If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can film a 1959 cereal commercial. Donate BITCOIN if you'd like :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f Nikon ZF amzn.to/4enLBZ0 Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 amzn.to/4aUYB5j Nikkor 105mm f2.5 amzn.to/4cbB0hE Nikon Z 85mm f1.2 S amzn.to/3Xdh3CZ All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Found this channel when I was first starting to research gear. It’s the only channel where I feel like I’m not being sold a product. That’s a rare feeling on RUclips.
That side by side comparison in the grass-I could see exactly what you meant about depth /3d. The one without it is pleasing, but when you see the one with it is more entrancing.
It's funny how Canon and Nikon still can't display zebras and peaking together in 2024, when a 2012 Canon T3i with Magic Lantern allowed you to have like 10 overlays at once including a picture-in-picture magnified view DURING recording :D
yeah I remember loading up magic lantern on my t2i and literally recording in 1080p raw 23.976fps with a 1/48 shutter. A camera from 2010. Recording in raw.
Each lens must be evaluated for rendering, quality, and character, regardless of maker, age, or element count. There are gems from each maker across time.
It is true. There are loads of vintage lenses that don't look anything special. The ones that are praised for their image quality today were maybe one or two per cent of the total number of lenses made. In that sense, I think there are fewer duds among modern lenses because modern software and manufacturing techniques make it easier to make good lenses.
The main difference IMO between the Nikkor and Voigtlander lenses is how they render green. Voigt was much brighter; I don't know why. The Nikkor has much better Toneh. P.S. that pearlescent filter has a distinct red cast. I'm not a fan
10:50 could you go into detail (or have you already done so?) about how you get good footage out of your Sony? I just tried a ZV-E1 & some pictures looked good, but a lot weren't so impressive, seems my iphone 15 pro max implements some kind of algorithm to cover for my lack of photography skills....
i could be wrong, but i think best compromise is to just buy pana-leica lenses for mft. Paired with PDAF of G9m2, the panaleica glass is perfect combination of "style" and "modern". The "modern glass" of other systems seem to be too compromised, it's better to just stick to MFT that still retains some "style".
For what it’s worth I actually preferred 105 not 85, especially when you add the price into equation. 85 absolutely did not look 15 times better, not even 2 times better, imo.
For M43 you should check out the vintage manual focus Olympus Pen F/FT lenses. G.Zuiko Auto-S 40mm f/1.4 is around US $100 and the H.Zuiko Auto-S 42mm f/1.2 is around US $400. I used to own a F.Zuiko Auto-T 70mm f/2 and wish I still had it because it's gotten stupid expensive.
I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. I stumbed on this channel while doing research on microphone audio interfaces months ago....and yet I can't seem to stop watching these other videos. Keep it coming, LOL.
Hi Casey! Love your channel. I have a Fuji Xh2 and am looking for characterful lens around the 30-50mm FF range. I have the 18mm f1.4 which I think pops, I use it all the time and the 70-300 with the amazing stabe! I need a middle focal length I looked at the 35mm 1.4 but it's old now and the autofocus is slow, the Viltrox 27mm F1.2 but its got 55,000 elements and heavy, the Fuji 33mm F1.4 very clinical very many elements. I've settled on the 6 element Voigty 27 ultron f2. Am I stupid? 😄🙏
Yeah the difference in my eyes between the modern rendering and that of lenses with 3d pop is that the modern rendering makes you look seperated from the scene entirely, like the background is a green screen. 3d pop isolates you from the background while still making you look like you're actually there
Yeah and that`s with a good prime, if you use a zoom then you will be copy pasted in to the green screen like a foto in a foto. It will give you a flat as a pancake rendering, hey, as long as it`s sharp. To see that effect check out the pics of the new sigma 1.8 zoom, it`s flatter than a flat earth theorie.
That's probably because bokeh wasn't a known thing in the vintage era. Background blur was just an accidental consequence of a large aperture. Most older photographers preferred a sharp backround and would stop down as much as the light would allow. It's only in the modern era that lenses are designed for bokeh specifically.
@@audioupgrades Nonsense, it was very well known. People where not blind back then, you could buy a 1.4 and use it at 1.4 . Background blur is a lens effect that goes a long way.
The cheaper Chinese lenses are actually pretty good relatively speaking, especially if you want the vintage look, since a lot of them use the same or similar optical formulas that vintage lenses had. Even the TTart 25mm f2 I got for 50 bucks on MFT has some pop given the right situation. The 42.5 Nocticron is one of the best portrait lenses I've used in general, along with the 45mm f1.2 and 75mm f1.8 Olympus lenses.
Speaking of Mitakon at 17:20, they make a 65mm F/1.4 for GFX. If you find yourself with the GFX system on this channel, you need to try that lens, phenomenal. Also, I've seen some reviews and sample images of the Z mount 50mm F/1.8S, seems to be a pretty nice lens, definite 3D pop when compared to the G lens for F mount. Might be worth a look at.
"...this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius..." Love that song! Have you ever considered sending in a lens to the V35 Project or getting one from them? Have a great weekend!
About to pull the trigger on an R8, RF 35 f1.8 and 800mm f11, for travel and wildlife, switching from fuji mainly for better auto focus. Will I be happy? I don't know man
Just bought my first camera for photography, I have an osmo action 3 and the camera on my phone, its a Sony A6000 and it came with the kit lens. I don't have a massive budget so what 2 lenses would you suggest as an upgrade? I've been watching your channel for quite some time as your humour is awesome and I have started to get my head round your rants. It has to be said that it would make my day to be labeled "moron" by you. Thank you in advance.
8:02 "Maybe one day I will maybe shoot myself" "Yes that's what you should do, right now" i love this channel lol. The 24GM looks magical, 100% no regrets
You say what the rest of the reviewers are too frightened to say. Panasonic is history. My local shop won't sell them after having so many returns due to disappointment over autofocus. Micro four thirds was invented to be a small system. Now it's massive bodies. You can't overcome the crop factor , limited pixels, limited dynamic range etc . Just buy an apsc for size and full frame for quality. My zve1 with a 24mm 2.8 small prime is a stunning small camera and lens combo. No idea why I'd pick up a Panasonic full frame or gh7.
It's fun that you start by heckling photographers and then immediately follow up with your problems focusing and exposing the shot. Those are the things that photographers actually know how to do 😉
Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony gives you literally native AF performance with the EF lenses. Its pretty cheap second hand for what it is. There no debate here, its better then Viltrox AND Metabones, combined.
@@cameraconspiracies Yes it does, I tested it with the Canon 24-105mm F4 and the 50mm F1.2 and some older Canon lenses from the early 90s with beautiful grindy autofocus motors. Despite the noise blowing my airdrums everytime it focuses, it works surprisingly well, it gets focus without pulsing and keeps it locked. ruclips.net/video/3RfyvaK0HZM/видео.html This guy is the only one I know of that actually tests the adapter in video, albeit with the Sigma 18-35mm. This adapter works with any Canon EF lens, its not as fast as modern glass, it can track your movement however, some of the older Canon lenses like 20+ years old, the autofocus motors tend to start grinding because the oil is drying up, a lens service should almost be mandatory on these lenses once you got one and its making grindy noise or has dust inside the elements, dust can impact image quality quite severely if its inbetween the rear elements.
@@cameraconspiracies Yes, also why RUclips remove my comment LOL, cannot link RUclips videos anymore? A guy tested the MC-11 in video and it stuck to him like a native lens should. Its most definitely in my experience vastly better in C-AF , even old Canon 50mm f1.2 worked really well on it.
Sneaky Uploading in 4K I have to feedback that this new Nikon camera brings too much orangish-redish... that abat-jour wasn't so orange before! This reminded me immediately the iPhone X orange-ish cast I had to fight for years...
I tried out the RF 35 on my dad's Canon RP and I noticed something off about the sharpness. I mean sharpness is there but it is not organic. Now this vid explains.
I found the same with the Canon 24-50, 50/1.8, and 100-400 (the cheap one) - all of them lacked something. Hence sold the R8 and moved to an S5ii - it smokes the R8 in everything but weight - still looking thru lenses.
I think the 3d pop you go on about is distortion.. if not clueless what your on about 😂 Also stop the new 1.2 lense down to the equivalent 3dpop lense and then see how different they look like. Probably the same
13:20 isn't it just that the Nikon with a lot more physical aperture blurs everything not within a few hair's breadth of our fearless funnyman's feet too quickly for it to give any sense of depth or '3D' transition into the scene..?
@@cameraconspiracies I believe you but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same effect - or if it's even possible to on youtube at 1080p (since it's supposed to be all about microcontrast that YT compression probably completely destroys)
I like how your comparisons have so many variables tweaked that they are never valid. Your "3d pop" is a moving target, where it can be the focal length, aperture, framing or light. You change any of these things and it's no longer a comparison of lense's optical quality, but of operator decisions, yet you keep insisting that it's the lens. If it's really the lens, then make one valid comparison goddammit. For example in this comparison at 13:30 we have a 58 mm lens and an 85 mm one. Obviously a longer focal length has more perspective compression and shallower depth of field, which makes the image flatter to the eye.
If you want autofocus on manual focus slr lenses you should look at the Techart TZM-02 for Nikon Z and Sony E. You can then put a Nikon f to leica m adapter ontop of the Techart.
If everyone is using a black mist filter, is still something with an "unique look" and "cinematic"? I remember un 2009 when everyone was editing with cross prossesing, yellow highlights and blue shadows... instagram, snapchat, retrica, vsco and all that apps became popular because of that kind of filter. Now you see a pic with digital cross prossesing and it looks old, boring and dumb. I think the same will happen a in 2030 when you see a photo or video with black mist
@@cameraconspiracies your comparison you talk about how you get a sense of depth with the grass from the 3d pop. I couldn’t see it. There was just more depth because one lens was ?wide open? and the other one wasn’t. Maybe that’s why I’m confused
@@livejames9374 It`s you, if you can`t see, it don`t bother. Depth is no 3d pop. How faster modern lenses the less 3d pop. I hope you can at least see the gras on the voigt being much more fibrant.
@@brugj03idk if yall crazy or joking lol no the only thing shown is shallower dof with the 1.2, some busy bokeh and haziness by the voigt… im not sure what fibrant means. If you mean vibrant then no it actually looks like the voigt has less green luminance. Casey is also hazy on the voigt so the whole image looks flat despite having more dof. Thought maybe it was my calibrated monitor so I checked on a calibrated oled tv and same conclusion. Asked wife who knows nothing about any of this which looks more 3D like and she immediately said the 85 1.2. I said don’t consider blurred background in the equation… still the 85 1.2. At this point I’m convinced I’m not in on a joke.
What is the science of 3d pop? How much toneh? Perfect circular toneh? Maybe a little softness? A little ringing instead? Cats eyes? Chromatic aberrations or nah?
Blurry background is overrated. There's nothing bad in a sharp background. If your background sucks, interferes with your subject etc or if your composition does not give enough "3D" hints and you're too lazy to do anything about it, then yes, shallower dof is a workaround/kind of cheat. But it looks cheap and that's not an essential thing in photography or in lenses.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can film a 1959 cereal commercial.
Donate BITCOIN if you'd like :) bc1qacvd72s9565hpat4jueeultha3qvrv4kznyl3f
Nikon ZF amzn.to/4enLBZ0
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 amzn.to/4aUYB5j
Nikkor 105mm f2.5 amzn.to/4cbB0hE
Nikon Z 85mm f1.2 S amzn.to/3Xdh3CZ
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
I'm a photographer first and foremost, yet I love this channel and being shit-talked by this dude.😅
Mock me, vegan weasel daddy 🥵
admitting your faults is the first step.. respect to you sir. ;)
Same
Yes same it's the best.
Found this channel when I was first starting to research gear. It’s the only channel where I feel like I’m not being sold a product. That’s a rare feeling on RUclips.
i have no clue what you are saying about cameras, but i keep coming back everyday to watch the new video, very funny man.
Same hear my internet friend. I wish I knew what he was saying, but he’s so darn snarky I keep coming back.
The 85 mm F1.2 was so worth it. Quality shot. The lighting looks sophisticated and not douchey.
the Nikkor 85mm is one of the nicest lenses I've seen you use. Awesome pop in that one.
Best m4/3 lens ever made is the Oly 75mm. Yeah, it's a telephoto lens, but it is amazing. Even on funny E-PL cameras, it gives you magic.
Definitely not, it's a Sigma design and flat like all Sigmas.
Nah, you've been are using it wrong. Convince a fan of the channel to donate one and you will see - the cinema will be yours!
That side by side comparison in the grass-I could see exactly what you meant about depth /3d. The one without it is pleasing, but when you see the one with it is more entrancing.
It's funny how Canon and Nikon still can't display zebras and peaking together in 2024, when a 2012 Canon T3i with Magic Lantern allowed you to have like 10 overlays at once including a picture-in-picture magnified view DURING recording :D
And now their smallest APSC camera proves to be their best all around.
Really? Pre-Cripple hammer epoch.
@@tech-utuber2219 It was still cripple-hammer but the modding community uncrippled it with the Magic Lantern hack :)
yeah I remember loading up magic lantern on my t2i and literally recording in 1080p raw 23.976fps with a 1/48 shutter. A camera from 2010. Recording in raw.
@@krejn using an EOS M now doing this and it’s wonderful.
Each lens must be evaluated for rendering, quality, and character, regardless of maker, age, or element count. There are gems from each maker across time.
It is true. There are loads of vintage lenses that don't look anything special. The ones that are praised for their image quality today were maybe one or two per cent of the total number of lenses made. In that sense, I think there are fewer duds among modern lenses because modern software and manufacturing techniques make it easier to make good lenses.
And the Voigtlander is actually made in Japan with meticulous care. You should see the 40mm f1.2 it’s amazing.
The Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 is one of my favorite lenses after the Summicron-C 40mm f2
I have the 55mm 1.2 wanted to get the 40mm but I own the Nikon 40mm 2.0😅
The Nikon looks amazing man. Voitlander is great. Colours amazing
The main difference IMO between the Nikkor and Voigtlander lenses is how they render green. Voigt was much brighter; I don't know why. The Nikkor has much better Toneh. P.S. that pearlescent filter has a distinct red cast. I'm not a fan
10:50 could you go into detail (or have you already done so?) about how you get good footage out of your Sony? I just tried a ZV-E1 & some pictures looked good, but a lot weren't so impressive, seems my iphone 15 pro max implements some kind of algorithm to cover for my lack of photography skills....
i could be wrong, but i think best compromise is to just buy pana-leica lenses for mft. Paired with PDAF of G9m2, the panaleica glass is perfect combination of "style" and "modern". The "modern glass" of other systems seem to be too compromised, it's better to just stick to MFT that still retains some "style".
I think the 58 had more 3d pop over the 85 in the grass due to it being 58mm and having a larger focal plane while being a lil higher up.
That intro, your style is so unique and creative, sometimes I love it, sometimes I don’t but it’s always completely unique, bravo
The ZF actually has waveform, not just a histogram? Nice.
Voity looked the best
For what it’s worth I actually preferred 105 not 85, especially when you add the price into equation.
85 absolutely did not look 15 times better, not even 2 times better, imo.
Getting CC First, on the whole planet, makes me happy.
For M43 you should check out the vintage manual focus Olympus Pen F/FT lenses. G.Zuiko Auto-S 40mm f/1.4 is around US $100 and the H.Zuiko Auto-S 42mm f/1.2 is around US $400. I used to own a F.Zuiko Auto-T 70mm f/2 and wish I still had it because it's gotten stupid expensive.
Hi Kasey. In your opinion, what comes close to the perfect camera. If you designed it, what would you add or take away.
Kasey, you should pick this question.
I really dig the pearlescence filter. It makes things look a little better somehow, without giving that star trek female love interest blurring.
That nikon 105 looked really good indoors, think it was lil oof when you were outside with it or something.
Yes, I missed focus outside somehow.
Surprisingly, I prefer your videos where you say nice things about the gear I own. I still watch them all, though. Weird, eh?
Did video capabilities in dslr's create the Canon cripple hammer? Or were Canon wielding that thing before the 1D Mark IV?
I have no idea what you are talking about most of the time. I stumbed on this channel while doing research on microphone audio interfaces months ago....and yet I can't seem to stop watching these other videos. Keep it coming, LOL.
Please help. What panasonic leica lenses have 3D pop if any?
24-70mm S Pro and 50mm S Pro for L mount.The PL 10-25mm and 25-50mm are flatter but with excellent microcontrast.
Have you ever used any of the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses on MFT?
He needs to try those there’s a .08 on MPB for $800 rn
You should try a Nikkor 58mm f/1.4 G...
I really like the look of the 105. Great video, and the look of the ZF videos. I've never used Nikon. Only Lumix, Sony, Red, Canon and a little Fuj.
Hi Casey! Love your channel. I have a Fuji Xh2 and am looking for characterful lens around the 30-50mm FF range. I have the 18mm f1.4 which I think pops, I use it all the time and the 70-300 with the amazing stabe! I need a middle focal length I looked at the 35mm 1.4 but it's old now and the autofocus is slow, the Viltrox 27mm F1.2 but its got 55,000 elements and heavy, the Fuji 33mm F1.4 very clinical very many elements. I've settled on the 6 element Voigty 27 ultron f2. Am I stupid? 😄🙏
Yeah the difference in my eyes between the modern rendering and that of lenses with 3d pop is that the modern rendering makes you look seperated from the scene entirely, like the background is a green screen. 3d pop isolates you from the background while still making you look like you're actually there
Yeah and that`s with a good prime, if you use a zoom then you will be copy pasted in to the green screen like a foto in a foto.
It will give you a flat as a pancake rendering, hey, as long as it`s sharp.
To see that effect check out the pics of the new sigma 1.8 zoom, it`s flatter than a flat earth theorie.
stopping down might help LOL
That’s 1.2 and a very shallow dof, vs whatever the 1.4 voight was stopped down to.
That's probably because bokeh wasn't a known thing in the vintage era. Background blur was just an accidental consequence of a large aperture. Most older photographers preferred a sharp backround and would stop down as much as the light would allow. It's only in the modern era that lenses are designed for bokeh specifically.
@@audioupgrades Nonsense, it was very well known. People where not blind back then, you could buy a 1.4 and use it at 1.4 .
Background blur is a lens effect that goes a long way.
The cheaper Chinese lenses are actually pretty good relatively speaking, especially if you want the vintage look, since a lot of them use the same or similar optical formulas that vintage lenses had. Even the TTart 25mm f2 I got for 50 bucks on MFT has some pop given the right situation. The 42.5 Nocticron is one of the best portrait lenses I've used in general, along with the 45mm f1.2 and 75mm f1.8 Olympus lenses.
I don't care much for photography fetishes but you my friend make me laugh!!
Great look with that pearlescent filter and nikon colors
Speaking of Mitakon at 17:20, they make a 65mm F/1.4 for GFX. If you find yourself with the GFX system on this channel, you need to try that lens, phenomenal. Also, I've seen some reviews and sample images of the Z mount 50mm F/1.8S, seems to be a pretty nice lens, definite 3D pop when compared to the G lens for F mount. Might be worth a look at.
Nikon made an 3d pop af lens called 58 1.4g. Try that with the ftz adapter 😊
I already have the superior Voigtlander 58mm f1.4...
Pls always use the Nikon this is literally looking like a television level quality
You mean tell a lie vision.
@@unbroken1010 of course 😂
@@MYTHICALLY3D Broad Casting Spells.... 😂
"...this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius..." Love that song! Have you ever considered sending in a lens to the V35 Project or getting one from them? Have a great weekend!
I think, the 3d Pop you mention, you can get it even with the nikon lens .. up a bit aperture buddy. May be at f2? test it! Love you😘
Hey! You can’t compare a 58mm to a 85mm! Get the Nikon 58g if you want to compare those!
About to pull the trigger on an R8, RF 35 f1.8 and 800mm f11, for travel and wildlife, switching from fuji mainly for better auto focus. Will I be happy? I don't know man
As a vlogger and doing product showcase sometime in video which camera and lense will be a better fit.
2,5/105 all the way.
Just bought my first camera for photography, I have an osmo action 3 and the camera on my phone, its a Sony A6000 and it came with the kit lens. I don't have a massive budget so what 2 lenses would you suggest as an upgrade?
I've been watching your channel for quite some time as your humour is awesome and I have started to get my head round your rants. It has to be said that it would make my day to be labeled "moron" by you.
Thank you in advance.
I think your song should go, "All I want is the perfect lens..."
you are comedy gold... thankyou :))
I’m constantly laughing without a clue about what you said that was funny. Why are you @funny!?”
Got that 3D pop thing mostly from you here, but I gotta say, the Camera Mystique channel explains it even a bit better. Could be nice at least 😅
you should probably compare same spec lenses 3d pop and no 3d pop to demonstrate/test it. like the panasonic ones 12-35 leica and not leica
8:02 "Maybe one day I will maybe shoot myself" "Yes that's what you should do, right now" i love this channel lol. The 24GM looks magical, 100% no regrets
Have you tried the pana/leica 15mm f1.7 mft? How about its popage?
I just bought a Leica.
Dude, which one ?
You say what the rest of the reviewers are too frightened to say. Panasonic is history. My local shop won't sell them after having so many returns due to disappointment over autofocus. Micro four thirds was invented to be a small system. Now it's massive bodies. You can't overcome the crop factor , limited pixels, limited dynamic range etc . Just buy an apsc for size and full frame for quality. My zve1 with a 24mm 2.8 small prime is a stunning small camera and lens combo. No idea why I'd pick up a Panasonic full frame or gh7.
Zeiss 35 mm sonar is a terrific lens and it's not sharp at all really one of the most amazing lenses often used on a M3
Yongnuo 85mm f1.8 recent version lens probably effectively just as good as anything else you have for $369. Excellent AF also, by the way.
Woo hoo!
Casey there’s a 200m prime Leica for $1k if that’s the lowest! On MPB
And how does that help me in Canada?
It's fun that you start by heckling photographers and then immediately follow up with your problems focusing and exposing the shot. Those are the things that photographers actually know how to do 😉
Photographers are never in their own shot...
@@cameraconspiracies I'll give you that. Self-filming is the hardest thing to do. I have to use a computer tether and a big screen to do it.
12:37 Hello from Turtle (not Turkey)
Modern AF and 3D pop? Fujifilm pre-40MP lenses is that way -->
the AF on those lenses isn't very modern unfortunately, completely usable, but not as good as the newer AF lenses
Modern AF.... LOL......... maybe if you compair it with 25 year old autofocus.
Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony gives you literally native AF performance with the EF lenses.
Its pretty cheap second hand for what it is. There no debate here, its better then Viltrox AND Metabones, combined.
For video?
This adapter is designed for Sigma EF lenses, it supports few native Canon lenses.
@@cameraconspiracies
Yes it does, I tested it with the Canon 24-105mm F4 and the 50mm F1.2 and some older Canon lenses from the early 90s with beautiful grindy autofocus motors.
Despite the noise blowing my airdrums everytime it focuses, it works surprisingly well, it gets focus without pulsing and keeps it locked.
ruclips.net/video/3RfyvaK0HZM/видео.html
This guy is the only one I know of that actually tests the adapter in video, albeit with the Sigma 18-35mm.
This adapter works with any Canon EF lens, its not as fast as modern glass, it can track your movement however, some of the older Canon lenses like 20+ years old, the autofocus motors tend to start grinding because the oil is drying up, a lens service should almost be mandatory on these lenses once you got one and its making grindy noise or has dust inside the elements, dust can impact image quality quite severely if its inbetween the rear elements.
@@cameraconspiracies
Yes, also why RUclips remove my comment LOL, cannot link RUclips videos anymore?
A guy tested the MC-11 in video and it stuck to him like a native lens should. Its most definitely in my experience vastly better in C-AF , even old Canon 50mm f1.2 worked really well on it.
just a couple of side rants before I launch into my main rant
Pops were had.
Sneaky Uploading in 4K
I have to feedback that this new Nikon camera brings too much orangish-redish... that abat-jour wasn't so orange before!
This reminded me immediately the iPhone X orange-ish cast I had to fight for years...
I tried out the RF 35 on my dad's Canon RP and I noticed something off about the sharpness. I mean sharpness is there but it is not organic. Now this vid explains.
I found the same with the Canon 24-50, 50/1.8, and 100-400 (the cheap one) - all of them lacked something. Hence sold the R8 and moved to an S5ii - it smokes the R8 in everything but weight - still looking thru lenses.
I think the 3d pop you go on about is distortion.. if not clueless what your on about 😂
Also stop the new 1.2 lense down to the equivalent 3dpop lense and then see how different they look like. Probably the same
Kasey, in house try a fixed camera attached to HDMI pointing at screen of your test camera to see those focus indicators lol
13:20 isn't it just that the Nikon with a lot more physical aperture blurs everything not within a few hair's breadth of our fearless funnyman's feet too quickly for it to give any sense of depth or '3D' transition into the scene..?
No, you don't get the same effect when stopping down the 85mm f1.2.
@@cameraconspiracies I believe you but I'm not sure I'm seeing the same effect - or if it's even possible to on youtube at 1080p (since it's supposed to be all about microcontrast that YT compression probably completely destroys)
You killed my cat, monster
I like how your comparisons have so many variables tweaked that they are never valid. Your "3d pop" is a moving target, where it can be the focal length, aperture, framing or light. You change any of these things and it's no longer a comparison of lense's optical quality, but of operator decisions, yet you keep insisting that it's the lens. If it's really the lens, then make one valid comparison goddammit.
For example in this comparison at 13:30 we have a 58 mm lens and an 85 mm one. Obviously a longer focal length has more perspective compression and shallower depth of field, which makes the image flatter to the eye.
All I want is the perfect camera…all I want is the perfect cameraaaa! Ear worm!
I don’t need to buy vintage as lenses I’ve bought in my youth are vintage now. Just adapters.
If you want autofocus on manual focus slr lenses you should look at the Techart TZM-02 for Nikon Z and Sony E. You can then put a Nikon f to leica m adapter ontop of the Techart.
If everyone is using a black mist filter, is still something with an "unique look" and "cinematic"? I remember un 2009 when everyone was editing with cross prossesing, yellow highlights and blue shadows... instagram, snapchat, retrica, vsco and all that apps became popular because of that kind of filter. Now you see a pic with digital cross prossesing and it looks old, boring and dumb. I think the same will happen a in 2030 when you see a photo or video with black mist
Friend, please repeat 3D pop MFT leans?
Voit makes you look better no pearly filter needed and the pop is obvious
You can make the eye box lines bigger.
Not on the ZF. What's it called in the menu?
Only on z8 and z9
@@cameraconspiracies a11 not in the ZF yet.
So 3D pop is just more DOF? Watch out for carpal tunnel with the ZF + 85 1.2 combo.
Literally the opposite of what I said lol.
What did you just watch....?? Pay attention.
@@cameraconspiracies your comparison you talk about how you get a sense of depth with the grass from the 3d pop. I couldn’t see it. There was just more depth because one lens was ?wide open? and the other one wasn’t. Maybe that’s why I’m confused
@@livejames9374 It`s you, if you can`t see, it don`t bother. Depth is no 3d pop. How faster modern lenses the less 3d pop.
I hope you can at least see the gras on the voigt being much more fibrant.
@@brugj03idk if yall crazy or joking lol no the only thing shown is shallower dof with the 1.2, some busy bokeh and haziness by the voigt… im not sure what fibrant means. If you mean vibrant then no it actually looks like the voigt has less green luminance. Casey is also hazy on the voigt so the whole image looks flat despite having more dof. Thought maybe it was my calibrated monitor so I checked on a calibrated oled tv and same conclusion. Asked wife who knows nothing about any of this which looks more 3D like and she immediately said the 85 1.2. I said don’t consider blurred background in the equation… still the 85 1.2. At this point I’m convinced I’m not in on a joke.
When I shoot video, I embrace the clipping, I just make sure I'm exposing what I'm focusing on, Zebras can go do their thing elsewhere :P
Yah, I think it would be great for you to get some different gear.
I'm intrigued with the "Arty Five" lens 😅
❤❤❤
What is the science of 3d pop? How much toneh? Perfect circular toneh? Maybe a little softness? A little ringing instead? Cats eyes? Chromatic aberrations or nah?
DJI Lidar focus creator package will fix all the manual lens problems 🙃
OCD must be hell to live with lol
I miss your longer hair
New gh7!!!😂😂😂
time for a set of cine lenses for the A7S3 vs ZF
Don’t stand where the meteor will hit ☄️
I suspect you ate fruit or sushi before this video, brain no worky
Nah, both footage from the ef, rf 35 mm looked awful in this case. Made me run away backwards
You want 3D pop with af on Nikon? 58 1.4 f mount adapted. Rock and roll
It should be illegal to have that much toneh outside. By now you should be in Jail along with with Tony Northrup. Its hurts my eyes.
It’s obviously Sony if you want reliable autofocus
You’ll pick Sony.
🎉
You have an odd way of pronouncing the word ‘metrology’. It does not begin with an ‘A’.
Blurry background is overrated. There's nothing bad in a sharp background. If your background sucks, interferes with your subject etc or if your composition does not give enough "3D" hints and you're too lazy to do anything about it, then yes, shallower dof is a workaround/kind of cheat. But it looks cheap and that's not an essential thing in photography or in lenses.