I'm not trying to discredit your hard work here, but it would perhaps be a lot more beneficial to demonstrate your point by including the data you're basing this on. If a video is too long or the codecs/software don't play well with the demonstration you could include your data set (the images taken) as a download in the description. As far as I can tell, the very limited examples in the video are different apertures, different iso, different points of focus, and it kind of detracts from what you're trying to show here.

i fell asleep in the first seconds of the video.

Ah, what a treat, Shaul. I learned much and was taking copious notes during parts of this video. One idea you mentioned at the end describes my recent explorations: spending relatively little money to learn and enjoy the fullness and immersive liveliness of photography ~15-40 years ago. Your talk's organization by time periods, with their aesthetic priorities and technology developments gives me a more coherent framing and criteria regarding older cameras and classically rendering lenses I've purchased ... and am trying to understand. The last 2-3 minutes of your talk is a warm and rousing call to enjoyment. About the values and value of "rendering reality" and personally growing with zest in our photography. You resonate. -Gary

Hi! I read on forums that people enjoy leica sl lenses for its rendering and 3d pop, but judging for its design and being modern lenses I dont think its true, though would be awesome. What are your thoughts about leica apo summicron sl 50mm f2 and summilux sl 50mm f1.4?

In designing a lens there is always a balance to be achieved between sharpness and contrast. It's a not known who is pushing whom, the reviewers or manufacturers. Still camera are becoming hybrid camera as they are expected to do double duty as stills and video cameras. Too many conflicts of interest.

Nikon is an electronics company. My first 10mp Nikon apsc dslr was such a huge piece of garbage, that my Sony smart phone with 8mp produced better and sharper images and I was using a Nikkor 65mm micro 2.8. It doesn't get more consumer electronics than Nikon friend, Nikon is not a photographic company, its an electronics company JUST like Canon. My Nikon dslr had such a strong anti-aliasing filter on it that after 12 months of struggling with it, I ended up selling it. I was looking at guys shooting with Pentax K200's 10mp doing macro that was professional quality while my Nikon files were atrocious. When you start out in the consumer level of a brand, you learn exactly whether its a true photographic company. The product segmentation is what they do, and they deliberately make a camera bad, and then when you switch to full frame, you're relieved at how much better the IQ is, but you've had to pay a massive premium for that full frame, and the IQ. Pentax IQ is similar from the cheapest body to the top body, and its all better than Canon and Nikon apsc and even Fuji. Canon made EF-S lenses that had no backwards compatibility with full frame. So there's no apsc mode in Canon even if you use a Sigma apsc lens like the 30mm f1.4 or 18-35mm 1.8. Whereas with Nikon some full frame models did offer an apsc mode (not sure which ones). Even Sony had apsc modes on full frame Sony cameras, and Pentax FF does apsc mode too. So you start off beating up Sony at 16 minutes. Sony used Zeiss to make their pro line of lenses back in their dslr and SLT days before mirrorless. Sony bought Minolta which had a very small lens making facility, and Sony virtually straight away began making full frame cameras like the A750, A850 and A950 dslr's, and later the A99 SLT full frame and A77 apsc SLT. Sony had no way of making pro level gear for their full frame cameras, so they partnered with Zeiss. Nikon is partnering with Tamron on a few zooms, and with Samyang on the Nikkor Z 35mm 1.8 which is a Samyang lens. You seem to want to shame Sony for doing that, and Zeiss lenses are very impressive things. Nikon is sliding backwards because its not a true photographic company, its just following Canon. At 18 minutes your cognitive dissonance is off the charts as you declare the Sony A9iii with the global shutter as "overkill". No dude, Sony is the best professional sports and wildlife camera manufacturer period.......... My second camera was a Sony SLT and it was lightyears ahead of Nikon and Canon at the time in terms of everything. But, my Sony came undone when I got the venerable Pentax K-5 with its excellent image quality. Dude, your cognitive dissonance is staggering because you're following the trends of what the major reviewers say, and of whom are Canon and Nikon users. Sony is consistently defeating Canon and Nikon, because Sony is a better brand and better company with a much better business model which is driven by INNOVATION. Canon and Nikon's innovation is driven by professional photographers feedback and what they want which is this: Super sharp lenses with no aberrations, smooth and buttery bokeh, fast af, and sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner. (For the purpose of putting their clinical images into photoshop and adding digitally all the aberrations. Fake photography.) Professional Canon and Nikon users have led Canon and Nikon down a hole of 2D rendering lenses that are sterile and bland, for the purpose to digitally manipulate image as graphics designers - they're not a photographic brands anymore, they're fax machine makers for graphic designers. We have to go chase up old school lenses with character and aberrations to get 3D rendering nowadays. Sony makes plenty of lenses, and some do have the 3D pop. Canon and Nikon are finished, they refused to innovate, and they mocked and derided innovations, while they themselves engaged in gimmickry. Canon and Nikon have never been photographic companies, they're electronics companies that bribed the industry with sponsorship programs and free cameras and lenses to colleges in exchange for positive coverage. To which photographers said that Canon and Nikon really support the industry. In every other industry those things are called CRIMES called kickbacks and bribes. I've stepped into this hobby and within a year I heard about the sponsorship programs and free gear, and I was like dude, thats a kickback, thats a bribe in exchange for positive blogs and reviews. Canon and Nikon did this to create a monopoly or Duopoly and then Canon and Nikon users were slandering Sony, Minolta and Pentax as crap camera brands trying to push them out of the market. Mitsubishi owns Nikon and Fuji, and Fuji was brought in to push Pentax out of the apsc third player, and out of medium format, but Mitsubishi won't allow Nikon apsc to conflict with Fuji apsc, and why we'll never see a full frame Fuji camera because it'll probably decimate Nikon. I'm a Pentax user because of most of the lenses have dimensionality, and there's Leica quality "Limited" lenses, plus Astrotracer for tracking the stars, and in-camera pixel shift. I use what many claim is the worst brand, but its miles ahead of the electronics companies like Canon and Nikon. Pentax will make film cameras and so most Pentax lenses will be able to work a future film camera, because Pentax is a true and proper photographic brand. If someone shoots Pentax, they have thoroughly researched cameras. If someone shoots Canon or Nikon, they went for brand recognition and didn't reseearch cameras because of all the crippling that Canon and Nikon engage it. Fuji also has crippling for product segmentation. I've owned Nikon and its an apauling brand. I've used lots of Canon cameras and I'm not impressed. I've owned Sony and I'm impressed by the new technology and features, and it is deifintely the brand to watch and own for the latest tech. I've owned Fuji and its true Mitsubishi low quality like Nikon. I own Pentax and its a very very solid system with unique high tech features. I own a Sigma Merril and its not the best build quality nor high ISO, but has a film look to its foveon images. You need an outsider like myself who couldn't give a hoot about Brand name, and used just user experience and not tainted by biases on brand recognition. Canon and Nikons brand segmentation, is about cripples. Sony actually made their product segmentation about resolution and uses. Look at the business models too.

I think you're completely wrong. The photographic industry is the most corrupt industry I have come across besides the bars and nightclub industry which is mostly owned by organized crime groups. The first slr film camera I ever bought was a Pentax MZ-50 back in 1998. But15 years ago I bought my first dslr which was Nikon, because I assumed it was a better brand than Pentax or other brands, and it turned out to be a huge stinker of a camera. Canon and Nikon had the industry in their pockets and were bribing (Which is a crime) photographers and reviewers with free camera gear, to get positive reviews. It went so far that for a least a decade Canon and Nikon photographers were DENOUNCING IBIS (sensor stabilization), and declaring optical image stabilization as being the best and only choice. I was only interested in apsc cameras because full frame was ultra expensive back then, and the Nikon's and Canon apsc cameras were garbage. I went Sony and even Pentax were far better than Canon and Nikon apsc cameras in terms of image quality. Thats because Canon and Nikon put a huge gap between their apsc IQ and full frame IQ which was really really good. Fujifilm comes along and a lot of Canon and Nikon shooters went to Fujifilm congratulating that brand for have better IQ than Canon and Nikon IQ. Thus was born the "Fujifilm Hype" and even I bought some of that gear including a 56mm 1.2, but next to my Pentax gear it was terrible. Its gotten better but their lenses are too sharp and clinical and have very little 3D pop or dimensionality. Pentax lenses have loads of 3D pop and dimensionality over many of the brands that are acclaimed to be the best. Canon and Nikon users suffer the most from any form of "Cognitive Dissonance", because they've been brainwashed to believe that their brands are the best. And when Sony defeated Canon and Nikon and many were switching to Sony mirrorless, the comment sections were filled with STUBBORN canon and nikon fanbois exclaiming how: "I'll never switch to Sony and will rather wait until Canon or Nikon perfect mirrorless because THEY KNOW IT WILL ALWAYS BE BETTER THAN SONY" . And has that day come? No it hasn't as Sony has convincingly beat Canon and Nikon on all parameters. Canon and Nikon users suffer from the greatest Cognitive Dissonance and thats a fact brought about by sponsorship programs and free camera and lens repairs in exchange for websites/blogs and reviews that support the brand. Its a corrupt industry, corrupted by Canon largely and Nikon to a smaller extent. Canon and Nikon are not photographic companies, they are electronics companies posing as photographic companies. The war between Canon and Nikon users against Sony and all other brands is where the problem lies. As Sony was developing mirrorless, the Canikon fanbois and reviewers were declaring that Sony is a pathetic electronics company that makes average TV's and DVD players, and that their users were Beta testers. Yes Sony users were Beta testers, while Canon made the EOS M lineup and discontiued it after the perfected their auto focus, and dumped the lineup and transferred the M lenses over to RF mount - and no one in the industry complained how the EOS M system was the Beta testers stuck with a dead system. Same for the Nikon 1 mirrorless. Canon and Nikon needed to Beta test mirrorless and develop their mirrorless tech on consumers. While Sony made SLT cameras which were a hybrid between a mirrorless and dslr that used a translucent mirror - half way between a dslr and mirrorless. Fujifilm is another realm of cognitive dissonance where people are imagining that dials and aperture rings without aperture locks is "Retro", when its all electronic and not a single mechanic coupling to it. I even had that Fuji dials and controls which are a step backwards and made changing settings annoying, so I set it up in a dslr mode as it was faster to use. Excessive amounts of dials don't yeild any tangible bennifits. The most popular brands have users suffering from cognitive dissonance, and the ones arguing the hardest are Canon and Nikon users who are completely delusional on those two brands. I mean Canon and Nikon wasn't even trying when I used to hold them in high esteem. Canon and Nikon was complaining about sensor stabilization as being inferior and refused to implement it UNTIL its users asked for it. Then the Canon and Nikon user would say: "Ah well Canon and Nikon only implemented IBIS after they PERFECTED IT better than anybody else", which is all delusional nonsense. When Canon or Nikon make it, then its the best, and when Sony or Pentax make it its crap which is why Pentax is the only one that combines a pixel shift images in camera while all the others do it in post and have very large failure rates. Everyone keeps saying how great Canon and Nikon are and they barely innovate any technology. They're waiting for feedback from their pro photographers and then they determine the tech, which is low tech as they're not engineering minds. I just got up to 16:00 minutes and here you are the King of Cognitive dissonance calling Sony "Sony is an electronics company". So I'll have to correct you some more or your cognitive dissonace. And I'm not even a Sony shooter.

Thank you, Shaul, for your generous and thoughtful video. You've brought up several new concepts, in your always carefully considered, yet creative and integrative approach. Though I have some initial thoughts and questions, I should first take a few days to digest and reflect upon what you've shared, and then write further. In the meantime, I've been gradually exploring more of the 3D rendering techniques that the painting masters used. One that may relate directly to photography is blurring combined with unusual (and probably unnatural) light and color/hue patterns at the interface of key subjects, with the background. ...The conditions or rendering of edges. DaVinci's Mona Lisa shows this, at the outline of her head against the background. Could this relate to "high pop" lenses in that High Refractive Index elements more greatly "separate" various colors of light on the spectrum**, and spread them more widely across the film or sensor? At the interface of a differently colored and differently lit background, this spreading of the colors could be more visibly obvious. (Is this what is meant by "fall-off?) I got this idea by analyzing the graphic of a lens or prism spreading light's colors, in one of your early, foundational videos. Likewise, considering the model you proposed, the absence or low ratio of ED elements will not "disperse" this color differentiation and spreading too much. Especially, color differentiation from the HRI elements will be retained better, before the light hits the film or sensor. (Am I understanding this process, and its implication correctly?) If so, this could also explain why - as you discovered - an ED element in the front or middle of a lens will "do less damage" to the pop-producing splitting/spreading of colors by other elements. Would it imply that placing one of more HRI elements after the last ED element of a lens will tend to create more pop, because no ED element diminishes it before light reaches the sensor? I remain, very grateful to you, - Gary Note: **since the angle/degree of refraction varies by light frequency.

All interesting points, but given the plasticity of the brain, how new neural pathways can be created, with trauma or repetition for example, I do believe we can train ourselves to expand our perceptions, including sight, much the same way a palate can be trained to taste wine and whiskey, or ears developed to listen or to play music :)

It’s about how tonality is used to describe objects and surfaces. I was at a top London lab called Metro in Clerkenwell in London. They used to develop my C41 and make my C-type exhibition prints when they were there. They had some amazing photographic printers serving the Professional photographers of the time. I was once invited up onto the mezzanine of their print workshop. They unrolled a very flat looking but impressively large black and white portrait of Keith Richards. They had white gloves on and a number of iterations of the print for the photographer to view and to demonstrate their skills as printers. The printer switched on a hand held spotlight and lifted it overhead. Keith Richards’ face loomed up as the paper surface popped into three dimensional volume like a conjuring trick. This was a platinum print with inky black blacks and silvery greys reflecting and absorbing light from colloidal platinum nano particles in a thin film painted onto the paper with goats hair brushes. It was as stunning and vivid as a photograph almost never is. We don’t see three dimensional pop without wide tonality and without media that can record the subtlest differences in tone and then we need to reflect light from the image into the eyes with realistic intensity and tonal relationships. Lighting, focus and capturing tonality for the lens and capture medium reveals 3D pop. Yes it’s about perception as you said but that’s true of how we see. What our eyes see is always going to be mediated by the brain and ascribed meaning. We can trick our minds with Magic eye books and VR helmets because our brains want to create meaning from experience.

I definitely perceive the so called 3d pop effect. How much of it is just CA, spherical aberration, vignetting, barrel distortion, optical vignetting, and sharpness falloff towards corners, though? Genuinely curious. If you compensate for these pleasing flaws in post, does 3d pop decrease? If so, is the opposite true? Can you edit a flatter image in a more poppy way? Really enjoying your videos lately

could you please review the panasonic 50mm 1.8s line. It has 9 elements it must be very three dimensional!

I have never seen your channel before. Shallow depth of field and bokeh are concepts I use a lot in my own photos.

I agree that the latest cameras have reached a ‘point of sufficiency’ for both stills and videos. As you said, the Z6II is more than adequate for most. I note the Z6III has slightly reduced dynamic range at lower ISOs. We are now trading off certain capabilities: speed through the partially stacked sensor, for DR. I haven’t yet landed my ‘sufficient’ camera. Mainly because I am seeking quality AF and Log in video (I currently have a Canon 5DIII and a LUMIX G9). For me a G9II would be ideal. I love the individual character of the various MFT lens series, especially the Panasonic Leicas, the Olympus Pros and Olympus Premiums etc. The image quality of the G9II seems to have closed the gap significantly with full frame and the BSI sensor (shared with the GH7) matches the best APSC sensors (per Richard Wong’s reviews and testing). Having said that, a new full frame is always tempting provided I can adapt my EF lenses, so maybe a S5II too one day! If I were starting from scratch today, I’d probably buy a G9II and/or the LUMIX S9, S5II/X or Nikon Z6III / FC. I feel Canon has sharpened its market focus towards the professional photographers and away from enthusiasts. Nikon’s ZF and LUMIX’s S9 demonstrate they are both still responding to enthusiasts. I just wish there were more smaller lenses to suit, like the Nikon 40mm f2. That is why I expect to continue to embrace MFT. My wish for MFT is that it releases an updated GX series of smaller form camera with its latest tech (esp AF). The lure of new products is mainly about the lure of redundancy: feeling the need to have the new functionality ‘just in case’.

The nationalism of camera and lens brands is something we find just as much with car brands as with soccer teams. We are by nature tribal, with a need to belong, a need to be united against a real or imaginary adversary, and a need to have our choices, assumptions and ideological convictions reinforced and confirmed. This has enabled humanity to develop and survive, but it also creates extremely damaging behaviors and conflicts, especially when propagated and inflated by digital networks. A photographer, whether professional or amateur, can be attached to a brand for many reasons, rational or otherwise. This is perfectly understandable. But making it a subject of conflict or differentiation is just a reflection of human stupidity, an element whose importance should never be underestimated.

I was using an entry level APS-C DSLR when I got into using vintage glass and hated not being able to use the viewfinder reliably. That's when my sights turned to mirrorless cameras and six years ago I chose a Fuji camera above the other brands because I didn't want full frame and no other company seemed to take APS-C seriously, as far as lens choices went. But then I kept hearing about the full frame look and eventually I got curious and gave in when I spotted a good deal on a used EOS R. Juggling two brands, I agree with what you say: it really doesn't matter. We can coax a good image out of just about any camera these days. That being said, bias confirmation still has me searching for videos about my cameras every now and then :P

The test scene I've been using has been set up with much of what you mention but under controlled lighting conditions for better comparison between lenses. The furry plush toy and scrunched up T-shirt were intended to mimic organic subjects, the styrofoam head serves to evaluate the rendition, particularly highlight roll off, the leather baseball glove for organic tonality, and the wooden box, metal case and stone surface all have different textures. I also noticed the specular highlights reflecting off the corners of the metal case reveals chromatic aberration. The main thing missing, as far as I can tell, is covering greater depth with many layers and a complex background. There are woods near where I live, perhaps it's time I take the testing outside. The next round of testing I will do is for 28mm lenses. All vintage, no APS-C. I'll see about doing both in studio and in nature sessions. Maybe I'll add nature photos with the 50mm lenses while I'm at it. Another great video, thanks for taking the time to make it!

When you mentioned the “middle distance” depth of a lens’ rendering in this video, it reminded me of subjective explorations I’ve undertaken after digesting the revelations you offered in some previous Dirty Photography Club videos. I’ve specifically been trying to discern depth/pop in middle-distance items in photographs. I’ve looked for different geometries of physical objects that seem to pop, and tried to see what may be creating the 3-D illusion. Color shadings, micro-contrast, grain, “roll-off”... For example, I contrasted mid-ground trees, buildings, a fence post, statue, person, and automobile. I tried blocking out the rest of a photo, and seeing if I noticed depth/pop only within that object itself. I clearly saw it in a middle-ground tree in one case. (I got this idea from noticing “pop” within a statuette in one of your test scenes during your initial experiments.) I also looked for an illusion of depth with respect to only the foreground subject, or only other objects in the same distance plane. I tied analyzing middle-ground depth against a few different types of backgrounds. E.G. In-focus or somewhat blurred backgrounds. There are confounding or "external" optical variables to handle. I tried looking at photos or parts of photos with little or no "vanishing point" or converging geometric lines that lead us to perceive depth. I've also looked for depth differences in subsets or small portions of a barn with varied wood grain, and tried blocking out the converging lines. I've done the same with a brick building. No clear results from this exploration yet. I’m working to train my eye, and notice or conjecture about different optical or technical properties of a photo’s rendering that may evoke cues that our eyes’ unconsciously use to perceive depth/ different distances of objects from each other. Perhaps we could learn from classical painters, or trained critics/experts of such paintings, if they've discovered specific techniques or renderings that suggest depth/3-D to viewers. ... Then look for analogues in film or digital photos from different lenses. I've not studied painting or painting appreciation. I'm trying to think through and if possible observe in photographs how the differential indices of refraction of different colors in high index lens elements may create subtle differences in "roll-off". Maybe there's something about "micro-hue" going on, not just micro (light-dark) contrast. Theoretically, the micro-hues should follow the color spectrum light-wavelength sequence. {Are my physics and words mixed up here somewhere?} Significantly, micro-hues between adjacent pixels -- corresponding to the light spectrum sequence -- if discovered in photos could represent objective data that could be statistically analyzed and possibly correlated with the subjective judgments of a large sampling of people who readily notice depth/pop in specific objects in a photo. And could micro-contrast also be discovered at the pixel level, especially in edge roll-off locations of photos, and statistical correlations likewise be run against the subjective pop/depth-ratings of a "panel of capable judges"? Related to this, I plan to search for and review photos of different lenses from the same or similar camera, whose lens “structure diagrams” reveal likely differences in depth vs. flatness, according to your initial model. An example I've found is the two versions of the Olympus original four-thirds 40-150mm lenses. One has an ED element and the other none. And the group complexity is different. But there are many possible independent variables, focal length, f-stop, copy variations, etc. I also feel inspired to obtain these lenses, or some other pair of lenses that vary only or mainly in the factors you've uncovered... Then try some controlled experiments with only one independent variable, along the lines you've pioneered. I feel you're opening up new territory, and I'm appreciative. (Also, may I ask, how do you spell your name?) - Gary

It's a bigger issue than photography. It's every aspect of interaction online. S××tposting is everywhere.

Thanks for your perspective. What can you say about the FUJI GFX lenses, eg. The 23mm, the 20-35 mm, the 50 mm, the 45-100mm, the TTARTSAN 90 mm, and the Pentax 645 75 mm (used with GFX adapter?

Could a standardised sphere under controlled lighting provide a controlled target for assessing 3Dpop where the measurement of some property of the light to dark transition zone be determined in the photo (perhaps subjectively, or through physical measurement)?

Excellent discussion. About testing resolution: i believe that all the lenses are designed to perform best when focused at infinity. Some reviewer use a diffused light source when testing target charts. The renditions and perceived sharpness vary a a great deal between a small light source, such as clear sun and bare flash light while a overcast sky and a diffused flash. In most of the present day reviews, particularly on social media ignore this. Even the most expensive highly corrected process lenses are designed to perform at their best only on monochromatic light source. The natural world is not so. There are so many traits, as you discuss here. Just saying... in all i agree with you. Thank you.

Hi, Ive been watching your videos for some time and I like your content and way of thinking. I love photography but I work too much and dont have that much time to test my gear, Ive had so many different lenses searching for the most pleasing one to my eyes and I looked for mainly to true to life rendering and 3dpop, on kind of modern lenses though, and I really have a hard time choosing. Could I send you some pictures from the lenses I had and tell me your opinion? It might be useful to you. Lenses are lumix 20mm f1.7, panaleica 42.5mm f1.2, panaleica 25-50mm f1.7, sigma 85mm f1.4 (big nope), lumix S pro 16-35mm f4 and lumix S pro 50mm 1.4

Podium 😅

I am loving your videos. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. One of the key observations IMHO is that a high quality lens that delivers 3 dimensional characteristics doesn’t need to rely on extremely shallow depth of field. Good composition also helps!

It’s unfortunate that we can’t swap lenses ( removing the native plastic lenses ) on smartphones , as it would open a world of multispectral imaging possibilities not constrained by the plastic one size fits all optics on them. IMSAIGUY has an interesting video on their design. We could recreate the 3CCD cameras quite cheaply.

To my eyes, lens pop tends to be subtle, and I'm sorry to say I don't see much difference between the lenses you used. That being said, I feel the fault might be my own. While I have seen the effect, more often than not it seems to elude me. I was telling a friend the other day it's like I spotted sasquatch and now I'm chasing it down, trying to recreate the experience. While I own many lenses, the truth is I haven't shot with most of them, so maybe it comes down to the lack of experience.

this ligting is good I llike it, the lens also is very nice one of those simera?

I used m43 so much, and now Im with Lumis S1. I loved it, FF only gives you small possibilities and advantages if you know how to use m43, but lenses are inconsistent, lots of lenses are not weather sealed, some are flat, some are not sharp...

Similar experience, but I attribute it to my own stage of life, not technology i general, certainly not photography/videography. I don't get as "excited" as I used to be about much: album from favorite artist, movie from favorite director, book from a favorite author. It's not indifference, it's cynicism and life experience. Also as you have mentioned, IQ has not improved in at least ten years, it's just a little easier to get to it now.

Manufacturers take some 5 to 7 years to develop some substantial improvements in the equipments. Till such time, to stay in the market they offer some incremental improvements to their existing systems.

this is the best video you made so far!

I can't agree more with you

zf is perfect for me, only problem is autoiso on the left knob is missing. I like the colors and bw I only use 1or two lenses. z6III should be interesting, but I not ever trade 1stop of dr for half rolling shutter(who cares) I really would like 36mp for a better apsc crop (couse I can't get further 50mm) So I'dlike it was lighter by 100gr. and sized like the zfc (with silver metal option) I recentrly sold my GM1 and GM5, love them, too limited, I thought about G80 (same 16 sensor) I can see immediately when a picture come from a mft sensor. GRIII is my next. Couse Im selling the 28 ultron 2 and the 21 3.5, too much money. I even bought a 15 heliar II ina a rush of consumism, is goin on sale today too. I settle on 40 and 50 Nokton 1.2 (the 50 will be mounted on a gfx 50r one day) I'll keep the Mr Ding. Selling all the rest and the a7III body too. the 20mm 1.8 G is on line too. with the PK 28 3.5 and the Nokton 58 No need in more gear but lighter faster tripod, a nicer bag, and a flash/light. the GRIII will be my wide angle. I will not buy the 75 1.5 to use it a couple of time a year and btw we are interested in the same type of photography. GFX and a 45 2.8 could be my 35 I never had Nokton 40 and GRIII is may to go now one camera one lens has been the best solution for me for years

Hey mr avocado researcher. This all super fascinating . I attempted a preliminary search on ELD glass and did not find much. My initial impression is that ED glass was primarily intended for or implemented in , binoculars, telescopes, weapons optics, or other situations requiring good contrast but not necessarily pleasing contrast (unless you’re hunting supermodels 😅). Could this be part of the problem? In other words , it was never designed to be used in imaging , thus making it more of a crutch, than a benefit. Sort of like dragging the sharpness slider all the way to the right . Also, are talking all LD glass, including ELD, or just LD. Is lead glass the crown jewel of optical glass - if we’re discussing pleasing images - or is/was there another contender. Do you have any thoughts on electrowetting (liquid, tunable lenses)? One last question: if LD glass serves as a means of correcting- what would happen if we removed those elements ? Are they disposable, or could they be substituted with non LD glass ?

I love when they introduce a new model since it means that the prices on used older models will be coming down further. A camera that could take great pictures 10 years ago will still be able to take great pictures today.

my only concern on your video still lighting.

focal length does offcourse, as photography does

Thank you for taking the time to talk about this subject. I had no idea. Could you give an analysis about the Nikon 58mm 1.4G? It appears to be an outlier. The sample images i have seen truly impress me, yet I havent seen much in depth overviews of it other than a few cursory and unimpressive reviews .thhank you!

Voigtlander was nice, Nikon was too sharp and clinical, viltrox was OK

I much prefer the 35/1.4 G, which I now have (based on your recommendation). Not so much for the rendering, but for its color. Second best here, on my screen, is the Viltrox. Related/unrelated question: you always sit to the side, and assuming you don't crop or sharpen in post, given their different MTF and how close you are to the sensor, the falloff for sharpness would be a factor on your right side. Have you noticed that? Is that a consideration (right ear softer than the left ear) when evaluating lenses used like this?

Thank you for another interesting video. I don’t feel almost any contributions from the lessens in regard to achieving a more personal conversation atmosphere between you and (let’s say me). I did notice that in your previous video you are in frame from waste up and your hands and hand gestures are a bigger part of the conversation and only that in itself contributes to above so much more than the lens gear. Look forward to your next video!!

focal length matters, very much.

I always end up selling the Viltrox lenses for the same reason, no pop. Voigtlander never loses these types of battles, but the autofocus is handy on the Nikon lens. It was sharp too. I'd be using the Nikon G lens :)

Hey! Do you think the Voigtländer 21mm F1.8 is as "poppy" as the F1.4? Cheers :)

Do you prefer the Nikon 35mm F1.4 DSLR lens to the Z mount 35mm F1.8S? BTW there’s a new 35mm F1.4 for the Z mount and it’s cheap but nobody did a good comparison with the 1.8S at F1.8 or F2. The Voigtlander is the first for me out of what you have, the Nikon emphasizes face detail too much.

There are undeniable differences between the various lenses in their ability to convey an image that comes close to the usual human perception. These differences are clearly perceptible. I prefer the Nikkor and Voigtlander. They both give the impression of being a little closer to you, of being almost in the room. The difference with the Viltrox isn't considerable, but it's real. This is certainly the case on my Macbook's 15” screen. The Viltrox's ease-of-use qualities make no difference to the viewer. As for the Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon, it's difficult to judge, as there was a serious focusing problem on the video, which you noticed. Finally, if I had to choose between the Nikkor and the Voigtlander, I'd go for the former, but that's very subjective.

The Viltrox lens is okay but nothing really special indeed: flat colors, not extremely sharp. The Voigtländer is nice indeed: natural colors and depth, sharpness is okay but could be better. The Zeiss is hard to judge, given the shot was out of focus, but the colors are duller/flatter than on the Voightländer. The Nikon is nice but quite analytical due to its sharpness, which is ironic, given you talking about your work being that way and wanting to get away from that for sanity's sake. Colors are nice though: about the same as the Voigtländer.. This is the lens I also preferred the most, like you. :)

I was glad to hear that you nearly ended up recommending the EM1 mkII/III. I have been mulling over this dilemma for sometime now, as a Canon user for years, bags of L glass, and disappointed with where the whole industry is heading, greedy camera companies moving backwards, and around the block, I ended up buying a discontinued camera, the EM1X, and hence counting myself out of this camera rat race .........I think Olympus put their heart and sole into this model, before they sold out..........the rabbit hole goes deep....!!!

Love this creative photography lesson. Tired of relentless videos and lens reviews about sharpness, sharpness, sharpness. I take many of my sharp photos and desharpen them most of the time in post anyway - more pleasing to my eye. Lets create engaging images occasionally and not just factual representations all the time unless that is what is needed. Keep going - thanks 🙏🙏