lense had pop… until they saw which flickr group the photo came from.

This gearfag schizophrenia (tonality pop rendering etc) is nothing more than comforting delusions for failed amateurs in a gearfag rut and terminally gearfaggy notphotogs like doghair fagatives

Surely the consoomerist hobbyists of /p/ know something most professionals do not (besides how to waste money on gear they cant use)

>>4460090
acutance is a real optical design term. you denying it doesn't change that simple fact

>>4460092
This.

>>4460092
>microcontrast (acutance)
So you redefined the meme word to something that sounded right

Because acutance takes print size/density and viewing distance into account. Optics industry acutance is also called the good enough factor and is why engineers were happy when it turned out apple camera photos look fine on apple camera screens but not anything larger and lower density.

>>4460094
>rule 9001 of the 4chanz: anyone who replies with "This", "trvth nvke", "/thread", or conceptual variations thereof, is replying to themselves

Visual illiteracy proven to be /p/'s biggest flaw.
I bet the extremely low IQ anti 3dpop guy is the same person that said a 5d classic looks better than 8x10 slide film. Kek

Saying the edit and light was different is not getting close to saying the picture had 3d pop. Extreme cope from the snoyboy once again!

>>4460096
>overly strict adherence to his own perceived rules

HE'S AUTISTIC AS WELL! LMAO

>>4460097
>doghair fagatives sneedthing because gear did not make his photography better
it actually made your photography significantly worse. so worse that the one time you didnt fuck an image up as badly you paraded it around for a week because you had yet to fuck up fewer than 5 things. sorry!

>>4460098
i made the rule up on the spot. you lack literacy. or, perhaps… you are adhering to a rule about adhering to rules? maybe you are the autistic one

>>4460100
>visually illiterate autist seethes and copes after getting btfo by visually literate photographer

Many such cases. Kek

>>4460091
>forgetting that for the greater part of photographic history, professional photographers in industries where aesthetics mattered used sheet film and medium format, now well-known for their special rendering qualities
>forgetting that even in industries where aesthetics and rendering mattered less, photographers still used glass like leica and nikkor, now famed for special rendering qualities
>forgetting that lenses like the Pentax 67 105/2.4 were so popular among professionals in their heyday that many still shoot with them decades later - particularly in the editorial, fashion, portraiture, and wedding businesses
>not realizing that present-day professionals choose modern-type glass because the convenience of AF and fast aperture zooms beats out aesthetic qualities for most workflows where delivery parameters are strict and fulfilling them is more important than 3D pop
>not realizing that many professionals still shoot lenses with pleasant rendering, often with film, in their free time or for assignments with less demanding volume requirements

>>4460101
dont you have a poorly framed dog photo to fail at, that would have turned out better if you used easier to use beginner friendly gear instead of trying to consoomer flex on /p/?

>>4460095
>microcontrast doesn't mean anything
>but I will complain if you give it a certain meaning
L M A O
>Optics industry acutance is also called the good enough factor and is why engineers were happy when it turned out apple camera photos look fine on apple camera screens but not anything larger and lower density.
Yes, and? You understand that the smaller an image is, the harder it is to appreaciate it so even worse lenses can be good enough? How does that disprove 3d pop having some optical contributing factors LMAO

>>4460105
See
>>4460101

>>4460103
Yes and vintage electric guitar paint makes music sound better. Not.

You do realize its just the same shit as usual - professionals clamoring for sharpness, accuracy, and minimal grain?

Using sheet film isn’t making your photos better with le magic rendering. Sorry.

>>4460106
You gave it an irrelevant meaning. Consoomer cope.

3d pop is an artistic skill, not something you can buy.

>>4460054
Man I love Pentax lenses so much I just hate their cameras. I wish they were willing to make lenses for other systems. Maybe I should finally try a ricoh gr

Sour grapes autist meltdown: the thread

How funny.

>>4460107
Is that a yes?

Its hilarious how your photography gets worse every time you "improve" your gear. You have passed the point of limitations forcing an NPC to learn and become a pure consoomer, taking test shots forever and basing your ego on your gear. Now say something about sony or micro four thirds. And upgrade to 16x20 and torture everyone with a years worth of failed test shots while claiming to be talented.

>>4460112
Your opinion is worthless to me lil sour grapes bro. You are a visually illiterate retard.

Keep up the (you)s for me. Your cope and seethe is really funny.

>>4460082
Both Zeiss and voigtlander specifically advertise that their lenses are made with 3d pop in mind

>>4460108
>You gave it an irrelevant meaning. Consoomer cope.
translated
>You gave it an actual tangible meaning. I am BTFOd.

>>4460108
>Yes and vintage electric guitar paint makes music sound better. Not.
Nice strawman, you dishonest faggot. Because obviously paint on a guitar is comparable to lens design.
>You do realize its just the same shit as usual - professionals clamoring for sharpness, accuracy, and minimal grain? Using sheet film isn’t making your photos better with le magic rendering. Sorry.
Explain to me why the Canon EF 50/1.2 was a highly desired lens among practically all wedding photographers for decades. Oh right, because, as you'll read all over the internet and see for yourself in sample images, this lens has special rendering qualities that set it apart from other 50s in its class, being not particularly sharp (!) or accurate but awash with "magic" rendering, to put it in your terms.

>>4460116
The meaning? The industry standard good enough factor for phone photos.

>>4460115
And gibson claims they make magical tone paint. Faux luxury brands have bullshit marketing. Your point?

>>4460116
Poor guy got btfo by everyone and their dog. Lmfao

>>4460117
>blurry autofocus lens with lots of bokeh
>MAGIC!!!!
Cool go buy one. If you ask me, a blurry 50mm f1.2 is a blurry 50mm f1.2.

>>4460114
So you are going to "upgrade" to 16x20 and end up with even worse photos than before?

>>4460118
Acutance existed long before smartphones. Find another way to cope

>>4460120
>a blurry 50mm f1.2 is a blurry 50mm f1.2
come on mr. "optical engineer", go tell that exact phrase to anyone working in the industry and see how hard they laugh at you LMAO

seems to me that you made fun of everyone for being vague, but the moment people start being technical your entire facade of expertise comes crashing down and you have nowhere to hide

>>4460120
Nice, so we can finally conclude that you have no answer. Professionals seek equipment that delivers a desired result. If that result is 2000 images of a 3-hour conference event that are all reasonably sharp and in 99.9% in focus, one may opt for a modern 24-70/2.8 on a Sony body. If the desired result is a set of 12 technically imperfect but "dreamy" posed photos of newlyweds standing on a sunset hillside, one may opt for a soft 50/1.2 with rendering qualities like smooth bokeh without onion rings, a degree of uncorrected spherical abberation, and vignetting. The fact that either of these photographers made one choice over another does not disprove the utility or existence of anything.

>>4460124
Acutance has always been the good enough factor considering size/enlargement/viewing conditions.

>>4460125
They would say "yes the RF mount one is better, 80s portraiture is dated. We just made it as sharp as we could back then."

Engineers are soulless spec chasers. Chasing fake specs is being even dumber while still having no soul.

>>4460126
I like how you’ve gone from trying to defend made up metrics like 3d pop and microcontrast, to sticking to accepted facts found in lens reviews like onion ring bokeh and RSA blur.

>>4460127
>spends entire thread being autistic about optical design terminology
>when loses the argument pivots to saying that awktually engineers are soulless and you shouldn't give a shit about them
LMAO
So let me get this straight, if engineers being spec chasers is bad that means there are certain quality to lenses the go beyond specs and have "soul"... and yet when talking about 3d pop you absolutely require people to talk about hard specs

damn nigga, be constistent between two consecutive posts at least

>>4460129
There isnt a quality that goes beyond specs. Lenses do not have soul. They have specs.

You can select a lens with specs that aren’t as high. You can select a soft lens, a vignetting lens, a lens with cats eye or swirly bokeh, a lens with spherical aberration, with no onion rings, rings from poorly polished asphericals, well polished asphericals with no rings, etc - they will still be specs, not "soul". Specs with names and numbers. They were specs when the lens was new and they are specs today, percentages and measurements. Without a photographer to work with them they will only ever be specs. Hard specs. Just look at dog hair fagatives. There is no magic in any gear no matter how old or how new and he proves it. He can’t add the magic himself so it isn’t there. Just look at that fag that almost said a sony GM had microtonal harvesting until he googled the photo and got angry. Because he’s a brand fanboy, a typical amateur, and sony is popular and antithetical to his poseur desires.

And 3d pop is not a spec. Nor is depth rendition. Nor microcontrast. These things are amateur experiences. They happen when shit gear motivates amateurs to take better photos by revealing how unconsciously they have been "working", and amateurs being amateurs, they think the gear did it, rather than realizing the gear revealed their mistake.

Nowhere in the phrase "a bad craftsman blames his tools" is it specified that he is blaming low quality tools for failure, or even knows the differences between tools in the first place!

>>4460132
Visually illiterate and sour grapes.

>>4460129
He doesn't have the intelligence to remain consistent or honest. You're asking too much from him.

>>4460134
Is that all you can say? Dont you have a test shot to make excuses for?

You gearfag and then improve your gear specific gear operating skills before gearfagging again to start over and avoid having to do art instead of technical bullshit. Just an observation (that applies to most gearfags, whether they learn a medium or an autofocus system, they’re avoiding doing art and chasing the dragon or purchasable talent)

>>4460137
>t. Moved goal posts from non-defined 3d pop, to accidentally defining 3d pop as acutance, to accidentally implicitly admitting that rendering is a catch all term for the clueless by listing the specific specifications of the ef 50mm f1.2
And imho a blurry 50 is a blurry 50 because they all reproduce that design these days

>>4460141
fast lenses are out of fashion. good riddance desu.

>>4460141
>implying it was the acutance guy who brought up the EF50/1.2
You are debating two or more people. When I brought up the 50, it was as a counterargument to somebody saying pros don't give a shit about rendering and just shoot fast zooms, which is demonstrably false.

>>4460139
You're just a seething little twerp that thinks a 5d classic looks better than 8x10 slide film. Why would I do anything aside from laugh at you?

>>4460143
His meltdown has reached schizo levels.

The 3D pop argument cannot be solved because one side are always heckin reddit atheists obsessed with specs who cannot accept the possible existence of currently unmeasurable qualities, while the other side has nothing to defend their position with besides subjective observations. The solution is that people obsessed with sharpness should continue shooting modern 16 element primes to graciously keep camera manufacturers in business while everyone else slurps up cheap but quality vintage optics with nice rendering.

>>4460143
My point is rendering is a catch all at best and encourages gearfag dragon chasing. The actual terms are actual specs and specs are tools that work as surely as how dense a paintbrush is, what its made of, how thick or wide it is, and at what angle its cut. Imagine painters with amateur photographer brains. Gearfagging over windsor&newton rendering rather than learning what tools do and why so they can select and use them purposefully.

>>4460144
A 5d classic used by a good photographer looks better than 8x10 film used by you.

A higher tier amateur could take a photo of a scooter on a 5d and producing a more pleasing image than your last 5 "shoots" combined because you eschewed all artistic practice in favor of
>the best part about mfdbs and sheet film is telling /p/ i use them

>>4460146
Yep, and even if a good demonstration of 3d pop was posted we all know that the proven dishonest narcissist would just cope and lie about it. Well... He has such bad visual literacy he probably isn't lying about it... But still.

>>4460147
>Gearfagging over windsor&newton rendering
Nah, it's more like a debate about synthetic versus boar bristle brushes.

>>4460146
There is literally no unmeasurable quality called 3d pop. There is no such thing as a lens that can be strapped to a fixed test rig and make the image more or less "3d".

3d pop is a universal artistic quality generated by the image maker, not any brush pencil or lens.

There is no such thing as rendering, it is simply amateurs having no fucking clue what they’re using or what they’re doing and consooming until the test shot of their dog looks good. Fitting the gear to the pixel peeping session.

>>4460147
>goalposts changed
Continue the meltdown lil sour grapes bro. We love to see it. Why aren't you posting any non stolen examples anyways? Scared?

>>4460150
>spec-obsessed gearfag comes out of the woodwork to prove right the post he's replying to

>>4460150
It's not just the lens, but the lens does contribute.

>>4460148
You bought the best of 8x10 and your dog test shots still look awful

No gear has soul
Soul is not real
All gear is only specs. It is all material. All measurable.

Adding the immeasurable qualities is the photographers job. You can do it by accident. You can perhaps buy gear into you are forced into a workflow that is more likely to result in that accident. But the reality will never change.

A bad craftsman blames his tools.

>>4460154
>visually illiterate cope

Why are you so intent on proving me right? It's incredible.

>>4460153
3d pop is completely unrelated to lenses. Completely. It is not a specification or measurable fact of optics.

3d pop is all the photographer, accidental or not, and entirely dependent on lighting, composition, and depth of field.

The less competent the "artist" the more they believe in 3d pop. See: camera conspiracies, theoria apowhatever, doghair fagatives.

>>4460155
>i spent five figures on gear and think my test shots look much better
Is this truly the guy who mogged himself with a 5dII? Or was it a 5dIII?

>>4460157
You cant get 3dpop from a phone shot.

My opinion is that it exists, but lens choice is only one factor of many.

>>4460157
so going by this reply, if I showed you two identically framed and focused images taken with two different lenses, there is no possible scenario in which one of the two will have more 3d pop

>>4460158
You really just love proving me correct. It's amazing. Thank you.

>>4460152
You speak like i think higher spec is always better

I’m just telling it how it is. All art supplies are soulless and purely material. You can not purchase magic. There is no easy way forward. You have to create the illusion of magic. To do so consciously is a skill. To do so accidentally is what consumerists hope to do eventually, and then buy and buy some more until they do it again.

>>4460161
Yannick tried to do this with a buddha statue, even 3d pop schizoing over megapixels, while his photography was, well, in a rut.

In the end he started using modern tamron primes and then switched to fuji and took really boring snapshits for ages

>>4459899
A lot of fashion and such photography has little potential for 3d pop anyway. Producing depth on people tends to be unflattering (which is why we like 85mm, with its flattening effect), and backgrounds tend to be either literally flat, or unimportant. Subject separation is important, but that's not 3d pop.
>>4459900
You're right. Sony has no magic. But my point isn't that you can't be creative with Sony. 3D pop is only a creative tool, as is sharpness, or diffusion filters, etc. etc. Creativity is in the photographer, not the camera or lens. Which is why people who "get it" say a good photographer can take good pictures even with a 20 year old entry level DSLR and its kit lens. Not that we want to be restricted to that set of tools, but it's skill that makes the photographer. 3D pop is just one tool I like to have in my toolkit.
>>4460021
Because in arguing on 4chan, I can post a picture of the color blue, say "this is blue," and some retard will argue with me. "Nooooo, it's red!" and 15 posts later they'll come up with the argument that "Look, #00FF01! It's technically green! BTFO"
>>4460069
>Can you explain why better photographers can get so called 3d pop from any lens
the snoy mistakes subject separation for 3d pop again

>>4460167
I meant Hex #0001FF kek, #00FF01 would indeed be green.
Why are all my fuckups in posting always ironic like that.

>>4460147
>Gearfagging over windsor&newton rendering rather than learning what tools do and why so they can select and use them purposefully.
I wish more people here understood this. But sadly all this board is good for anymore is someone asking whether to buy a new body that's basically the same and often worse for his stated purpose of "upgrading" and people egging them on to consoom and shutting down anyone who tells them they need to learn how to use the tools that are obviously not the thing holding them back.

>>4460168
thanks for the keks, I was about to call you out)))

>>4460118
They are luxury for a reason. The do render better than almost any other brand. Nikon and Pentax come close in a lot of ways though. There's a reason by better filmakers and photographers than us have used them for decades. It's a higher standard of artistic intent and it's not represented in charts made to appeal to youtubers and gear reviewers.

>>4460132
There are plenty of lenses that definitely do have beauty and soul to them. Your just unable to see it. That must be frustrating to you.

>>4460146
Based take. It really is a stroke of fate that the cheap lenses are the ones with the beauty. Thank god for wedding photographers subsidizing my Nikon 40mm f2.

>>4460154
You will never experience the beauty of the world. Only what is measurable

>>4460164
This is the ONLY CORRECT POST ABOUT GEAR EVER MADE ON /P/, and all that followed it was more stupid gear fagging about which brand has the most magic and soul to improve your photography (its whatever ones the gearfag has used last and failed with, and hasnt failed with yet)

3d POP IS NOT REAL!
IT ONLY EXISTS ON GEARFAGS FORUMS AND BLOGS!
EXPERIENCED PHOTOGRAPHERS AND PEOPLE THAT MADE IT ONE SEMESTER IN ART SCHOOL ALREADY KNEW THIS!

The only people arguing against the basic fucking fact are consumer faggots who will buy and buy forever and never succeed because they dont actually know how to do SHIT FOR FUCK, they ONLY KNOW HOW TO BUY BUY AND BUY AGAIN AND PLAY AROUND WITH THEIR LATEST MANCHILD FUNKOPOP SHIT UNTIL THEY ACCIDENTALLY ALMOST TAKE A GOOD PHOTO, GET BORED ALMOST ACCIDENTALLY TAKING A GOOD PHOTO, AND THEN BUY AGAIN

>I NEED A 5D FOR THE RENDERING
>ALMOST
>I DONT HAVE ENOUGH RENDERING I NEED FILM
>ALMOST
>I DONT HAVE ENOUGH RENDERING I NEED BIGGER FILM
>ALMOST
>I DONT HAVE ENOUGH RENDERING AND FILM IS HARD I SHOULD TRY THIS VINTAGE MFDB
>ALMOST
>I DONT HAVE ENOUGH RENDERING MAYBE I SHOULD MOVE UP TO 8X10 FOR THE TONALTIY AND RENDERING
>I SWEAR MY PHOTOS ARE GOOD EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE SAYS THEY SUCK! I BOUGHT THE GEAR AFTER ALL! DONT YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO USE THIS CAMERA? ITS PROBABLY ALL ONE PERSON!
Fucking consumerists

You ALL do this whether its your stupid fucking film or you stupid fucking D750 or Z7 or your stupid fucking A7CR! Oops, you almost had to actually learn photography BETTER BUY A NEW CAMERA, you'll have the filmic tonality detail rendering and depth microtones this time for sure!

>>4460169
Only correct post cANON has ever made too

>>4460174
He is right. There are not. Every professional on earth could be raving about a lens and if they put it in your hands you'd take the same shitty photos you always do. The beauty and soul comes from how good photographers use the gear. The gear is just an object.

>>4460178
Holy shit he's actually lost it

>>4460177
He is sadly correct

YOU WILL NEVER
EVER
EVER
BUY YOUR WAY INTO TAKING A BEAUTIFUL PHOTOGRAPH
EVER

BY THE TIME YOU ARE DROWNING IN SCHNEIDER-ANGULONS AND SUMMICRONS, ALL THE SPHERICAL ABERRATIONS ON EARTH WILL MAKE YOUR SNAPSHIT NOTHING MORE THAN A BLURRY SNAPSHIT, AND THE ONLY PERSON WHO WILL EVER EXPERIENCE THE DIFFERENCE AND SAY "WOAH" IS THE SAME SNAPSHITTER THAT TOOK THE PAST 100 SNAPSHITS WITH DIFFERENT GEAR FOR IMMEDIATE REFERENCE.

GEARFAG = PERMANENT FAILURE AT ART.
GEARFAG = INCAPABLE OF CREATIVITY.
GEARFAG = A SOULLESS GOLEM THAT ACCUSES OTHERS OF NOT HAVING A SOUL FOR NOT HAVING A REASON TO SEEK ONE.

AS LONG AS YOU ARE A GEARFAG YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING ART, BEAUTY, OR MEANING
YOU WILL ALWAYS BE TRYING TO WIN A SOUL ON EBAY

>>4460179
This entire fucking board is dumb faggot gearfags who talk about rendering and soul while posting garbage like this

YOU CAN NOT WIN A SOUL ON EBAY
SOUL IS CREATIVITY
A REAL PHOTOGRAPHER COULD SPEAK HIGHLY OF THE BEST LENS ON EARTH FOR ITS CHARACTER, AND YET ITS CHARACTER IN YOUR HANDS WOULD JUST BE A DOG SNAPSHIT!

ANSEL ADAMS MADE HISTORY WITH WORSE GEAR THAN THIS!

>>4460179
What a beautiful melty to witness.

>>4460182
Wow nice shot. I bet those prints look incredible in person.

/P/! /P/ in a nutshell!

The nikon Z7 is one of the most acclaimed cameras on earth, well loved by artists

And when you go on /p/ this is what they call proof of its uh, rendering, and soul

Buy another camera faggot! Quick, before you have to learn photography! Keep buying until you're shooting 8x10 and finally have to grapple with basic fucking perspective, composition, and exposure you could have learned on a nikon d40 with the kit lens!

Legendary 3d pop lenses! The tonality of 4x5! The rendering of schneider and tones of portra!

Just a snapshot of some dolls, a phone could take them, a $20 35mm SLR could do this.

Buy another camera. Rendering and soul are just another purchase away. Next lens, your photos will finally be good!

>>4460185
Cute chickens. I like that the waterer is framed with them. Adds good context and a comfy vibe to the shot.

All right schizo, it's time to go to bed. Have a shot with some good 3D pop to rock you to sleep.

>>4460187
Excellent composition and great timing with the waves. Very nicely executed shot, and I think the large film really adds a great quality to the overall look of the image.

>>4460189
This looks exactly like the photos posted by that anon who bought an om5 for hiking.

Gear doesn't give photos character. Photographers do. You wasted your money.

>>4460189
Fantastic. I love how the trees frame the mountain and add some nice contrast to the hazy and distant mountain. The detail you get from the large film is really satisfying to look at and I think it adds a lot to the picture. Very well done and definitely 3d pop.

>>4460189
oversharpened to fuck, why are the tree branches glowing?
>>4460194
thats just layers

>>4460193
I'm really impressed with your coping ability. Must get a lot of practice.

>Dogfucker coping hard

>>4460185
The worst part about chicken faggot is he's definitely using a "3d pop" lens, either the nikon 40mm or F mount lenses, and this image is flat as fuck because he sucks fucking SHIT at editing and has no eye for aesthetics at all.

>>4460182
This guy can't just compose a photo for shit because he's too busy trying to get it in focus after gearfagging himself to death

>>4460187
And even with all the time in the world this gearfag couldn't focus his camera. 3d pop needs the image to be focused to make it look 3d and they dont have an eye for it. They have an eye for a good deal on good gear though!

>>4460189
Man, I would love to see a full res scan of this. I bet the 3d pop is even more prevelant. Stupid 4chan limiting us to such low resolution files!

>>4460196
Lovely colors and another fantastic use of large format film. You can't get that with digital!

>>4460185
>>4460182
>>4460180
>>4460178
This is one of the best meltdowns I have witnessed in a while. Thanks lil sour grapes bro.

Post some of your awesome photos. We all want to see what such a tough critic has accomplished with their camera!

The point that the schizos in this thread seem to be missing:
Yes, good gear can be used to take a boring picture, but a good picture will always benefit from having been taken with better equipment. If one criteria of 'better' in the eyes of the individual is that such and such lens seems to be more accurate to the way the human eye renders depth, so be it.

>>4460178
I'm sorry for upsetting you so much anon. We just disagree over what kind of lenses and photos are good. It's nothing to upset yourself over.

>>4460180
You can't guarantee buying your way into taking a good photo but you do have to buy the right kind of camera and lens to get what you want. An artist needs materials. I'm sorry your so upset over this.

>>4460203
The inverse is true: you can take good pictures with worse gear, too. So you're going to get lots of great images with even "boring" lenses. Gear is a multiplying force. Gear * Skill * Luck * Persistence = Result, where Skill and Persistence are weighed the most heavily.

>>4460205
Contact prints dont look good when you print digital negatives to make them. There's very little way around this fact of life.

Glad I only gearfag over vintage poverty shit and quirky camera setups/ecosystems I know are objectively bad (I don't want to spend used car money on doing something most people use their cell phones for)

>>4460208
That's the part that makes me kek about the guy trying to claim 3d pop enthusiasts are just gearfagging and consoooming.
Like lmfao, my "3d pop" lenses mostly cost $30-40 on ebay, with a few I do want for just over $100 and like one rare one over $200 that I haven't bought them yet because I don't care that much.

>>4460203
>good gear can be used to take a boring picture, but a good picture will always benefit from having been taken with better equipment

This is the hard truth lots of people can't accept . Everyone wants one answer on why a picture they took was bad and another was good. They can't accept that it is a mixture of luck, photography skill/knowledge, and the right equipment. Nobody can truly tell you what makes a photo good either. It's partially gut instinct which makes everyone uncomfortable if they think about it too long.

>>4460208
If you're having fun and taking the pics you want I cannot judge. Only a weird and angry gearfag guy would judge you for accomplishing that.

>>4460207
a part of skill is knowing the limitations of equipment and using them in ways that do work well, and not using them in ways that don't work well. You wanna take bird photos with a point and shoot? You're not getting a photo of that rare bird on a safari without the utmost extreme luck -- you're going to the zoo's aviary exhibit with a cute girl to take quirky pictures. No gear is unlimited in its capabilities, and a gears' limits don't describe what a "good photo" is, just what a "good photo" on that particular gear might look like. And yes, some of it is pretty limited.

>>4460213
That misrepresents the average gearfag's train of thought though. Usually it's not about what focal length to pick which is arguably more technique than gearfagging, but instead something like claiming objectively excellent cameras are bad because they're what they call "blobs" while simultaneously shilling something with a mountain of issues or looking for some holy grail 55mm lens that will somehow magically make your pictures good so they'll shoot dozens of different 55mm f/1.8 lenses and convince themselves that there's one that stands out. Sometimes there's real differences like field curvature but they're often just overhyping some placebo glass.

>>4460213
Absolutely! There's always compromises. No perfect camera exists for all situations.

>>4460179
>he
That isnt even me. I left because no one here can refute what I said. No one will ever post examples refuting it either.

1: 3d pop is not an optical property or any gear property period. You can not take the same photo with two lenses or two film formats or two sensor sizes and get different levels of pop unless you use fake constraints like sooc jpeg defaults only, which fucks certain gear out of using the best contrast level/color grade for the scene in a way that is irrelevant to actual photography. Like a sony could pop when a fuji was flat or a sigma would be distorted and a nikon would be corrected entirely because of sooc jpeg defaults.
2: rendering is a catch all term for specific and very material, objective things, at best, for amateur tards who dont want to learn how to recognize and consciously make use of the specifics. Especially the consoomerist ones who just want to fanboy certain gear.

>>4460187
Thank god more than one person thinks dollfag is a disgrace to that nice camera he consoomed.

>>4460185
If i recall, this is huskyfags chicken, and he has ran the gamut from vintage dslr to zenza bronica and never posted anything with 3d pop because he is an objectively shitty photographer with no prospects or talent whatsoever, just a habit of buying random cameras before improving anything else. Basically, doghair’s twin.

>>4460220
Its probably cinefag being justifiably mad because the shittiest photographers here are also the ones who called him a dogfucker (because they will do anything to distract from how bad they are) (and he is a dogfucker)

Why does the meltdown guy say everyone is a shitty photographer, but only posts stolen photographs?

>>4460216
No one says good cameras are bad, the typical argument here is that you can take good photos even with technically worse equipment. The "blob" thing is mocking the idea that you NEED expensive, modern equipment to take good cameras, not that those cameras don't take good photos. God forbid m43 is mentioned. Then snoyfags flock in and shit on anyone trying to suggest you can take good pictures on anything other than a snoy. Occasionally a canonfag will do the same although most canonfags are still stuck on the 5div.
They'll call anyone trying to say you don't need to spend thousands of dollars to take good pictures "gearfags" and then insist that you NEED a $1400 Snoy camera with a $1400 lens to take good pictures, which is what gearfagging actually is.

>>4460225
The only real gearfag is this guy right here obsessed with hating sony when they are the best price/convenience brand. They mock blobs because they are ugly and inherently disruptive in public spaces because of their association with PIs and pdf files. Actual gearfags whine about sony while pixel peeping bokeh in rare hyper specific scenarios and refusing to recognize anything but sooc jpeg/acr default settings as the real "color science". Peak trying to buy a personality.

>>4460226
Snoyboy here wouldn't be hated if he didn't shove sony into every conversation.

>>4460225
>The "blob" thing is mocking the idea that you NEED expensive, modern equipment to take good cameras, not that those cameras don't take good photos.
It's actually the mirrorlesscuck defense after being cornered. It takes some arguing but in the end they admit the look they really care about is how the camera looks, not how the pictures look. >>4460226
>because of their association with PIs and pdf files.
Pure unadulterated neurosis.

>>4460229
DSLRs are patently offensive. Walk around with one and people will assume you are up to no good. The normie perception is they are IR xray cameras and mega zooms.

>/p/ has a consensus re: worst photographers on the board
>sugar not listed
Sucrose soldiers we won

Doghair fagatives, huskyfucker, and dollpedo btfo

>>4460238
>schizo thinks he is the consensus.
Can you cope any harder?

>>4460239
>its all one guy. im actually amazing.
Lets find out
https://strawpoll.com/Qrgewx9XQyp

>>4460236
I actually walked around Disney with my Pentax DSLR with a strobe and 80-320mm lens and everyone thought I was a professional photographer. Normies came up to me asking to take photos of them with their cell phones actually but I went with my gf. At least 4 of them did.

Most of the professional Disney photographers at Animal Kingdom were shooting Nikon D750s with strobes and tripods btw.

>>4460236
Too true. Pretty funny that they think they must be super powered sci fi tech just cause they are bigger than a phone. If only they knew we were spending all this money on what to them is marginal gains for something nobody but us cares about.

>>4460241
Yeah it's more accepted by normies in that circumstance. Walking around any suburban area will get people at least asking you questions. Some areas they just call the cops on you. We live in sad pessimistic times.

>>4460240
This is the level of obsession that I truly love to see. Thank you visually illiterate sour grapes anon. I appreciate the time you have taken out of your day to provide everyone with this wonderful entertainment.
Have fun wasting your time adding fake votes.

The only way you can btfo me is by posting photos you have taken that are way better than mine. Lets see some of your studio work! Ive been shooting a lot of studio work lately, so posting some of your godly studio shots would definitely be a good way to btfo me.

>>4460054
>>4460029
Comfy photos
I like it when people post something else than a wall of text that’s says the same shit over and over again.
Thanks for posting photos

>>4460182
>>4460187
This makes me feel some kind of fomo. Weirdly im hoping (you) also saved some of my photos

>>4460286
I am also weirdly flattered when someone saves my pic, even if it used for trolling purposes.

If you want to post a pic I'll save it on my phone if I like it and then randomly post it some time from now in the hopes you get to experience the joy of seeing one of your photos posted by a stranger.

>>4460287
I would like that very much. I’m the peruanon from fgt.
help yourself and save any you like or don’t like

>>4460289
Okay! Cool I am 8x10 film guy. Cheers bro

>>4460238

<3

>>4460226
Note my critique was against Snoy fanboys, not Snoy cameras themselves.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I hate Snoy cameras and you wouldn't catch me dead using them, but I fully admit that's just my preferences.
But you can't tolerate the idea that not everyone is a snoy fanboy, and thus anyone who doesn't want to use snoy is a "gearfag" because, as you're incapable of understanding other people have different preferences than you, they're focusing on irrelevant-to-you (which you mistake as absolutely irrelevant or even imaginary) aspects of gear because you can't see a camera as something more than a device that has a spec sheet.
You probably have trouble understanding concepts like "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
These patterns of thinking are all classic hallmarks of autism.

>>4460513
>No one:
>Some butthurt homo: Snoy snoy snoooooy *writes cringe fanfiction* sony people only care about specs waaaa ;_; *cries in rectum ravaged weiner wiggler*
Awwww, u poor babby. Did /p/ call the hipster brand you fanboy for shit again? Poor babby.