5 Reasons You Might Regret Buying a 3rd Party Lens
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ธ.ค. 2022
- 3rd party lenses are usually much more affordable, and often equally sharp if not sharper than native lenses. They can often have better specs, be lighter, and perform even better than some original lenses. They work great for photos! But there are several reasons you might want to avoid them if you shoot video.
Subscribe to my friend Geet on Instagram! geetcollect...
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, a squirrel will ride a moose to your house to deliver the package.
Canon EOS R amzn.to/3fI7PL9 or bhpho.to/3qYtdPC or USED bhpho.to/3oxvMGV
Canon 24mm f1.4 L ii (I own the mark i, hard to find) amzn.to/3UmifPi or USED amzn.to/3UhAeXj or bhpho.to/3H2QMiGf or USED bhpho.to/3gMY3bR
Instagram / vegetablepolice
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetable...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolice.threadless.com/
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolice.bandcamp.com/
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlink.com/554.html
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / canadianwargod
My Music Channel Stern Beats / @sternbeats9057 - ตลก
Subscribe to my friend Geet on Instagram! instagram.com/geetcollective/?hl=en
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, a squirrel will ride a moose to your house to deliver the package.
Canon EOS R amzn.to/3fI7PL9 or bhpho.to/3qYtdPC or USED bhpho.to/3oxvMGV
Canon 24mm f1.4 L ii (I own the mark i, hard to find) amzn.to/3UmifPi or USED amzn.to/3UhAeXj or bhpho.to/3H2QMiGf or USED bhpho.to/3gMY3bR
Instagram instagram.com/vegetablepolice/
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Thank you friend! 🙏🏼
The lies you have been said about buying detachable lenses at all my lens is built in right on my phone... now i have a google pixel... im moving up in the world.
I’m not even sure he’s serious, and that’s what I love about this channel…
Buying a canon RF camera is like moving to a country where you have to buy a Mercedes Benz in order to drive. Some of us are happy with our Toyotas, Chevys and Hondas. So we move to a country where we can drive any new car we'd like, whether it be a merc or a ford. That's a darn good reason to leave canon and move to Sony.
I know, right!
@Seeyou Seemee There's never any good reason for a Nikon. Ok, they're good. Like really good. Kind of perfect. Reliable. But where is the fun in that?
Or you could use your brain, buy the EF version and use the adapter.
@@sagetheowlfatfeathery2083 All the advantages of the R mount are lost (e.g. The closer lens to sensor distance). If you use L glass, what is the advantage of ditching your 5DS or 5D Mark IV and buying an R mount? Yes, you can do that, but why would you? What did you gain? If you switch to the R mount, optimal performance will come from R glass.
@@danncorbit3623 I considered R mount camera with L lenses but was worried about resale value of lenses. I like changing lenses after a year or two. So, High resale value is very important to me. Considering this ditched the plan.
The "paradox of choice" is a real problem in many aspects of our modern lives. In days gone by you had so few options, life was simpler. Never the less, I still love my Viltrox and Sigma lenses on my Sony cameras.
Yes! Anxiety is the price we pay for being free to choose. PD: Viltrox and Sigma happy owner here too
The only 100% honest camera channel
completely honest. Faults with every company and great benefits for each as well. I will go and watch reviews for stuff and then come here for the final deciding factors lol. I love it
In the multiverse there's a camera 📸 conspiracy that's into stills.
I've had some good experiences with sigma. Felt like basically first party to me.
what about the second party?
@@pauliusgrigas2653 I have home made some pinhole lenses. Is that second party?
Sigma lenses are different. The complaints about flat-looking images mostly concern their recent Art lenses. The smaller Contemporary lenses have more pop. Some of their older lenses marked EX (mostly slr-lenses) have serious pop. One of my favourite lenses is the old Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX. That has serious pop and gorgeous toneh.
@@audioupgrades Why everyone want this 3D pop? It looks ugly, like cheap tv effect
@@PatrickWithCamera 3D pop is depth information that will show the shape of objects and their position in space. Maybe you're confusing it with something else?
Lack of pop isn't a third party thing. It mostly has to do with the current trend for clinical optics. That means lens manufacturers kill pop by correcting for small defects that are only visible when pixel-peeping. Older Tamron and Sigma lenses had less correction and more pop. The same goes for older Sony Zeiss and G lenses, especially the ones with T* coatings.
I notice that. I have 2 g lenses and one modern Sony Zeiss lens. The difference is striking. One looks like an lsd trip and the other is just too clinical I feel like I’m in the er.
I mean Kas only uses brand new stuff, Tamron made top-tier macro lenses back in the day full of pop but our little man here cannot use something older than 2yo at times.
Plus he also doesn't research that often into third party, the SP line of Tamron has some great lenses with everything he asks in terms of optics but he wants more software.
@@bearbearingston7696 That's typical of camera channels, though. Viewers are mostly interested in new releases. And CC just bought the old Canon EF 24mm f1.4, so it's not exclusively new gear on here.
In my experience, "pop" is mainly killed by post-production and/or poor lighting.
My two biggest tips for getting "3D pop" out of any lens is, keep your editing minimal, and look for lighting conditions that soft but directional. Bonus points if your light source literally confuses the viewer and makes them wonder where the light is coming from; that really gives images a 3D look for some reason!
One exercise I do to maintain a relatively subtle style is, whenever I'm done editing a photo, I try dropping the contrast and/or the Dehaze down a good 10-20 notches, even if that puts them negative, and if I like the way that looks, then I make it a virtual copy and go back and re-edit the image to have the same look but without messing around so much with other sliders/curves. This seems to help avoid the dreaded "over-cooked" look.
@@MatthewSaville Well, you're right. Pop is several things coming together. It depends on the lens, the lighting, the processing and even the sensor. Some sensors pop like crazy, like old CCD sensors. The discussion about lack of pop usually centers on modern lenses with a lot of corrective elements that produce flat-looking images, though.
The Tamron images debunk your argument immediately. Canon fucked up, they need 3rd party lenses. 😂
I’m glad 60fps Tony is upset, though.
Back in the day when you were a normal person like the rest of us...(before you got TH-cam rich and could spend/be gifted $3000 on a lens like it was nothing)....spending $700 on a used Sigma Art and getting PROFESSIONAL quality for 30% of the cost of an RF...was a pretty smart choice. Heck, it was the only choice.
If you're careful buying third party you can get some amazing solutions. Tamron G2, sigma Art....in test after test... often hold their own to canon glass. Many reviews on that.
But yeah...go ahead and be a lens snob :-) forget where you came from! I'll continue using 3rd party lenses in order to take pictures of myself begging for spare change and bowls of cold porridge...
And I hope you know I'm joking around...been watching your channel for years. Recall episodes from Thailand and others with your lovely girlfriend . So I appreciate u, even when you're wrong! :-)
I subscribed instantly. Your attitude and way of speaking got me in the floor
Those shots were beautiful…but I LOL’d hard at the trees look like they’re in front of me. 😂
Let’s all go to Henry’s tonight for a third party lens. 😎
Interesting video, was out yesterday shooting with a Sigma 17-35 mm f4-5.6 and a Canon 70-200mm f4 and out of over 500 photos taken, the Sigma missed focus on 2 pics in very, very low light, the Canon missed focus on 20 im overcast light, yes subjects were different as was the lighting, but still intersting test for me.
What Sigma 17-35 are you referring to? Either way, if it's the lens I think you're referring to, it's an absolutely ancient lens that has no business nailing focus at all, haha. So, an interesting test, indeed!
I am often picky too lol , Good afternoon Casey , the 42.5 panny 1.2 and oly 45 1.2 are each awesome in their own way for toneh and POP especially the panny , but so are the sigma 1.4 trio , the 16mm and 30mm and 56mm , and those last 3 can be had for less than the price of that panny Leica 42.5 1.2 also the 16 mm makes the G9 panny focus miles better than any panny lens i have as there's no depth of d focus confusion with those 3 lenses , so there are exceptions , but i truly agree native is mostly best for most cameras, cheers for the great video smile of the day .
I think he has a problem with Sigma, Tamron and Samyang 😀. But in Sony apsc Sigma primes were the kings for the longest time. It is only recently that now Sony is focusing on apsc again that they released lenses. Obviously once you move full frame you require highest quality.
Cheap but good lenses like the samyang 18mm f2.8, the 14mm f2.8 or for a little more the Sigma Art 20mm f1.4 are wonderful if you want to step outside your boundaries and do some astrophotography without breaking bank.
The sigma 100-400 is good for some wildlife for being cheap, small and light. I also love it for landscapes.
That’s the magic of some of these lenses. They aren’t the best, but are good enough for expanding out of what you normally do without costing thousands of bucks. It really depends on what you are doing and what you are interested in doing.
The other thing is filling niches. If you need a 35mm f1.2 for weddings, you can get the sigma. On canon rf you have to wait for canon to release one. Or the Tamron 35-150 for events where speed is crucial. Where you don’t have time to constantly switch between your 24-70 and 70-200 GM without missing your assignment even if they are slightly better.
Excellent points all around.
Camera Conspiracies is a "photographer" now. Did I just say that?
It's not his fault. He sneezed and pressed the wrong button. He heard this disgusting 'click' sound and knew that he had been sullied for life, like being tipped into the bog of eternal stench.
I love my Tamron lenses. I do not shoot video so I get great photographic results that are tack sharp.
Exactly... how many of us are into video!?!?
Tamron SP lenses were great. I used to use them on my R4s when I needed a zoom.
I had a budget RF, a 100-400mm and really liked it.....but the reach wasn't long enough and it sucked in low light. The lens itself was cripple hammered. Canon does that on purpose. So I got a sigma 150-600 and the IQ is amazing.
Sometimes, budget RF isn't good enough and expensive RF is too much money. 3rd party offers that sweet spot right in the middle that's good enough to be professional but not break the bank.
You should do a video on a professional 3rd party lens kit for each system. Not budget cheap but not GM or RF either.
That Tammy 70-180 rendering looks amazing not sure if on Sony level but prob best of all 3rd party? Any chance of shootout with your Sony ?
Every few moments I giggle at the asides. Truly info-tainment. I've not been a fan for long, as I just found your channel, but you are hysterically funny. "Tony Balls" er... "Toneh Balls". LOL.
Thanks! I failed to notice the budget RFs still using Ef With adapters on my C70 and R6.
Ok let's buy some 4rd party lenses then😗
Im using Geet setup - A7 IV + Tamron 70-180 f2.8 and apart from Zeiss 55mm 1.8 its my favorite lens ever. That will probably change when i get my hands on Tamron 35-150 f2-2.5 thought.
Leica R lenses on my sony a7riv are pretty good. It reduces me looking like I have jaundice vs. native lens.
Good jobs. You are genuinely funny sometimes :)
The photo commentary is gold 😂
What is that contraption on your camera hot shoe @4:40?
"Distinguished Taste" "Fine Wine" 🤔....😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 (you've never had either of those on your yt videos.) You go Geet!
I’m not a working professional photographer, so purchasing Canon RF lenses(not the budget ones) at the average cost of $2300 to $2500 is not a option for me! Sigma and Tamron give me choices, when I can afford to buy OE gear I do but me as a consumer I love the choice!
Me too!
How do you like the EF 24mm 1.4?
I've been thinking about getting that for my OG R and R6 mark ii
It's amazing!
@@cameraconspiracies you said you have the Version 1 right?
How is it on autofocusing? Does it make noise?
@@dubbleA100 Yes, version 1. Smooth and reliable, maybe not super quick. And some noise for sure, shotgun will pick it up but it's much better than the Zeiss 12mm I was using for the Fuji.
At 6:20 your buddy was walking under dinosaurs and focused on bee photography instead. Loser! (great job as usual, by the way).
can you showcase us the 3d pop please? Like a side by side comparison?
th-cam.com/video/AXhq65zJMek/w-d-xo.html
@@cameraconspiracies thanks man!
"A 2D chess match, that none of us won" - quote of 2022 hands down
Who also thinks he is much better photographer than videographer.
I'm a fan of his squirrel and bird videos 🤣🤣
I don't think so
He isn’t that great at either one. But I love him
He’s a better comedian than anything else 😂
Voigty-lander? Also the tamron 70-200 2.8 for dslr is legit fantastic and cheap for photos at least.
3 choices…yes please!!
Still haven't bought any 3rdprry lol. But i would maybe for the fl i hqte or its rare breed like anamorphic
I found out that the Sigma 17 F4 is so much more shaky on ZVE1 than Sony 24 mm F2.8. Dynamic steady shot doesn’t work the same as with a Sony lens, and active mode is really bad.
The storytelling on this video 😂😂
I came to sony and bought tamron 17-28, 28-75mm, 150-500mm. The 150-500mm is really bad for stabilization, really wish i had saved for the sony 200-600. I sold the 28-75mm for being mediocre. the 17-28mm has been useful but its not "special". I LOVED my prime tamron 35mm f1.4 on canon and my Sigma 40mm F1.4 art though.
Such generalisations are quite BS.
Sure, there are bad third party lenses. But a lot of mirrorless third party AF lenses are great for their price.
Unfortunately you can't have more than 15 fps with third party lenses on Sony, if you have a camera that supports that, but you don't need that for any scenario.
And there are also exceptional quality third-party lenses, including the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8, 28-75 f/2.8 G2 VXD, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG DN Art, as well as some great primes.
I think I've been at that location before when I visited the greater Toronto area in 2017
"Fugly toneh balls" is probably my favorite line from this channel so far.
Don't you use Voightlander lenses?
ohh, the pictures look so good
Idea for your next video: cameras vs its price .and talk about which cameras are over priced and which are good value.
Unfortunately, all of us already know this equation. The more you pay, the better the camera. The more you pay, the better the lens. The more you pay, the better the tripod. Now, suppose this were not true. Suppose there was a true bargain camera. Great specs, and low price. Surely, someone would discover it and the word would get out. People would buy them like mad. The surge of demand would immediately raise the price.
Now, despite the logic, I hope I am wrong about it. We'll see.
@@danncorbit3623 This would be true in a perfect world, but it is not. Buyers are fooled by advertising, naturally stupid, or have special reasons to look for the products that are poor value. Consequently, good value products are occasionally cheaper than the bad value products. People are buying Leica cameras and Rolex watches, could you imagine price/value relation more miserable than that? Especially the watches, 10K Rolex shows the same time as 50 bucks Swatch, and the person who paid 10K for the Rolex is not getting any more time for them than the owner of the Swatch.
@@AVerkhovsky That's a good point and I do wear cheap watches. But people who buy a Rolex for $10K can sell it for that in ten years because of perceived value. I also agree that Leica cameras (and perhaps Hassleblad) force you to pay a lot for the badge. But people who buy those cameras know that and buy them anyway. Leica lenses are often reasonably priced, on the other hand. So, I guess that your point is well taken in that there are "prestige" brands that force you to pay for the name. I guess my point is that there is a reason the Z9 costs more than a Z50 and an R3 costs more than the original R and an Alpha 1 is more than an Alpha 7. And I guess it's pretty rare that someone pays for the name and does not know it.
@@danncorbit3623 to some extent yeah, but to others.. No. Obviously as mentioned above, Leica, but also the fuji xpro 3 is objectively worse than the Xt5, but is more expensive. Sony A7iv is almost $3000 and it's sensor speed is pitiful compared to canon's older and cheaper r6. It also lacks focus stacking or high res shooting and full frame 4k 60. As a general rule yeah if you want to drop six grand for an A1 or something you're getting the best of the best, but in the $1800-2800 range there's a LOT of subjective need
@@danielnyman1070 I guess that for some users the xpro3 will be better. And the newer version of the Sony (A7RV) got a glowing review from Gerald Undone, who I consider to be very trustworthy. I guess that a camera like the A7RV will have great value for some users (I am seriously considering buying it ) and lesser value for others depending on use cases.
Lol another classic video. I think a lot of Canon RF shooters "cope" by trying to make out like 3rd party lenses aren't that good, but I've used Sigma lenses (on a Pannyboy S5 no less) and they've been very good; great sharpness and rendering. I'll admit that you do have to pick the right lenses for example, the Sigma 85mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 35mm 1.2 DG DN lenses are stellar. The 24 - 70 2.8 DG DN is another impressive lens. As for the Canon's budget options; here's two frustrations I have. Firstly there are still a lot of options missing; no 1.4s, no reasonably priced 2.8 zooms. Second frustration is that the non L lenses and especially the primes have no weather sealing, they have not-quiet STM motors and the primes do not come with hoods (where appropriate). If the primes were better featured I'd probably move to Canon as I can't say it enough, I love the bodies, more than Sony and the R6II is probably my favourite camera at the moment for the price, but the lens selection is just something I cannot stomach. I'm not even trying to be biased, I'm genuinely annoyed because I want to shoot Canon but Canon keeps getting in their own way with their behaviour. Anyway, I'll stick with Panasonic for now, if worst case scenario occurs and they stop making cameras then perhaps by that time things might've changed for Canon.
I agree. Those cheap stm primes are crap. Loud and slow auto focus. No lens hood. Panasonic, Nikon, and Sony all have very good 1.8 primes. Canon RF has terrible lenses if you want to do video. They all have focus breathing and make noise.
Lol, you don’t like all the choices but run a channel that explores the various choices available to videographers and TH-camrs…ahhh the irony!
Keep up the great work, I love this channel and the comedy. Well done sir.
I’m probably just a garbage photographer but noticed the Samyang 35 misses focus. Also I’ve had a harder time selling third party lenses
Oly E-P3 and a $15 Chinese pop bottle f 1.8 manual focus lens - good cheap street photography . The pop is in the lens. We're only taking pictures.
The greatest mystery in the world to me is why the Sigma 24-70 Art's zoom works in the opposite direction.
Show stopper. ...so, stuck getting that GM for 2.5x the cost.
Sigma indeed not 3th part, it is more like almost-zeiss with Art line.
Why you always hating on Tamron? I love my G2.
Ok love is a bit strong a word. But it was cheap. And it's okay for the price. Yeah it might be a bit soft and miss focus and .... you know what what fuck it... It's shit. I can't afford a Canon 100-400 okay??? They are crazy money.
Knowing how fickle Kasey is, I am now counting down the days until he puts out a video about why we might regret buying first party lenses.
Ha! Right.
just a thought..ive used canon adapted lens on sony cameras...
the canon colors are in the glass!!!!
yes the auto=focus is ass.
🤣🤣🤣 comedic genius, my man!
Most people look for sharpness first. Other factors are colors and AF acquisition and speed. Anyway. I have found 3rd party lenses 1 or 2 milliseconds slower than sony and 1-2 milliseconds longer to acquire focus. This isnt with every lens but it has happened. The thing is this very minor setback is totally worth almost half price of a gm lens while still remaining tact sharp. I actually love 3rd party lenses. Viltrox lenses for example are a steal.
Modern lens reviews are to blame. If they find the slightest aberration or distortion they'll kill the lens. Therefore, lens manufacturers over-correct and we get clinical lenses.
"How to pick hashtags"?
(eye-roll)
I bought a Tamron 35-150 lens first, then bought a lowly 3rd party Sony A1 to use with it. No good tests on this lens with 3rd party Nikon or Canon bodies. 😀
Since I cracked my phone I don’t watch your videos anymore but just listen to narration.
My Sigma 24-70 Art whips ass but, then again, I don't use it to just take photos of other people taking photos.
Sometimes my tamron reminds me of yesterdays eggs . Sometime its breakfast today . They are fresh but how fresh is the real question .
The pictures comments lmao
I guess you will be tossing out all of your Leica and Voightlander lenses now. I have never been disappointed by a Sigma Art lens. More than half of my macro lenses are 3rd party. I suppose that I am easily satisfied. Canon is on my 'avoid' list for the R series. My next new camera will probably be Sony. Now, there are real cripple hammer affects with 3rd party lenses even with 'open' Sony. Your frames per second has an arbitrary cap, for instance. But The secret to third party lenses is, "Buy a good one, stupid." I would have no fear buying Leica primes, for instance. And I bet Kasey has no fear doing that either.
For most people, the cost is the major deciding factor in buying equipment because it's a hobby, not their job. The problem with most of the photos from the Tamron is compositional, not down to the techincals of the lens. Without the exif data, knowing what the settings were, it's hard to blame the lens.
Tamron should make cameras
subtitles don't work
Can you please put your "All I Want is the Perfect Camera" song on Spotify and Apple Music. That's where most people listening the music. I would love to see your music there.
Plenty of 3d pop in those shots, lmao. But I think you know that ;)
8:24 Your image looks like it was cut out from a paper photograph and pasted onto a picture of the forest. It has a very green screen affect.
I bought the Sony 50mm f1.8 and made my Sony A7 IV autofocus worse than a Panasonic.
I guess that generalizing is always a bad thing but it gets the clicks
agree with you
Just get an apple laptop. They are expensive and snobby and will complement your lens snobbiness perfectly haha
Enter Canon and their AF motors from 1991 when James Cameron released the Terminator 2
That's why I prefer buying second party lenses 🤙
After two Sigma lenses which wouldn't work OK or at all with Canon bodies I bought later, I stopped buying 3rd party lenses.
The problem with Canon(at least for those of us who don't have the money to go full frame) isn't just that they don't have third party lenses, it's that they don have any apc R mount lenses, other than the kits.
Regarding the Canon RF lens situation...it isn't just about having a cheap option. It's not good enough to say "here's a $2500 RF 85mm, but here's a $500 RF 85mm for the peasants". The real issue is about not allowing 3rd parties to 1) release the equivalent of an anticipated Canon lens before the Canon release and 2) not allowing 3rd parties to offer designs/features that Canon is not offering (ie. when Tamron released the 24-70 VC and Canon had no 24-70 with IS) For the time being, it's a smart move for Canon because they can roll out their lenses without the pressure of competition, but I do believe this will sway new users without any gear towards another brand.
Unless it's Leica or Zeiss lol
Honestly I had to subscribe to this guy, becoz he just beating the shit out of Tamron
Voigtlander and Zeiss are laughing blood from their eyes
Going to disagree on one point. You don't only want 3 manufacturers. Competition drives innovation and keeps prices down. Not saying prices are good now but they'd be so much worse.
For sure! Great point
I used to have a Tamron 150-600 in EF mount. Its photos were decent, if a little noisy and not tack-sharp on my 5D Mark IV. Then I went mirrorless and also started a channel. The jerky IS I could live with for DSLR photography became unusably jerky video on an R5. First chance I got, I got the Canon RF 100-500 and sold the Tamron. It made a world of difference in video usability and overall image quality, not to mention weighing at least a pound less. Once you go L, third parties look like hell. I should trademark that.
come on kasey you gotta see sigma primes what are these !
EF lenses on Canon R cameras > than RF lenes. I hate my RF lenses. Focus doesn't work. It's a consp... there's something funky going on!
Comedy Gold
That is why I only use the Sony 16-50mm kit lens with my camera, first party or go home.
That's the worst lens ever made.
Not kidding though, my Ricoh 135mm f2.8 m42 and gazechimp (serious) 50mm f1.4 c-mount are 🔥
This video is not about 1st party vs 3rd party. It's more about zooms vs primes. Weird.
I dont agree on anything, except that for photography its an other thing, and perhaps(!) watch out that some lenses might counteract stabilization.
But I certainly dont agree with all the emphasis that it has toward the (click-baiting) titel.
But I like the guy.
I must disgust you, on sony APS-C with 90% 3rd party glass XD
my lenses are
Sigma 16 f1.4
Sigma 30 f1.4
Sigma 56 f1.4
Tamron 17-70 f2.8
Tamron 70-180 f2.8
and 1 Sony lens which sits in my the back of my camera stuff because I rarely use it anymore due to the all the 3rd party glass the Sony 18-105 f4
Tamron 28-75 g2 is superb size price and weight beats anything in its range.
Now you tell me -Just received my Tamron 35-150 for Sony yesterday !!!
If I want steady video, I use a GoPro or a drone. Normally stills for me and my Tamrons do fine. BTW, I remember when people on forums were bragging that they bought a Sigma or Tamron, and It's a Good Copy!
"Acne-ridden in his abilities".
3rd party lenses are OK until the next generation of your camera comes around
Uncompatibilty is the word of the day.
😂 the 3D pop conspiracy is getting out of control here.
I would like to see a blind test to figure out if you, or anyone can tell or not 🤓
This video gives me a 3D pop