If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can sense the depth of your sandwich better. Thank you for your Bitcoin donations :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f Nikon Z6 III amzn.to/4eiMrFZ Fringer EF-NZ II amzn.to/3NltmXX Canon EF 85mm f1.2 amzn.to/4ezrLZU Canon EF 135mm f2 amzn.to/3BliNkG Sony ZVE1 amzn.to/3ZL9YLd Tascam DR10-L amzn.to/3TOfF7q All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
*when up close I can DEFINATLY tell that the Sony 135mm isn't as sharp as the Nikon 135mm, BUIT from a Distance I can't really tell, but I shoot mostly f1.4 & 1.5 and My Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, I don't really do Photography but from an close up perspective I can tell tell the Nikon is much sharper, but that's me*
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is almost like less Toneh at the same f-stop. Also, the way it blends from sharp to out of focus or as you said Focus fall off.
If I look at the 2 images on screen with my eyes crossed in such a way as to make a superimposed image in the middle, then THAT image is literally in 3D.
You can tell very well by looking at the rails, the '3D pop' comes from the smoother focus falloff on the nikon lens, keeping more in focus and smoothly transitioning to out of focus. On the sony lens on the other hand, you can tell the focus goes from in to out of focus in a straight line, creating a 'greenscreen effect' with the paperthin focusplane.
to speak clearer the 3d pop is basically when you have little corrective elements that make the background transition smoothier and have a circular distortion within the defocused area, sort of like a petzval lens. Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp. New lenses try to reproduce as much sharpness as possible in sacrifice of pure light transmission and flatness of plane of focus. In essence, the 3d pop makes images look like they're seen through the human eye, since our peripheral vision is creamier but can see detail, while the new lenses just try to keep all detail within the focus area and obliterate anything behind or in front of it. The more 3d pop, the less sharp usually a lens is and the more aberrations it has.
@@kingghidorah8106 if you claim that canons 135/2 is not well corrected, you are wrong. Its highly corrected lens. And 135 lenses do not have much of all of field curvature, you can check canons MTF curves.. the field is quite flat. "Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp" This is also absolute nonsense, as modern coatings reduce light loss to irrelevant amounts. And claiming that Canons 135/2 is not sharp is also nonsese, you can again look at the MTF curves.
I did see what he's talking about. He means the ability for the lens to resolve "depth" in the scene. I don't think it matters at all unless you shoot wide open. Funny how most photographers glorifying "3d pop" never seem to compare the lenses at something like f4 or f8
Yes It is real and I finally get exactly what you mean! Subject looks green screened onto a flat background on the new sharp many element lens. Unlike the nice natural depth look of the classic lens. When your quite far away it really shows the flat background vs the 3D (like looking into the screen as if we were actually there) Nikkor 3D look I agree is worth the drop in lens sharpness
What you have is clearly different contrast curves on both. Just need a steeper curve on the dark on the right one and it should look quite same. So of course more contrast gives more "pop". When it comes to sharpness, i dont think you will ever see much difference when recording video. 4k is just 8MP, the lens should be really poor quality not to look sharp on 8MP. Those lenses are designed for 20-60MP.
There is one thing that could cause some sort of 3d effect, that would be having curved focus plane. This would create the effect that things on the side would be in focus closer than the center. I think this is called field curvature.
This is the best comparison by far with flat vs pop on lenses which so many of us get this wrong and confused all the time. I've also seen these comparisons on photos over the years but doing it in video seems to be way more effective. The long focal length really emphasizes it! Thank you man!
And 3D Pop MATTERS. I used to love all my viltrox lenses but they are flat af. The small nikon 40mm f2 has the POP. I love it. The 135mm Plena from Nikon is so flat... Super sharp but flat like the earth (thats a joke). Btw in this comparison the z6iii image is popping. Colors are also beautiful. Sony is good. Nice bokeh but it is flat. Clients wont care at all at the end of the day. We chose these lenses for us
in a previous video he said, no company send me any product, except Viltrox :) I'm with you , he said he changed the sony colors so the colors you are seeing are not out of the lens
@@nativestrong7253 It's Viltrox "LAB" series. They're going for highest quality they can achieve with them. They're charging $100 more than the nearly flawless Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/1.8 lens even.
@@j.oh47 the 3D pop is a more gradual plane of focus you can see the rail tracks and the tree branches gradually get into focus. The flat image is just that. It just looks like you edited someone into a bokeh'ed scene with only them being in focus.
To be honest i really like it when people watch an angry photographer video and then get obsessed with '3d pop' lol. i always think "well, there goes all this guys attention away from creativity and effort in to making actual good composition, poses, lighting, etc all the other important things related to photography, and let him just focus on '3d pop' instead " haha. so, yeah, keep going!!
I think if you even took photos that had really good composition and poses and light and they look like the subject is just a cut out or somehow on a greenscreen then it still matters. There are instances when I noticed this and didn't really understand why, but I can fix them in post with contract curves now that I understand it better. If you never notice it it doesn't mean others won't notice it, be it concious or unconcious.
Most engaging camera equipment reviews! You've got a very original style amigo. You already persuaded me and ended up getting the ZV E1, but I just couldnt get rid of my A7S3. I love it too! I also got the Sony 20mm thanks to your videos. Sony should be paying you some $ for referring people to their products! Anyway. I now watch your video because they're so enterteining!And I learn so much about cams and video equipment for YT. Keep up the good job!
If I was Toneh Northrop I’d 💯 make a video titled ’Camera Conspiracies 3D pop addiction intervention’. My question what could we call 3D pop that would be the equivalent of toneh but based on your name? Or just say Bokeh, Toneh, and Popeh?
Hi Kacey, I'm telling ya, I am trying my darndest to see the pop. I've been following you for years and was excited to see the title of this video. I still don't see it. It my be a physiological issue. There may be some of us that that just can't see it.
I feel the contrast changes our perception of depth and makes the image pop more. I'm sad that I watched this video and noticed the pop, I'm a snob now. Thanks.
I think the expression "3D Pop" is a rare miss from the man who gave us "toneh". When I think 3D pop I think of the green screen effect that the subject "pops" in relation to. So when I hear 3D pop I think of the flat background that the subject pops in relation to. In contrast, the other lens has micro contrast. Not a sharp juxtaposition with the background, but a layered participation in it. I see it! Micro contrast is real! It's just one of those times the original is better, "micro contrast" explains it better than "3D pop".
falloff makes a huge difference...the more gradual change from in focus to out of focus feels more realistic....but the most impactful 3d effect is always dimensionality...where the curvature of an object is more apparent...this is so apparent on some Zeiss lenses it almost surreal...a mix of gentle falloff with intense field curvature...very "imperfect" lenses that create a visual effect that's hard to ignore.
3D pop is definitely there with the 85/1.2, and the differences between the 135's was interesting to see side-by-side. The Canon was better. Those EF's on the Z6iii with Red LUTs is fire! Who'da thunk we'd ever be living in that world?!
Wow, this was a really effective visual demonstration. I saw this difference once when comparing the Fuji OG 56mm T/1.2 to the Sigma 56mm T/1.4. Both were at T/1.4, both taken with the XT-3 with the same settings, and the Sigma just looked like a longer lens with the same framing. The subject's face was just flatter, both in a 3D sense as well as something about the light and color variance from one part of the subject to another. Just like with this test here. I appreciate that you mention it all the time and tell us to look for certain ages and brands, but it'd be dope to see an updated video with a complied list showing which lenses you personally know to have 3D pop vs which popular equivalent options lack it most. I myself would be especially interested in the FF equivalent range of about 28-100mm.
It's 100% real. It's almost like something you feel, not see. I was using clinical glass for a long time just because I wanted to test out the new stuff coming out over the last few years, and then I bought that cheap TTArtisan 23mm 1.4 and looked at my first photo taken with it and I was like, "Well, sh*t. That was the best $70 I've spent in a long time." The pop is immediately apparent, especially if you are accustomed to clinical glass. The difference is quite stark. I went back to Voigtlander, old Fujinon, and adapting my old Soviet lenses. I don't think I'll ever buy another new lens. Maybe people who don't see it are lacking in some type of spatial awareness. I don't understand why people argue against the existence of certain lens characteristics. Blind men will try to persuade you that the sun doesn't exist.
Yep, this video blew me away in all honesty. He looks like hes almost standing out of screen, hard to explain but its him being sharp with depth and the background out of focus, or thats what Im seeing anyway - if thats 3d pop then I see it. Maybe it also has something to do with the type of screen as well?
Howdy! Ive never had anyone explain the 3d pop or really bothered to research it but you explained it in just 1 video i dont need to look it up anymore. I see it. In my personal opinion its the background swirl that helps i think. I found you from your video about teleconverters. I subscribed after watching that video and then this one. Whats the beef with tony btw? Im new here. Anyway keep it real bro and keep the videos coming.
Thank you for making this video. This is close to my heart. And I disagree - you can see it up close too. But your train track example is a great way to break it down visually. You're also incredibly funny. Are there any modern auto focus lenses, Mr funny lens pop man, that you've come across, for any system, that also have some pop? Much obliged. Keep enlightening us.
This was an exceptionally good demonstration. Bravo. I would point out that the Canon 135 T2 is a good bit sharper, too, which is saying something at video resolution even compressed over YT.
"...what kind of photography do you do? And why isn't it video?..." LOL!! I would love to see you do a video with some of FD lenses. I have a couple and really like the look for photography(FD135mm f3.5, FD28mm f2.8). I would love to get a wider FD like the 17mm or 24mm but they are really expensive these days. I'm told it's because videographers like them. So, I'd love to see you do a video about them just to see why they are loved so much. I see it too. The image is more real because the glass isn't clinically perfect. I do think that it's more acceptable for video than for photography to have that classic look with various imperfections. Thanks for the lesson today!!
3D pop was best with sensors that employed a low-pass filter. The creamy color- and in-to-out-of-focus transitions were on another level. I'm surprised more people aren't noticing the uglier, sharper, sometimes weirdly double-vision-type out-of--focus backgrounds with the modern mirrorless cameras. The colors, even of the most distant objects, look like painted over by a school kid in arts class - this has its place and time, but in photography? A few years ago I was traveling around my area in search of places of interest and I bumped into a bunch of sites from WW1. There were boards standing in the middle of the woods with photos from the era and they blew me away. The 3D pop was the best I've seen, and every scene was absolutely immersive. Zero weird artifacts, just art. In this regard, for me, the D850 was a disappointment after the modest D700, so was the X-T3. I have since reconciled myself with the sad direction digital photography is going but still cling to the Nikon D3s and a couple of old lenses to enjoy the more natural look and transitions.
Before, I wondered whether "3D pop" just meant LoCA. After viewing this and reading comments below about "focus falloff", I thought the recipe might include spherical aberration. Then I read this by tech-utuber2219 down below: "Each lens optical design has characteristics which we perceive as having different qualities which judge to be pleasing or sharp or, etc. Whatever you wish to call the depth-of-field 'gradients' or focus zone or background bokeh, it sometimes resembles things which we may experience as realistic, i.e., 3D-pop in this context. We don't need to agree since we cannot escape our subjectivity." And then I understood. It's a redux of what's been happening in the audiophile world, where they are turning away form the "flatness" of digital perfection in favor of turntables, tube amps and their idiosyncratic foibles. What those foibles may be, doesn't really matter. That's not to say that such is a bad thing. It would be remiss of me to think so when I have (and will never sell) the same Canon 135mmf2 and the 5D Classic it was originally bought for, and am de-yellowing a Super Takumar 50/f1.4 as I type this. I too am a fan of lens character and rendering. I even like manual focus ;) So now, when I see or hear "3D pop" I'll just remember tech-utuber2219's summary and enjoy your videos.
The video I've been waiting for!! The flat lens is like watching an old movie where they physically painted the background (matte painting), checkout the wizard of oz. A green screen effect is a great description!
There is a spectrum of poppiness, and the Canon lens here is noticeably poppier, but perhaps not the best example of maximum pop. When I was a kid, Viewmasters were popular, and since we didn’t have video games, we spent hours looking at stereo views of tourist attractions. Maybe that experience trained my brain to see 3D pop. Or maybe we need modern digital stereo cameras to create real 3D effects… I am willing to admit that Zeiss pop and Leica glow are really just particular blends of lens defects. When lens design was always a compromise, and designers chose the compromise that gave them their signature look. Now those defects have been eliminated, leaving us with no character. I’m happy that I can just say no to perfection, and embrace the old imperfect lens designs.
Gotta say this was the first video I actually saw the pop. After you said looks like your in front of the green screen I can no longer unsee the crap of flat lenses. Thanks for making me sell my crap lenses and getting some pop in my life. Good bye money in my wallet. 😡
Have you tried adapting the A-mount lenses Zeiss made using the latest Sony AF adapter? They have way more of the old school Zeiss vibe, while having AF (and not being heinously expensive like the Zeiss AF lenses for the Contax N mount)
Started shooting f4 because it all looked greenscreened and not like I was actually at location. And yes, it definitly varies between lenses even at the same f-stop. Sure, I can stop down a bit more, tweak the contrast and get a similar look but not the same and more work.
I'm gonna admit i haven't found the pop in previous videos, but this time there is defenitely some pop, but have u tried stopping down the sony one? even just to f2? would love to see the difference then....
I don´t see any difference between the two shots, maybe some in color and sharpness. Camera Mystique made a video about 3d pop some time ago and he said it has nothing to do with chromatic aborrations or imperfections of the lens... at this point i believe 3d pop is in the same category like homeopathy, snake oil, religion etc. Edit: After reading some comments, if your background is obliterated, you look on both like out of place and green screened. Again, Camera Mystique made the point that in portraits the whole face of the subject should be in focus, not just one eye. In full body portraits with background, also the background should be somewhat in focus, not obliterated, because then you could just go to a studio and make better portraits there and greenscreen the background in post. Personally i don´t like heavy out of focus backgrounds in the first place, so... whatever :D
my favourite type of videos, Casey. Also, I've had the triple 35(mk I), 85(mk 2) and 135 L primes from Canon for about 10 years now. Always been very happy with the results they produce. Definite 3D pops on all of them. Also got the Zeiss planar 50mm as well, that's even more 3D potential.
I can see that there is more depth behind you, the transition seems longer while the sony just straight flattens out at some point. The canon also has a nice swirly and slightly busier bokeh, which I personally prefer. And of course the Nikon color science is way superior in this shot.
At first I wasn't seeing it, but later the overall look of the left lens form Canoon was more poppy. Its to do with the way the Bokeh or out of focus areas fall off. The right lens was obliterating the background into smooth and buttery bokeh, whereas the Canoon's bokeh was not and so giving a sense of spatiality. Of course along with the secret special sauce of Chromatic Aberrations to enable the 3D effect.
While it could possibly be the lens, I think it's more likely that you're seeing the better sharpness from the oversampled 4K of the Z6iii sensor. Throw the mystery lens on an A7cii and you'd probably notice the image is sharper like the Nikon (as the A7cii is oversampled 4K as well and is sharper than the ZV-E1 - I've got both cameras and it is noticeable).
Hi Kasey! What do you think about the Sony Xperia 1 VI phone camera? It doesn't have the long zoom or high megapixels of Samsung or iPhones but the pictures from it look very good from a cell phone.
OETF curves very different, same for post processing, Kasey seems to edit curves heavily. Beside, both lenses have awful donut pattern and far from ideal.
What the right side has is more saturated colors, a slightly shallower DOF and, in my eyes most importantly, a less symmetrical perspective. What is also has is better autofocus.
Would love to see if the Viltrox is flat stopped down. Lots of lenses I've used have a sweet spot of distance to subject and depth of field where the image comes alive. Is the point of 3D pop always wide-open? I don't know.
Great explanation and side by side Casey. I didn’t see what was happening with the Sony until you explained it then there you were in front of the rest of the video.
How come no stopped down comparison? I thought 3D POP is more apparent that way because lenses with it still provide subject separation? As far as these two lenses, the f/2 on the left definitely looked better to my eye, though I'm curious how much of that is because it had more contrast.. As another comment mentioned, it'd be interesting to see the f/1.8 footage with contrast tweaked to more closely match the f/2 lens?
That’s the mother of all Conspiracies. 3D pop is the same at same focal distance, subject distance and aperture. Sharpness is what separates the most focus/out of focus and that’s why there is that green screen effect.
I use my Minolta MD lenses on my S5 for that pop. The Panny-boy colors combined with Minolta MD and MC glass is magical, especially the 135mm f2.8. They take shots that made me go, "Ooooo."
With the new Nikon 1.4's, the softer look will be fine as long as it retains its rich colours, focus speed and overall image quality, but without the clinical look.
I have the feeling that the future of Nikon (z6 III and others) will really shine, when they release a "Red-Log" for Nikon Cameras to use with these LUTs.
I've read articles about 3D pop, and never saw that, but this video is the first time I think I see it... is there any aps-c autofocus lens with 3D pop on sony system so I can experience it by my self? :D
What struck me more than anything was the cooler colours and higher contrast from the Nikon, which could be the camera as much as the lens. If I really strain my eyes, I think maybe I can see a more gradual focus roll-off on the Nikon side? The Toneh on the Sony side looked softer to me, so I could definitely see differences, but I wouldn't call either of them better or worse, and I can't see what would make one "3D" and one "flat." Hope that helps.
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can sense the depth of your sandwich better.
Thank you for your Bitcoin donations :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f
Nikon Z6 III amzn.to/4eiMrFZ
Fringer EF-NZ II amzn.to/3NltmXX
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 amzn.to/4ezrLZU
Canon EF 135mm f2 amzn.to/3BliNkG
Sony ZVE1 amzn.to/3ZL9YLd
Tascam DR10-L amzn.to/3TOfF7q
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Hottie
Your a 3D pop...🎉
Sonys sharpness and color is definitely better but I did see the flat affect you were talking about.
*when up close I can DEFINATLY tell that the Sony 135mm isn't as sharp as the Nikon 135mm, BUIT from a Distance I can't really tell, but I shoot mostly f1.4 & 1.5 and My Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, I don't really do Photography but from an close up perspective I can tell tell the Nikon is much sharper, but that's me*
Insta360 ace pro 2 coming in October (rumored). Would love if u compared it to the dji action pro 5. ❤ u so much
It’s all about focus falloff. Smooth focus falloff equals 3d pop. Abrupt focus falloff equals green screen.
Exactly, almost linear, close to ideal diffraction pattern near focus plane.
It was my impression as well. Thant and less obliteration of background if you ask me.
Focus fall-off which matches our personal experience is what creates the impression of natural looking depth of field.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It is almost like less Toneh at the same f-stop. Also, the way it blends from sharp to out of focus or as you said Focus fall off.
its even worse. the background itself looks also like its a flat wallpaper on a background wall
If I look at the 2 images on screen with my eyes crossed in such a way as to make a superimposed image in the middle, then THAT image is literally in 3D.
Ha ha, now that’s hilarious!
OMG yeah! He created a magic eye 3d video
This is perfect hahahaha
now eat a tide pod and do it
it litterally works ! it's poppin !! Do it on your phone everybody it's much easier
You can tell very well by looking at the rails, the '3D pop' comes from the smoother focus falloff on the nikon lens, keeping more in focus and smoothly transitioning to out of focus. On the sony lens on the other hand, you can tell the focus goes from in to out of focus in a straight line, creating a 'greenscreen effect' with the paperthin focusplane.
The Nikon colors look fantastic
Yes they do but you can match those colours in camera with the Sony it's not hard.
Just like flat Earth,
the harder you explain, the less convinced I am.
to speak clearer the 3d pop is basically when you have little corrective elements that make the background transition smoothier and have a circular distortion within the defocused area, sort of like a petzval lens. Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp. New lenses try to reproduce as much sharpness as possible in sacrifice of pure light transmission and flatness of plane of focus.
In essence, the 3d pop makes images look like they're seen through the human eye, since our peripheral vision is creamier but can see detail, while the new lenses just try to keep all detail within the focus area and obliterate anything behind or in front of it.
The more 3d pop, the less sharp usually a lens is and the more aberrations it has.
@@kingghidorah8106sounds like BS to me lol
Lol
@@kingghidorah8106 if you claim that canons 135/2 is not well corrected, you are wrong. Its highly corrected lens. And 135 lenses do not have much of all of field curvature, you can check canons MTF curves.. the field is quite flat. "Because of low element count the lenses also have better light transmission but are generally less sharp" This is also absolute nonsense, as modern coatings reduce light loss to irrelevant amounts. And claiming that Canons 135/2 is not sharp is also nonsese, you can again look at the MTF curves.
I did see what he's talking about. He means the ability for the lens to resolve "depth" in the scene.
I don't think it matters at all unless you shoot wide open. Funny how most photographers glorifying "3d pop" never seem to compare the lenses at something like f4 or f8
The Northrops say they don’t talk to people who think 3D pop is real. I’m not sad. I see the pop.
Yeah what can we expect from Squarespace merchant 😭
Probably a jab at the bald guy with all the tattoos.
Ken?
Northrops also have too much toneh so no wonder they cannot see 3D Pop.
Northrops are the lizard people
Yes It is real and I finally get exactly what you mean! Subject looks green screened onto a flat background on the new sharp many element lens. Unlike the nice natural depth look of the classic lens. When your quite far away it really shows the flat background vs the 3D (like looking into the screen as if we were actually there) Nikkor 3D look I agree is worth the drop in lens sharpness
What you have is clearly different contrast curves on both. Just need a steeper curve on the dark on the right one and it should look quite same. So of course more contrast gives more "pop".
When it comes to sharpness, i dont think you will ever see much difference when recording video. 4k is just 8MP, the lens should be really poor quality not to look sharp on 8MP. Those lenses are designed for 20-60MP.
There is one thing that could cause some sort of 3d effect, that would be having curved focus plane. This would create the effect that things on the side would be in focus closer than the center. I think this is called field curvature.
I said similar things about the contrast. The lens on the Nikon does seem to be less clinically sharp, which, even at 8MP can look different.
@@Nobody-Nowhere
Yes. And my 15€ 25mm C-mount lens off Amazon has it 😂 I love that little cripple glass
@@3dtrip870 That canon lens is extremely high-quality lens, if that's an 135/2 L lens. Its probably much sharper than some f1.8 lens.
It's more the focus fall-off. On the nikon it looks gradual and on the sony it looks sudden.
This is the best comparison by far with flat vs pop on lenses which so many of us get this wrong and confused all the time. I've also seen these comparisons on photos over the years but doing it in video seems to be way more effective. The long focal length really emphasizes it! Thank you man!
And 3D Pop MATTERS. I used to love all my viltrox lenses but they are flat af. The small nikon 40mm f2 has the POP. I love it. The 135mm Plena from Nikon is so flat... Super sharp but flat like the earth (thats a joke).
Btw in this comparison the z6iii image is popping. Colors are also beautiful. Sony is good. Nice bokeh but it is flat.
Clients wont care at all at the end of the day. We chose these lenses for us
Time to go TTArtisan
@@UP209D I have a few TTartisan lenses but I use them for my personal work. For professional work I need good AF
This is crazy I can actually see the pop in the nikon vs the no pop Sony damn
We all know its the viltrox 135mm on the sony lol
Viltrox would never give you these colors
in a previous video he said, no company send me any product, except Viltrox :) I'm with you , he said he changed the sony colors so the colors you are seeing are not out of the lens
@@nativestrong7253excuse me? Viltrox is coming up, their recent Pro APS-C lenses are unreal, rivaling G master lenses.
@@nativestrong7253 It's Viltrox "LAB" series. They're going for highest quality they can achieve with them. They're charging $100 more than the nearly flawless Samyang/Rokinon 135mm f/1.8 lens even.
Never understood what you meant by 3D pop until now. The green screen analogy nails it.
I still don’t see it
@@j.oh47 the 3D pop is a more gradual plane of focus you can see the rail tracks and the tree branches gradually get into focus. The flat image is just that. It just looks like you edited someone into a bokeh'ed scene with only them being in focus.
@@rephaelreyes8552 your a GOAT
This blew my mind. I can finally see it!
Great illustration. I get it now.
To be honest i really like it when people watch an angry photographer video and then get obsessed with '3d pop' lol. i always think "well, there goes all this guys attention away from creativity and effort in to making actual good composition, poses, lighting, etc all the other important things related to photography, and let him just focus on '3d pop' instead " haha. so, yeah, keep going!!
Exactly 😂 And when this 3d pop is so hard to notice, why should it be so important at all?
I think if you even took photos that had really good composition and poses and light and they look like the subject is just a cut out or somehow on a greenscreen then it still matters. There are instances when I noticed this and didn't really understand why, but I can fix them in post with contract curves now that I understand it better. If you never notice it it doesn't mean others won't notice it, be it concious or unconcious.
Exactly, I’d like to see this guys best work….but I’m afraid his best work isn’t that impressive. He’s good at trolling, I’ll give him that.
@@Brettfhill This channel IS his best work. You rather love it or leave it.
I think it`s great entertainment.
@@brugj03 Entertainment, sure. That’s as far as it goes.
Yes, I saw it. Amazing!
Most engaging camera equipment reviews! You've got a very original style amigo. You already persuaded me and ended up getting the ZV E1, but I just couldnt get rid of my A7S3. I love it too! I also got the Sony 20mm thanks to your videos. Sony should be paying you some $ for referring people to their products! Anyway. I now watch your video because they're so enterteining!And I learn so much about cams and video equipment for YT. Keep up the good job!
If I was Toneh Northrop I’d 💯 make a video titled ’Camera Conspiracies 3D pop addiction intervention’. My question what could we call 3D pop that would be the equivalent of toneh but based on your name? Or just say Bokeh, Toneh, and Popeh?
Kaseh
I see the pop, I think... but can't decide if it's down to the better centre contrast of the Nikon Canon combo
Hi Kacey, I'm telling ya, I am trying my darndest to see the pop. I've been following you for years and was excited to see the title of this video. I still don't see it. It my be a physiological issue. There may be some of us that that just can't see it.
You're not the only one. The only thing I see is different color tone, contrast and Toneh.
Thats cool to see that good old Canon EF have the Pop too!!
I see it and now I can't unsee it!
I feel the contrast changes our perception of depth and makes the image pop more. I'm sad that I watched this video and noticed the pop, I'm a snob now. Thanks.
I think the expression "3D Pop" is a rare miss from the man who gave us "toneh". When I think 3D pop I think of the green screen effect that the subject "pops" in relation to. So when I hear 3D pop I think of the flat background that the subject pops in relation to. In contrast, the other lens has micro contrast. Not a sharp juxtaposition with the background, but a layered participation in it. I see it! Micro contrast is real! It's just one of those times the original is better, "micro contrast" explains it better than "3D pop".
Perfect demonstration.
Z6iii is looking amazing!
falloff makes a huge difference...the more gradual change from in focus to out of focus feels more realistic....but the most impactful 3d effect is always dimensionality...where the curvature of an object is more apparent...this is so apparent on some Zeiss lenses it almost surreal...a mix of gentle falloff with intense field curvature...very "imperfect" lenses that create a visual effect that's hard to ignore.
I showed my wife both comparisons and she said they both look fake like a green screen effect.
3D pop is definitely there with the 85/1.2, and the differences between the 135's was interesting to see side-by-side. The Canon was better. Those EF's on the Z6iii with Red LUTs is fire! Who'da thunk we'd ever be living in that world?!
Oh wow, the Sony shot looked like you are floating in mid air, not standing on anything, in front of a green screen
Hadn’t truly seen the superior Sony 3D pop with the modern lens til today. Thanks!!!!
That Canon 135mm looks incredible
Wow, this was a really effective visual demonstration. I saw this difference once when comparing the Fuji OG 56mm T/1.2 to the Sigma 56mm T/1.4. Both were at T/1.4, both taken with the XT-3 with the same settings, and the Sigma just looked like a longer lens with the same framing. The subject's face was just flatter, both in a 3D sense as well as something about the light and color variance from one part of the subject to another. Just like with this test here.
I appreciate that you mention it all the time and tell us to look for certain ages and brands, but it'd be dope to see an updated video with a complied list showing which lenses you personally know to have 3D pop vs which popular equivalent options lack it most. I myself would be especially interested in the FF equivalent range of about 28-100mm.
Oh man that Canon 135 with the z6iii ❤❤
I've seen it. As my Sony Carl Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZA and 135mm 1.8 A-mount with La-ea4 adaptor. I absolutely adore them.
same with my minolta lenses.
It's 100% real. It's almost like something you feel, not see. I was using clinical glass for a long time just because I wanted to test out the new stuff coming out over the last few years, and then I bought that cheap TTArtisan 23mm 1.4 and looked at my first photo taken with it and I was like, "Well, sh*t. That was the best $70 I've spent in a long time." The pop is immediately apparent, especially if you are accustomed to clinical glass. The difference is quite stark. I went back to Voigtlander, old Fujinon, and adapting my old Soviet lenses. I don't think I'll ever buy another new lens.
Maybe people who don't see it are lacking in some type of spatial awareness. I don't understand why people argue against the existence of certain lens characteristics. Blind men will try to persuade you that the sun doesn't exist.
Yep, this video blew me away in all honesty. He looks like hes almost standing out of screen, hard to explain but its him being sharp with depth and the background out of focus, or thats what Im seeing anyway - if thats 3d pop then I see it. Maybe it also has something to do with the type of screen as well?
But you see images and video, not feel
I see it, it's right there! Look!
I used to not see it but now I also don’t understand it. 😢 Loved the video.
all 3 lenses have a beautiful image with an equally awesome amount of depth.
04:00 man I do this too. that's hilarious about the cat snapshots. great videos.
Thunderfarken knows his 3D pop! Great video and thanks for sharing!
Describing it as green screen effect is what did it for me thanks
Howdy! Ive never had anyone explain the 3d pop or really bothered to research it but you explained it in just 1 video i dont need to look it up anymore. I see it. In my personal opinion its the background swirl that helps i think. I found you from your video about teleconverters. I subscribed after watching that video and then this one. Whats the beef with tony btw? Im new here. Anyway keep it real bro and keep the videos coming.
EXCELLENT demo. Very clear what you mean.
3D pop seems to = gradual linear focal sharpness change
Thank you for making this video. This is close to my heart. And I disagree - you can see it up close too. But your train track example is a great way to break it down visually. You're also incredibly funny. Are there any modern auto focus lenses, Mr funny lens pop man, that you've come across, for any system, that also have some pop? Much obliged. Keep enlightening us.
Thanks for bringing joy to my other wise crappy Monday morning.
They both look nice.
This was an exceptionally good demonstration. Bravo. I would point out that the Canon 135 T2 is a good bit sharper, too, which is saying something at video resolution even compressed over YT.
my favorite letter from that alphabet song was somewhere in the middle "eleminno"
The colors on the Nikon look fantastic.
"...what kind of photography do you do? And why isn't it video?..." LOL!! I would love to see you do a video with some of FD lenses. I have a couple and really like the look for photography(FD135mm f3.5, FD28mm f2.8). I would love to get a wider FD like the 17mm or 24mm but they are really expensive these days. I'm told it's because videographers like them. So, I'd love to see you do a video about them just to see why they are loved so much. I see it too. The image is more real because the glass isn't clinically perfect. I do think that it's more acceptable for video than for photography to have that classic look with various imperfections. Thanks for the lesson today!!
I love the POP 💯👍
I see it. It matters. Great work!
3D pop was best with sensors that employed a low-pass filter. The creamy color- and in-to-out-of-focus transitions were on another level. I'm surprised more people aren't noticing the uglier, sharper, sometimes weirdly double-vision-type out-of--focus backgrounds with the modern mirrorless cameras. The colors, even of the most distant objects, look like painted over by a school kid in arts class - this has its place and time, but in photography? A few years ago I was traveling around my area in search of places of interest and I bumped into a bunch of sites from WW1. There were boards standing in the middle of the woods with photos from the era and they blew me away. The 3D pop was the best I've seen, and every scene was absolutely immersive. Zero weird artifacts, just art. In this regard, for me, the D850 was a disappointment after the modest D700, so was the X-T3. I have since reconciled myself with the sad direction digital photography is going but still cling to the Nikon D3s and a couple of old lenses to enjoy the more natural look and transitions.
ohhh, that is why i feel the 3d pop image from 35 1.8 on my A72 than my a7r3a
come think of it, most canon have low pass filter and this nikon here have it too, and they have amazing 3d pop
Before, I wondered whether "3D pop" just meant LoCA. After viewing this and reading comments below about "focus falloff", I thought the recipe might include spherical aberration.
Then I read this by tech-utuber2219 down below:
"Each lens optical design has characteristics which we perceive as having different qualities which judge to be pleasing or sharp or, etc. Whatever you wish to call the depth-of-field 'gradients' or focus zone or background bokeh, it sometimes resembles things which we may experience as realistic, i.e., 3D-pop in this context. We don't need to agree since we cannot escape our subjectivity."
And then I understood. It's a redux of what's been happening in the audiophile world, where they are turning away form the "flatness" of digital perfection in favor of turntables, tube amps and their idiosyncratic foibles. What those foibles may be, doesn't really matter.
That's not to say that such is a bad thing. It would be remiss of me to think so when I have (and will never sell) the same Canon 135mmf2 and the 5D Classic it was originally bought for, and am de-yellowing a Super Takumar 50/f1.4 as I type this. I too am a fan of lens character and rendering. I even like manual focus ;)
So now, when I see or hear "3D pop" I'll just remember tech-utuber2219's summary and enjoy your videos.
The video I've been waiting for!! The flat lens is like watching an old movie where they physically painted the background (matte painting), checkout the wizard of oz. A green screen effect is a great description!
Thanks Thunderfargen!
I saw the pop.....and it opened up my eyes. Couldn't help it:)
4:59 composition, lighting, lens choice 10/10
There is a spectrum of poppiness, and the Canon lens here is noticeably poppier, but perhaps not the best example of maximum pop. When I was a kid, Viewmasters were popular, and since we didn’t have video games, we spent hours looking at stereo views of tourist attractions. Maybe that experience trained my brain to see 3D pop. Or maybe we need modern digital stereo cameras to create real 3D effects…
I am willing to admit that Zeiss pop and Leica glow are really just particular blends of lens defects. When lens design was always a compromise, and designers chose the compromise that gave them their signature look. Now those defects have been eliminated, leaving us with no character. I’m happy that I can just say no to perfection, and embrace the old imperfect lens designs.
Viewmasters were POP ular
Oh, just got this in my notifications. Already watched it last week. Just started subscribing.
Gotta say this was the first video I actually saw the pop. After you said looks like your in front of the green screen I can no longer unsee the crap of flat lenses. Thanks for making me sell my crap lenses and getting some pop in my life. Good bye money in my wallet. 😡
Have you tried adapting the A-mount lenses Zeiss made using the latest Sony AF adapter? They have way more of the old school Zeiss vibe, while having AF (and not being heinously expensive like the Zeiss AF lenses for the Contax N mount)
Started shooting f4 because it all looked greenscreened and not like I was actually at location. And yes, it definitly varies between lenses even at the same f-stop. Sure, I can stop down a bit more, tweak the contrast and get a similar look but not the same and more work.
I'm gonna admit i haven't found the pop in previous videos, but this time there is defenitely some pop, but have u tried stopping down the sony one? even just to f2? would love to see the difference then....
Yes! I saw it! Thank you lord of the POP!
I don´t see any difference between the two shots, maybe some in color and sharpness. Camera Mystique made a video about 3d pop some time ago and he said it has nothing to do with chromatic aborrations or imperfections of the lens... at this point i believe 3d pop is in the same category like homeopathy, snake oil, religion etc.
Edit: After reading some comments, if your background is obliterated, you look on both like out of place and green screened. Again, Camera Mystique made the point that in portraits the whole face of the subject should be in focus, not just one eye. In full body portraits with background, also the background should be somewhat in focus, not obliterated, because then you could just go to a studio and make better portraits there and greenscreen the background in post.
Personally i don´t like heavy out of focus backgrounds in the first place, so... whatever :D
3D pop = sharpness + good falloff/separation
my favourite type of videos, Casey. Also, I've had the triple 35(mk I), 85(mk 2) and 135 L primes from Canon for about 10 years now. Always been very happy with the results they produce. Definite 3D pops on all of them. Also got the Zeiss planar 50mm as well, that's even more 3D potential.
Zeiss 55mm 1.8 is the greatest poppiest lens ever. I literally switched back to Sony from Fuji just for that lens.
In my opinion, it's the contrast that gives it the pop. There's no contrast in the Sony footage. You’ll never break me!
I can see that there is more depth behind you, the transition seems longer while the sony just straight flattens out at some point. The canon also has a nice swirly and slightly busier bokeh, which I personally prefer. And of course the Nikon color science is way superior in this shot.
At first I wasn't seeing it, but later the overall look of the left lens form Canoon was more poppy. Its to do with the way the Bokeh or out of focus areas fall off. The right lens was obliterating the background into smooth and buttery bokeh, whereas the Canoon's bokeh was not and so giving a sense of spatiality. Of course along with the secret special sauce of Chromatic Aberrations to enable the 3D effect.
Will the voitglander 40mm f1,2 create that beautiful 3d pop like that 135mm T2 on the Nikon ZF?
Anyone notice that the super "sharp" new lens is less sharp?
While it could possibly be the lens, I think it's more likely that you're seeing the better sharpness from the oversampled 4K of the Z6iii sensor. Throw the mystery lens on an A7cii and you'd probably notice the image is sharper like the Nikon (as the A7cii is oversampled 4K as well and is sharper than the ZV-E1 - I've got both cameras and it is noticeable).
Hi Kasey! What do you think about the Sony Xperia 1 VI phone camera? It doesn't have the long zoom or high megapixels of Samsung or iPhones but the pictures from it look very good from a cell phone.
Once you adjust the White balance the footage would be indistinguishable.
OETF curves very different, same for post processing, Kasey seems to edit curves heavily. Beside, both lenses have awful donut pattern and far from ideal.
I crossed my eyes while watching this video and you were 100% actually in 3D.
What the right side has is more saturated colors, a slightly shallower DOF and, in my eyes most importantly, a less symmetrical perspective. What is also has is better autofocus.
Hi great video, seeing these two side by side really puts things in perspective. What 85mm and 135mm would you recommend for E-Mount?
Zeiss Batis.
Well.... There goes my other kidney.
The Nikon actually looks sharper. It also doesnt have that yellow-green color shift.
The sony looks great!
Would love to see if the Viltrox is flat stopped down. Lots of lenses I've used have a sweet spot of distance to subject and depth of field where the image comes alive. Is the point of 3D pop always wide-open? I don't know.
Great explanation and side by side Casey. I didn’t see what was happening with the Sony until you explained it then there you were in front of the rest of the video.
How come no stopped down comparison? I thought 3D POP is more apparent that way because lenses with it still provide subject separation? As far as these two lenses, the f/2 on the left definitely looked better to my eye, though I'm curious how much of that is because it had more contrast.. As another comment mentioned, it'd be interesting to see the f/1.8 footage with contrast tweaked to more closely match the f/2 lens?
do we have a full list of 3D Pop lens for Sony & Fuji 😀
The Nikon with the Canon lens looks more natural and film-like. The Sony just looks like video… 🤷🏻♂️
Don't let color grading fool you
What do think of the tamron sp 35mm 1.4 that they did for their sp range 40th anniversary? Pop?
How about the Nikkor Z DX 24mm f/1.7, do you think it has some 3D pop at all? Please help
That’s the mother of all Conspiracies. 3D pop is the same at same focal distance, subject distance and aperture. Sharpness is what separates the most focus/out of focus and that’s why there is that green screen effect.
I use my Minolta MD lenses on my S5 for that pop. The Panny-boy colors combined with Minolta MD and MC glass is magical, especially the 135mm f2.8. They take shots that made me go, "Ooooo."
Man, this is one of your best videos for 2024! Would you please share which are the manual lenses you mentioned that are the 3D Pop ones ?
Ah have seeen the pop! Hallelujah! Ah have been REDEEMED!
With the new Nikon 1.4's, the softer look will be fine as long as it retains its rich colours, focus speed and overall image quality, but without the clinical look.
I have the feeling that the future of Nikon (z6 III and others) will really shine, when they release a "Red-Log" for Nikon Cameras to use with these LUTs.
Sorry mate, don't really think that I see this too much. I think its rather the slightly different colors and the difference in perspective.
Most definitely saw it in that shot with you sitting on the old train tracks
I've read articles about 3D pop, and never saw that, but this video is the first time I think I see it... is there any aps-c autofocus lens with 3D pop on sony system so I can experience it by my self? :D
What struck me more than anything was the cooler colours and higher contrast from the Nikon, which could be the camera as much as the lens. If I really strain my eyes, I think maybe I can see a more gradual focus roll-off on the Nikon side? The Toneh on the Sony side looked softer to me, so I could definitely see differences, but I wouldn't call either of them better or worse, and I can't see what would make one "3D" and one "flat." Hope that helps.