Pentax 67 vs Zeiss/Leica 3d effect

[jett]

OK, I know that these are two different systems/formats, but I'm interested in the "3D effect"...not to be confused with bokeh or real shallow DOF as it usually occurs in the middle-wide apertures with wide-normal lenses.

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/008vML

I've read that this effect is most pronounced with Zeiss/Leica lenses because of their ridiculously high micro-contrast.

Most people shoot small format so I haven't heard much about this effect on the MF SLR's. Since medium format offers more negative, you'd expect more tones (which I assume equates to micro-contrast), so would this effect be as equally obtainable with the Pentax 67 lenses assuming good photographic technique.

 

[rlouzan]

Nahh ... sidelight , perspective, selective focus, lens aberrations and color/size contrast.

 

[jsrockit]

Perhaps a Hassleblad... with Zeiss glass. 😉

 

[chrishayton]

If you want pronounced '3d' look a pentax 67 and the 105mm F2.4 lens is hard to beat. Its a wonderful picture making machine (terrible camera however.....)


Louve by chrishayton, on Flickr


Effel tower (Le tour de effel) by chrishayton, on Flickr

A couple off my flickr showing shallow DOF at distance (something I have never been able to do with a 35mm camera, I used to have a 50mm 1.1 that couldn't replicate that.)

 

[Paddy C]

Chris, the photo of the Louvre (which I recall from the RFF 67 thread) is one of the most 3-D photos I've ever seen.

And I agree that the 105 can produce some amazing images if this is what you're interested in. (Note that it can produce lots of other types of image really well.)

 

[redisburning]

I agree that it requires technique but I think gear can help/hinder.

If I wanted the '3D' look I wouldn't be looking at Canon/Nikon, for example.

I've seen some pentax 67 shots that I think have that look but what do you want the camera for? A 'blad is considerably more carry friendly although, of course, the negative is smaller.

 

[gavinlg]

There are a couple of things that create this '3d pop' effect.

1. Format size, lighting and aperture. The bigger the format (for instance the 6x7 pentax 67), the more it will happen. The light must be good, and the aperture must be fairly open.

2. Good lenses - On my 5d I found that Zeiss ZE lenses definitely do the '3d pop' thing more than the canon lenses, not all the time, but sometimes conditions will just be perfect for it, and it will happen in a way that the japanese lenses can't do.

By far though, format size is the most important thing. if you want crazy '3d' looking photos with shallow depth of field, get a pentax 6x7 and 105mm takumar and don't look back.

 

[maclaine]

I think it's possible to get it with smaller formats as well. Here's a shot with the Voigtlander 40mm Nokton at maybe f/2.8 or f/4. It helps to have the background be at a distance, at least if you're shooting 35mm.

 

[x-ray]

Lighting, dark / light subject/ background and selective focus not the make of the lens.

 

[redisburning]

see I think what gets you the effect is using an aperture that is close to your eyes and including enough of the ground so that you can see it transition slowly to out of focus.

from what I can gather looking at photos myself is that the closer it is to what you would naturally have seen when you were there the greater the chance of getting that effect is. lighting helps, too.

I used to think there was a medium format "look" and was pretty disappointed when my own MF negs came back flat looking. Then I went back and looked really hard and saw that it was that I was missing some elements, and when I replicated those in 35mm I got what I wanted.

One of these days Ill go back to MF. The Pentax 67 shots are impressive but I've learned now to control for user skill by comparing bodies of work against each other instead of individual photos, and to look at the results of the less talented individuals with that equipment.

 

[uhoh7]

Strong 3D is seldom attractive to me, rather it is a distraction which seems like a special effect. But not always. Above is the canon LTM 100/3.5 showing some, but not extreme 3D.

No film camera is going to produce 3D like digital because of the grain. I think if you look back you might find the whole 3D ethos is something which mainly arose as digital cameras got good.

canon LTM 85/1.5

Leica 50/2

All you really need is a sharp lens, some DOF isolation, and a very clean, noise less image. What you get looks unusual, but seldom better than a nice film shot of the same--usually worse. IMHO

The human eye does not see like that, which is why it is striking. Our 3D is the real thing, not a superimpostion.

 

[bolohead]

I really think though that it is not format/lens specific but more to do with composition, lighting and slight OOF areas in the foreground and/or background. This was with a CV 21mm Skopar on an M8.

 

[fotomeow]

Lighting, dark / light subject/ background and selective focus not the make of the lens.

Agreed. It also depends on how you define "3D effect". After reading the above posts, it seems that there are assumptions about what "3D effect" is, or how you mean it.
I am not saying I have a definitive definition, but the OP may want to describe what they mean by "3D effect", so we are all on the same page.

I did also go to the link provided by the OP, and I posted below one of the writers responses, which I more or less agree with.

Jonathan - , Jul 21, 2004; 05:40 a.m.
I believe I sometimes see the 3D effect you are describing, but only when there is a gradual -- as opposed to abrupt -- transition between image planes in the picture.

Such a gradual transition arises, I suspect, from the combination of three factors:

1. a moderately wide aperture -- say, f4, as you suggest -- so that there is a separation of the plane of the principal subject from other planes, but not the abrupt separation that might be rendered by f2 or wider;

2. a lens with pleasant rendition of out-of-focus planes, which might explain why you are more likely to see the 3D effect with certain generations of Leica lenses; and

--here's the often-neglected factor --

3. a subject matter that lends itself to being rendered in 3D; i.e, one with multiple images planes that are not extremely far apart, so that the difference between in-focus and out-of-focus can be noticeable but subtle.

 

[filmfan]

I have seen similar results in 35mm from some Canon L primes (50mm 1.2) on film, or maybe even the Contax G 45mm lens? Anyways, the Pentax photos always impress me but the camera is gigantic and I would never end up getting to use it.

 

[koven]

FUJI X100

 

[Keith]

Have a look at some of the images in the 'Pentax 67 Gas' thread. The ones from Gian with the 105mm f2.4 are as good as anything you'll see IMO.

 

[Frank Petronio]

The larger format will exponentially increase your ability to create that 3-D look over the qualities of any particular lens.

 

[gavinlg]

The larger format will exponentially increase your ability to create that 3-D look over the qualities of any particular lens.

Yep - 100%.

I was always able to get a few '3d' looking shots out of each roll with 6x7. 35mm - film or digital - I get a particularly 3d shot every now and then. I got more with zeiss glass. m4/3 I very rarely got 3d shots. GRD never gives me 3d shots.

It's not just the fact that the larger the format, the more subject separation and less DOF, it's got to do with tonalities and graduations. Spacial rendering, I like to call it. The larger the format, the better it does it. Some lenses definitely do it more than others.

 

[Keith]

I remember this was one of the first photos I took with my Crown Graphic and one of the first I had ever taken where I felt I could walk into the scene ... LF is the bomb for 3D effect IMO!

 

[Snowbuzz]

^ Niiice! What film? Thnx.