Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The "3D" thread
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
Hari, who's that? Your son? funny, same behaviour, bite finger like my son

This taken with reflexogon, remember ?

big size



No man - a friend's son. I'm not married and have no kids that i know of Laughing

Of course i remember the reflexogon! simple looking lens but produced some nice shots!

do you still have the 500mm? that was a good lens too!


PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Still have the rubinar, but not often to use it. My son always with me, not easy to take picture with both simultanously


PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orestor 2.8/100mm

Full Size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33530174@N05/5479567436/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Planar T* 1.4/50


Last edited by metallaro1980 on Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:04 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="kds315*"]


Klaus, this image is fantastic. The 3-d feel is definitely there, and the
tonality and just purely beautiful composition blows me away!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
good shots everybody !!!

I like the bench....


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


i don't tell you the lens ....


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
1Ds MKIII + C/Y Vario Sonnar 80-200 ->



PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow Hari... new cam & new lens
I can feel 3D
So the cam is worth huh?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to add this one already shown in another thread.

D700 with Nikkor 2.8/180mmED and converter TC 201 at ISO 1600



Wink


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
Wow Hari... new cam & new lens
I can feel 3D
So the cam is worth huh?


hey Suat!

The cam costs a lot more than the 5D/5D2 so in the end it comes down to individual needs - the 1DsIII is built like a tank, weatherproofed, 100% vertical/horizontal coverage, 5fps and has some other features that are not given with the 5D2 but the price difference is huge so it makes most practical sense to get the 5D2

For me, weatherproofing and 5fps are important as well as the 63-zone TTL full aperture metering

For the rest, the 5D2 is almost the same as the 1Ds MKIII and the 5D2 does a lot of stuff the 1DsIII does not - video/higher ISO etc.

But not every purchase needs to make logical and financial sense so i got the 1DsIII Laughing

You only live once Smile


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sony a580 and Helios 44/2



PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
canon 1000D + elmarit 28


PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nex5+flektogon 20/2,8


PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really need to add this one now!
Carl Zeiss Planar 1.4/50 ZS lens (M42), EOS 5D camera:



PostPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've seen some images in these pages that are close to 3D, but most are just crisp images against blurred background - and some didn't even have a blurred background. I've been intrigued by the 3D phenomenon and have made some observations, but do not claim to fully understand what it takes to create. I have noted that the target object must be fully in crisp focus. The background is better to not be too blurry. The lens does seem to play a part, whether the focal length does too, I'm not sure. I kept expecting to see an image or two from Peter and his Pentor 100mm. There was one in particular that struck me as very 3Dish, and in fact is what put me on a hunt for that lens. However, his shots were taken with full frame which I think is no small part of it. Here is Peter's shot from elsewhere in this oversized forum - I hope he doesn't mind:


And he had others with similar results: http://forum.mflenses.com/pentor-100mm-f-2-8-better-than-average-t37140.html

I have so far taken very few that I thought may have came close. Here are two:




PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



PostPosted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The first one is great metallaro!!

My example for that...



PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carl Zeiss Planar 1.4/85 MM (C/Y), Canon EOS 5D Mark II



PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm glad this thread has been resurrected as 3d (I call it pop) is something I prefer in a shot. What's fascinating is I (probably anyone) just can't say "today I'm going to take many shots of different subjects and they are all going to have pop"....for me I get unexpected pop and sometimes with a cheap lens.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
What's fascinating is I (probably anyone) just can't say "today I'm going to take many shots of different subjects and they are all going to have pop"....for me I get unexpected pop and sometimes with a cheap lens.


In the case of this bicycle shot, I was deliberately after it. I used the perspective of the slanted front wheel and opened wide the lens in order to create a noticeable focus difference
between the front wheel and the body of the bike. I think that the tentative succeeded and it shows that with the right perspective and the right setting of the lens (and the right lens as well)
you don't need the neat and strong lateral light that many consider indispensable for this kind of effect. The light in this photo couldn't be flatter, there are almost zero shadows.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:


In the case of this bicycle shot, I was deliberately after it. I used the perspective of the slanted front wheel and opened wide the lens in order to create a noticeable focus difference
between the front wheel and the body of the bike. I think that the tentative succeeded and it shows that with the right perspective and the right setting of the lens (and the right lens as well)
you don't need the neat and strong lateral light that many consider indispensable for this kind of effect. The light in this photo couldn't be flatter, there are almost zero shadows.


Ah but can you explain how you got 3d (pop) in depth esp in your street shots where you must have stopped the lens down, I know you use Zeiss/contax lenses, but if the ONLY answer is "for 35mm you get more chance of pop with an expensive lens" that's depressing news for many of us.
Well I'm using 35mm ATM but the answer is simple for a film user....Want more chance of pop? then use a decent medium format camera Wink


PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a combination of factors (composition, object shape, light, aperture setting, focal lenght, even object materials sometimes, and lens quality too).
Some of these factors you can select, some you can set, some just happen. They all help (more or less), none of them is indispensable, but some are more important than others.
To the list I would add also the ability of the photographer to manage all these factors. One may have them available, but not be able to arrange them properly to take advantage of them.
Lens quality is not all, and it's not enough, but it helps. Quality here does not mean (necessarily) expensive, it's more related to the lens character.
Canon lenses usually suck at 3D. Yet some of them are very expensive.
Other lenses like the 3.5/50 Jena Tessar (aluminium, M42 or Exakta) give fantastic 3D yet cost only a few dozen Euros. Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Oversized Gallery
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8