35mm Takumar lenses have a strong reputation for the 3D effect. I would be surprised if the 67 lenses weren't at least reasonably good in that regard.
OMG, is this moronic "3D effect" going to become an actual photographic term now for all the lame-brains who can't fathom the concept of depth of field?
Bob - What a pleasant guy you must be. This 3D effect is related to contrast and bokeh quality and perhaps other factors. I do not know exactly. I am not a proponent of it. I am a Takumar fan and have heard it mentioned time and again regarding old Takumar lenses.
Originally Posted by BobD
Originally Posted by Hatchetman
A film image is two dimensional. If you want a "3D look" in your image, it takes skill in the use of light, texture and sometimes DOF to separate layers of the scene and hence fool the eye/brain, not brand-slavery and the chasing of magic bullets.
You can waffle all day about microcontrast and handwave about the mystical skills of the elves that ground the glass but IMHO for nought. You can make an excellent "3D looking" image with a $50 camera and you can make crap photos with a $5000 camera. Note that you don't see any successful double-blind comparisons where people can pick the Leica/Zeiss/whatever magic from prints placed next to good prints from other systems.
In summary: Leica, Zeiss, Pentax, Mamiya, (and, and and and pretty much everyone else) all make some really nice glass. It's what you do with it that counts.
Edit: and to answer the OP, you summed it up nicely yourself. Get a nice big neg like 6x7 and good optics from any of the manufacturers and you're going to achieve more resolution-in-print than Leica could dream of. You're going to get more "microcontrast" (what a crappy handwavy term) than a 35mm system could hope to. And you're going to spend a lot of time with your lens wide open for lack of light so I hope you like the bokeh!
My only reservation with P67 is the mirror-slap and heavy focal-plane shutter, not the lenses. Absolutely make sure you get a body that supports MLU for a start. There are those who say that the P67 shutter itself is limiting of sharpness but I could not say as I've not used one.
Last edited by polyglot; 01-07-2012 at 11:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Hi! I own a Pentax 6x7. Of course it is easily obtainable, just isolate your primary subject with shallow focus.
Originally Posted by msbarnes
There is no magic to any camera lens. There may be measurable radiation, but there isn't any magic. You can obtain a 3D effect with any decently fast lens. I first got started doing it using my Olympus Pen-F, with a 38mm f/1.8 lens. Open it up, and get close. That's it. Compose for the effect, and you'll be fine with just about anything.
If you want real 3D, then you need to make two photographs per subject, or get a stereo 3D camera.
Polygot: Yes, the 6x7 has mirror slap, and for me, the MLU is not optional for a number of the speeds. Yes, it is very hand-holdable, as I like it with my 35mm lens, I just keep the shutter at 1/250th or better.
What on earth is being referred to with the Pentax 67 and "3D effect"? The 67 is not a stereo camera, nor is the lens. One could refer to it as bokeh, but the representative images at the top of this thread are just selective focus, also achievable (to a better degree) with a PC lens (tilt or tow) — either with Pentax's own 67 PC-lens or any 35mm lens. But it's not a 3D impression by any stretch. The bigger format (67 is 400% larger than 35mm) simply makes the limited focus effect much clearer and conspicuous.
Brian C. Miller: MLU on the 67 to reduce (how cute a term is that?) mirror whack is troublesome handheld because the scene is blanked and even small movements can fundamentally change the composition. My standing preference is tripod-mounted shooting with MLU and having done that for many, many years I'm not easily shifted. I hold down the tripod when the shutter is tripped. I am researching the amount of introduced blur caused by 67 mirror whack through the Pentax forum.
.::Gary Rowan Higgins
A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
Blur caused by mirror whack? I've had shot messed up due to shutter whack! Seriously! One of my tripods is a Benbo Trekker. I love the Benbo tripod, but there are some instances where it's a bad idea. The P67 with a 1sec exposure is one of them. I mounted my P6x7, 300mm f/4 East German lens, and with the Benbo in its stablest configuration, I watched as the shutter wrenched the camera out of position, twice. Once when the shutter opened, and once when it closed. Yes, the shutter made the whole assembly swing! Of course the shutter does not make my Bogen 3036 move, not even a little.
But handheld at 1/250th, with a wide lens on it, I like it. Sure, it's not as handy as my Nikon, but that's life.
The term "3D effect" is, predictably, troublesome for quite a few people. It evokes all kinds of vagaries like "Leica glow" and "pleasing bokeh" or "beautiful tonality."
But... however imprecise the term may be, the "effect" is recognized by a number of people with a lot of experience using a variety of lenses. My post far above was an attempt to lend the term a little technical precision. Maybe that didn't work so I could try again. (although it'll probably just creat pages more debate!)
From the standpoint of perception, simply having a fast lens is not enough to see the "effect"... there can be, in certain fast lenses, a harsh transition between in-focus and out-of-focus (OOF) elements. This is above and beyond the OOF rendering, which is what people usually mean when they talk about bokeh.
From the technical standpoint, the issue is, I believe, the tracking of the S & M (go ahead and giggle you naughty teenage boys) MTF curves. If they track each other well, then the focus transitions tend to be nice and smooth. Circular objects remain circular, and lines remain linear, whether they are in focus or out. If that isn't the case, then you get noticeable patterns in bokeh and you also get contrasty transitions which, I would argue, are the antithesis of the "3D effect" ...if you consent to calling it that
Now, with LF gear, it is pretty easy to get "3D effect" on the cheap. With smaller formats it places much higher demands on the lens design because you simply need to pass a lot more information through a smaller piece of glass. Typical problems are sharp bokeh lines that define the DOF too abruptly, or even miscolouration in the bokeh (dpreview has some nice examples of that- it's much easier to see in digital imagery because of the inherent chromatic abberation problems that arise from Bayer sensors).
So... I don't particularly like the term "3D effect" either, but I think that I do know what is meant when people use the term. And I assert that there is technical basis for it. Most people who use the term do not mean to imply shallow DOF and merely shallow DOF. They mean smooth transitions across the boundaries of that DOF so that you don't even sense the transitions first and foremost. There is something more natural about the way some lenses render the focus transitions, surely we can agree on that much. What some people call "3D effect" is smooth bokeh plus subtle and smooth focus transitions, the way I think about it. And it's certainly not true that every lens can deliver that.
Now, it's never easy to get technical and artistic talking peacefully about the same subject, but I hope that everyone will at least agree that our terminology is the best we've got, until somebody invents better. So let's try to tolerate each other's terminology and work together on improving it!!! I've seen far too many forum battles over things like defining bokeh or tonality... or previsualization...
If others have better definitions or terminology, have at it!
Last edited by keithwms; 01-09-2012 at 01:31 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Yes, I think I do.
Originally Posted by keithwms
"3D effect" stands for dumb, dumber and dumbest.
But, thank you for mentioning those pesky "sharp bokeh lines," the bane of photographers everywhere.
However, I think you "need to pass a lot more information through a smaller piece of glass" in order to complete your theory.