Reading mode: Light Dark

An Observation (LX3)

Go to last post
Without reading all the replies (I will read some) I can say that in the example of the 5D vs. ZD that the two images don't match perspective. You say the ZD looks deeper and it will because there is a visual pathway to the white sky beyond but in the 5D that path is closed. Also look at the pathway itself. The path is blocked by a tree in the 5D but the path winds around in the ZD.

In short, this is an example of using composition to give the ILLUSION of depth. The angle used on the ZD gives the eye a path through the forest to the sky and the 5D image does not.

Some of the images posted on the Nikon and Canon forums are from very wide lenses that give the illusion of more depth. Possibly the LX3's widest setting doesn't compare to those really wide lenses. Many shots I see on the Nikon forum are from the 14-24mm.

The LX3 images look great to me.
 
Another quality or factor of digital imaging is the conversion software. We have seen that a jpeg from one camera isn't as good as one from another etc. I have converted a RAW in several different programs and had major color differences in certain colors that couldn't be corrected.

These converters analyze the data and can make some colors come closer together than they should and that can give a "flat" look to the colored areas instead of subtle tones.

I've seen images where the reds or oranges -- even yellows were blown out and yet the rest of the tones were normally exposed.

We are now shooting with computers -- the real answer to your problem is to shoot film -- it is flat out better.
BC

http://www.connerphoto.com
 
I have he 5D as well and I commented already on those shots you posted. You are mistaken that there is anything such as "3D" shot with a single lens. It is all 2Dimnesional as is film and print. There is an ILLUSION of "3D" created by lighting and composition. Flash on camera will tend to erase the cross light that gives the illusion and will make the shot flat. Shooting in low contrast light like shade and overcast will make the shot flat. Shooting with too much depth of field will make the shot flat.

If you want to pick at anything it is the micro detail which the bayer sensors lack. Foveon gives more but it is also a small sensor. Cameras like Nikon D3X and 5DMKII give more by simply piling on more MP.

Film lacks convenience but it is brilliantly engineered, shows detail down to extinction and doesn't need software to bend the data into shape.
 
I think there are several factors at play.

1. Small sensor shooters are not usually pros at composition and lighting.

2. Not shooting RAW

3. Not using the most advanced RAW processing software.

4. Lenses not as wide as those with Nikon and Canon FF.

5. Lenses usually built in and not costing $2000.

6. Dynamic range of sensor is less recording fewer tones.

7. More MP means more micro detail.

I'm sure there are more. I shot 8x10 film for 11 years and just about any image I see is a joke compared to that -- but I use digital professionally knowing it could always be better.

With digital the latest greatest camera makes the last latest greatest camera look bad but seldom do we see direct comparisons between the latest greatest digital and a film camera.

This link compares 1950's Kodak Retina to Nikon D3 with 24-70mm (one of their best) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

BC
 
Verve,,,

A quick response,

I suspect that you understand personal perception and that of ones ability to speak about that in a way that neither forces someone to agree or not to agree. This is not coming across. Many photographers do not perceive the examples shown that way, some do, and some don't care yet hate that you poop on their precious little camera. For the record, I own an LX3, love it, don't poo poo its quality. : )

1st, lets look at what is involve in the perception of 3d in a 2d environment. Line, shape, color, value, texture, light and at the very least controls of the camera, angle of view, aperture, and exposure, all play the primary roll in determining our perception of that 3d quality you speak of. Most of these are independent of the camera and come from the vision of the photographer, which is why learning to see is just as, if not more so, important than all other aspects when learning photography.

What cameras give you is a variety of size formats for you to choose from while making an image. This can have an affect on a "3d look", but it is more in the resolving power and detail that the larger film/sensor can capture. Just as 35mm film made improvements in grain size and structure that narrowed the quality gap to the next increased format size, so too has the smaller sensor cameras in regards to the FF sensor cameras.

But this alone does not make a 2d image look more 3d like.

penn
--
http://theobservantimagist.wordpress.com/
 
djedi said:
your first image has some depth, but the dark one does not.
Also, if you do not want to "put in the time" to actually try and
follow what the posters are trying to say, perhaps you might not
understand.
Further, unless you have ever shot an 8X10 Chrome and seen a 3 X 4
foot blowup thereof, you might not get it anyway.
Djedi
--
Old timer
Click to expand...
Ok so I'm ignorant to the ways of 8x10 chrome.. Is there no scans of such online so that those of us less fortunate could see what we're trying to understand? Or does it lose this 3D effect somewhere along the way to the screen or when printed @ less than mural sizes?

Is there other pocket-cams that exhibit this 8x10 chrome 3D effect, on screen or in normal print sizes? Is what's being complained about from the OP exclusive to the LX3? Is this 3D effect prevalent in an 8x10 chrome regardless of angle of view to the subject or scene being captured? To what does the LX3 owe such lofty expectations?
Do any of the following resemble anything in question?































--
djedi said:
djedi said:
The Amateur Formerly Known as 'UZ'pShoot'ERS' 'Happy Shootin' Comments, Critique, Ridicule, Limericks, Jokes, Hi-jackings, EnthUZIastically, Encouraged... I Insist!



* rrawzz'a'gmail'dot'com * http://www.pbase.com/rrawzz *
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Lx3Fz50Fz30C8080wzE100rsC2100uz
 
is the human brain. It performs heavy post-processing on the signals that come from the retinas. Tremendous "data compression" is involved, and the analog nature of the system makes it highly unreliable. Emotion and expectation play major roles. The fault, dear Verve is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

On the other hand, you might be picking up on color rendering subtleties, and if so, the problem could be that the LX3's color is actually too accurate - less saturated than most consumer digicams and even some DSLRs. The LX3 image "look" can be adjusted.
 
LOL! That argument presents a double edged sword and could cut the other way as well. Being that the 3 dimensional world is not "1",s & "0"s I'd suggest it may cut against you.

I didn't come up on consumer digital or DSLRs.
What happens when color is removed from the equation (image)
and the appearance is still 2D? :o lol..

V
 
Sharpness is also related to image size. Expect something to become softer as the image size increases.

For instance when I did a test photo of crosshair reticle through an eyepiece with 35mm, I could get the crosshair sharp but with 4x5 it was so unsharp it was invisible.

Also when shooting 8x10 film if I couldn't pull focus -- I would just reduce to 4x5 film and then be able to pull the focus with the same F stop.

Another example is shooting a table top of food. On 35mm, F16 may be good enough to get everything sharp but with 8x10 be prepared to shoot at f64 (and with a bunch more light).

So as one moves up on the sensor size there should be objects that become more unsharp that appeared to be sharp on the small sensor. That may be what is seen in the difference with medium format vs. FF vs. half frame (more areas sharp as size decreases).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top