3D Pop: WHAT IS IT? How To See It!

Some people think 3D pop doesn't exist. It can be hard to see, I'll admit. Certain scenes show it more than others. Here I will try to demonstrate a 3D pop lens vs a flat lens. Canon EF 135mm f2 and EF 85mm f1.2 vs a new modern 135mm f1.8 which is a secret. Nikon Z6 III with fringer adapter using RED luts.
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...
Instagram / vegetablepolice
Topaz Video AI for enhancing and slowing down footage! www.topazlabs....
Remove Mucoid Plaque in 1 DAY to improve digestion! zencleanz.com/...
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolic...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolic...
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlin...
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / @vegetablepolice
My MMA channel UFC Conspiracies / @ufcconspiracies

[@cameraconspiracies]

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

[@kingghidorah8106]

Hottie

[@IliasKoureas]

We all know its the viltrox 135mm on the sony lol

[@s1opp]

Just like flat Earth, the harder you explain, the less convinced I am.

[@45rpm.]

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.

[@3dtrip870]

Ha ha, now that’s hilarious!

[@EricLouisYoung]

OMG yeah! He created a magic eye 3d video

[@ElRubio864]

This is perfect hahahaha

[@BCatOccult]

It’s all about focus falloff. Smooth focus falloff equals 3d pop. Abrupt focus falloff equals green screen.

[@AABB-px8lc]

Exactly, almost linear, close to ideal diffraction pattern near focus plane.

[@agustinfilippo5451]

It was my impression as well. Thant and less obliteration of background if you ask me.

[@AprilClayton]

The Northrops say they don’t talk to people who think 3D pop is real. I’m not sad. I see the pop.

[@shadowrevival]

Yeah what can we expect from Squarespace merchant 😭

[@EmoEmu]

Probably a jab at the bald guy with all the tattoos.

[@EmoEmu]

Ken?

[@SMGJohn]

Northrops also have too much toneh so no wonder they cannot see 3D Pop.

[@LearnSpanishWorld]

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!

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

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.

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

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.

[@3dtrip870]

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.

[@schmui]

​@@Nobody-Nowhere Yes. And my 15€ 25mm C-mount lens off Amazon has it 😂 I love that little cripple glass

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

@@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.

[@ZedExGaming]

This is crazy I can actually see the pop in the nikon vs the no pop Sony damn

[@TomMinchington]

I see the pop, I think... but can't decide if it's down to the better centre contrast of the Nikon Canon combo

[@spencerl885]

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

[@IliasKoureas]

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

[@UP209D]

Time to go TTArtisan

[@IliasKoureas]

@@UP209D I have a few TTartisan lenses but I use them for my personal work. For professional work I need good AF

[@ThroughJoesLens]

The Nikon with the Canon lens looks more natural and film-like. The Sony just looks like video… 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Nuka_Gaming]

Don't let color grading fool you

[@baconcrusader8382]

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?!

[@GregCarrick]

Definitely see the pop. This is a great way to show the difference between lenses. Sell your Sony lenses immediately!

[@Nobody-Nowhere]

There is a big difference in contrast curves, that's why you see a clear difference. If the contrast curves were identical, i dont think you would really notice much. Left one has much higher contrast in the darker areas, right has lower overall contrast so it has less "pop". The only thing that can cause "3d pop" is field curvature, but contrast gives much more noticeable pop. This is why this is quite misleading.

[@sardanapalos]

@@Nobody-Nowhere so what you are saying is if you add contrast in the shadows you can fake "3d pop" ? or that there is no at all in any way?

[@AABB-px8lc]

and both have awful donut circles instead of uniform or Gaussian. Right one have it a bit more.

[@scotthime6928]

3D Pop is my new favorite, unless it goes flat. Never, ever shake it or it will go all over you.

[@LejendaryLoozer]

The emperor's clothes have so much 3d pop.

[@happiests.a.h.d3901]

I see why you like the older glass better. The character of it is beautiful, and I understand what you mean about the 3D pop. Unfortunately our world today arrives for perfection instead of character, which is why so much bad media is being produced.

[@chuckhatcher5073]

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.

[@bestcameralens]

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.

[@number1chiefROKKA]

The pop is definitely real. I bought the zeiss 55 for my a7s iii. Though the pop was more defined in your first railroad video where you were sitting down, I see it clearly here as well. I am a believer.

[@hanshart1413]

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.

[@miluna94]

That Canon 135mm looks incredible

[@LucypherMorningstar]

I see dead people in 3D pop. BT dubs, the Viltrox isn't a secret anymore! Also, it doesn't pop. Or lock.

[@jakilahmoulien9070]

one's organic, one's for flat earthers

[@Ed-davies]

Oh man that Canon 135 with the z6iii ❤❤

[@eyesee55]

Thanks this all makes sense

[@JesseHall-gd4sd]

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?

[@gamebuster800]

You know what's the worst part is? I didn't see it. I sold some "bad" lens. Now I do see it on my old pictures and I'm like: Damn. That lens is now very expensive. Maybe you should use similar colors, because the Sony and Nikon colors are widely different. To me, the Sony looks much better, but I don't see 3D pop on either (maybe on the Sony) edit: I can see it on 5:42. Notice how the leaves at the bottom right have much more definition on the Nikon than on the Sony

[@JaredHoyman]

I wonder how many people will actually know what m.k. Ultra is or operation paper clip? I thought it was common sense but I’m shocked that most are unaware.

[@MarkusSchaub]

I saw it, but maybe that’s because you pointed it out. We need a blind test.

[@jonathanscherer8567]

I can see a slight difference. The Canon EF 135mm f2 and the "new modern" 135mm f1.8 have a really similar look, with subject separation. If I weren't looking at them side by side, I'd probably have no idea. I do have to say the Sony colors look better here. And that makes more of a difference to me than the 3D pop. Which is just weird to think about. I'm surprised neither camera lost you. Focus win?

[@robertluxamafreethinker]

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.

[@charliejg]

"...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!!

[@allencrider]

I admit I can't see 3D pop on my 27 inch monitor, either in hd or 4k. Maybe it's a KZbin problem. But I do see lots of background blur and wonder if I would have stopped the lens down to f5.6 or f8.

[@minioscars1541]

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!!

[@colinhoward2200]

People on their viewing devices will not see it - only people with high bandwidth internet connections or good quality devices will. So knock yourself out spending a lot on cameras - most viewers won't even notice as the scroll through you content quickly on their phones or after KZbin has crashed the viewing experience based on the quality of the internet connection. For example - today my connection crushed you to 720p!

[@Xirpzy]

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.

[@robertwlittlejohn]

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.

[@TariqHasanAnjan]

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....

[@craigbaker6382]

The colour and contrast difference is so distracting it makes me wonder if you could make the 'flat' image pop just by grading /matching .

[@eliyadunskyy9185]

Very nice effort but for me sony image has less contrast. i personally think that was the main difference that made it really hard to appreciate the 3d pop. However there was a video on this channel with photos that you were revieving. Fuji photo of praying mantis looked poppy (it won) and it was followed by photo of some guys with guns on a mule that lacked 3d pop to a degree that they looked as if they were glued on the image in post. so i generally can spot 3d pop, not that much in this video . nikon does look more real to me though...

[@Epicreveriestudios]

GOOD GOD! The pop is real ! . Today it hit me and I seen it ! . He is right . I'm fuckin tripping bslls

[@blackmamba6938]

I've looked at the side by side a few times. Honestly, I just see more contrast on the left side, which I guess might make it look like there's more POP.

[@pauliusgrigas2653]

funny that you have to put 3D or FLAT text in each corner. If it was real than why would you do that?

[@peerlessportraits]

I'm guessing it's the same reason they label butterflies and moths in nature exhibits.

[@PJ-om2wq]

Oh wow, the Sony shot looked like you are floating in mid air, not standing on anything, in front of a green screen

[@87adinagesh]

I do see it but only just. I think the KZbin compression ruins it and renders it difficult to really see it and appreciate it

[@fromia1]

Once you adjust the White balance the footage would be indistinguishable.

[@AABB-px8lc]

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.

[@Nearest_Neighbor]

I can't believe people don't see the pop. Yet people claim they don't hear separation in audio recordings.

[@sneye1]

Of course I can see it. Close up too.

[@huasheng9695]

I'm sort of weird I could see the flatness but the pop maybe 🤔😂

[@northerncoder]

I don’t see the pop. What i see is left side is sharper and the Nikon background color contrasts more with your shirt.

[@80-80.]

Thanks to Christopher Frost for revealing the lens before he was allowed.

[@JonackFilm]

I can def. See it

[@ShadesOClarity]

The Sony looks better. Sorry. The Nikon colors just appear to be less saturated.

[@Behnam_Moghaddam]

I ain't seeing 5H1T... But this lens must be straight out of the lab

[@BearTracksFlyFishing]

Most definitely saw it in that shot with you sitting on the old train tracks

[@iforgotmyusername0]

i see someone has been watching the angry photographer lately

[@DigiDriftZone]

That's some serious 3D pop! - Must be a Viltrox lens.

[@iamionscat9035]

11:01 that's really strong, excellent 3D pop on the Sony 135mn best in the whole video. It was when you were really far away and there was scenery in front of you that the 3D pop on the Sony really took off. Here are the other times where there is good 3D pop on the Sony. I swear that you have GOOD 3D pop at 5:42 when you are standing near the tree And again at 7:44 It's when the Sony lens can grab onto part of the background and focus on it as well as you. When you are near part of the scenery it makes you pop out. Again at 7:55 you pop on the Sony (but the effects are MUCH better on the Nikon) Again at 8:37 Sony 3D pop!

[@tomino1791]

Yes, because 3d pop is strongest when there is actually less blur (that's why it's starts to pop once he's much farther away). He needs to stop down his lenses. The pop is strongest when the subject is just stlighly sharper, contrasty against the background/foreground. It also helps when the background has muted colors, the scene has depth cues (like the railroad in this example), etc..

[@GMTNeil]

I see the 3D pop, guess the world isn’t flat after all 😊

[@juliusherth]

Thats cool to see that good old Canon EF have the Pop too!!

[@Beaver-be8vk]

I still see pop even with close up headshots.

[@cjkim6796]

as defined by angry photographer, microcontrast is image fidelity n the difference in close-ups seem real enough also. good demo.

[@BCatOccult]

@@cjkim6796 Ken is a master of many things.

[@radiozelaza]

I'm sorry, I'd rather stick to my audiophile Ethernet cables and special LAN routers which widen the sonic scene from my MP3 collection

[@TheBEARofHIGHWAY1]

Best 3D pop lens with Auto Focus is the Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8. On paper it is so boring and way over priced because in your brain you think "its a nifty50!" But its not at all. Its a lens so good that it rivals GM lenses but has 3D pop. Never would have got it except for this channel ranting and raving about it and so glad I listened. 😊

[@lelandfitz1762]

How does a Canon work on a Nikon with auto-focus? Isn't that illegal or something?

[@alaintran84]

Yes, the FBI is working on the case

[@russandloz]

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.

[@vidya46]

Buying and selling gear is photography 😮..how else do i improve and take sharper pictures 😅.. Hah..i debunked your debunk.

[@iamionscat9035]

2:26 "I'm now green screened" while wearing a green shirt and in front of green plants. Hmmmm....

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

Look past the colors. You're not seeing it yet.

[@iamionscat9035]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism you can't wear a green shirt in front of a green screen without errors

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

@@iamionscat9035 True statement, but it's irreverent here. If this is what you're focusing on; you're going to miss it.

[@iamionscat9035]

@@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism it's a joke man. Look at my other comments if you are focused on the 3D Pop.

[@OneOldManRiding]

I believe "3D Pop," is nothing more than how ones brain is interpreting the separation of the in focus VS. What is in the Toneh. So it's "real" those that "see" it, and it's validly, just part of the normal image to others. - Frank

[@danncorbit3623]

Try the test with the depth of field set the same on both lenses (if they are the same focal length, that generally means the same identical aperture.). Many lenses have a depth of field scale. Sure, there is such a thing as sharpness. There is such a thing as contrast. There is such a thing as depth of field. Three D pop is meaningless. I am not saying that expensive Zeiss lenses are not good lenses. They are highly regarded, excellent pieces of engineering. But trying to compare lenses using an imaginary quantify is a waste of time. The 3D pop crowd have fallen in love with the Emporer's New Clothes.

[@blackmamba6938]

I guess I'm blind. I don't see it.

[@MatthiasBugdoll]

You really convinced me... maybe your name is vincent... BUT what lenses are out there??? TELL US!!! TEACH US!! LOVE US!?

[@iamionscat9035]

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.

[@digitaltelegraph]

I see it and now I can't unsee it!

[@DVinstapics]

Honestly I see no real difference except the color/contrast calibration of the 2. On both of them you seem like you have a green screen behind you and in the "flat" examples I prefer the Sony 100x more

[@BeauTheC.H.U.D.]

That Nikon footage is *Chef's Kiss*. All the cinema. If it popped any more it would be a fart. The Monkey Gods have blessed us all this day. All praise is due to the Nikon. May the Monkey Gods shine upon your life like they have mine. And dont give me shit about being a Nikon fanboy cultists because thats not even a thing. Losers... Anyone wanna volunteer to be the human sacrifice at our next Nikon Owners Club meeting? We've been having trouble finding willing vict... volunteers lately.

[@samuelsmith6804]

I see the pop. It is real. For a cheap lens with massive amounts of pop (sometimes, quality varies with soviet lenses) the Helios 44-2 58mm lens gives loads. Plus it has nice swirly toneh. Manual focus only

[@TungstenOvergaard]

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.

[@AABB-px8lc]

1:24 - donut circles in right half - worst shape. How dare you... Grab STM lens with apodization filter already with real gaussian circle shape. 10:50 omg they are both ugly donut fest upto "double edges". No thanks. Only Leica, Zeiss, Sigma, Sony GM, maybe some Canon L.

[@BBEEKKAY]

If you ever used Nikon in the DSLR days, a lot of their AF-D primes had 3-D pop. When they went AF-S it started getting more clinical. Abandoning AF on the D lenses was the biggest mistake Nikon made and why I went to Canon to use EF lenses.

[@drhito]

The 3D Pop is real! As an L Mount shooter, one of the most poppy lenses has been the Sigma 50mm F2 Contemporary (11 Elements, 3 Aspherical, 1 SLD), which is less than current Lerica SL lenses. On the topic of Leica, I'd like to hear your thoughts about Leica copying Sigma and Panasonic's optical formulas. Seriously , check the specifications of the lenses. (Summicron SL 35 and 50 has the same design as Lumix 35 and 50mm, Leica Zooms copying Sigma's 100-400 and now with their recently released 70-200). Standout lenses seem to be their 21, 28, and higher tiered APO lenses. Vintage/ M lenses just seem like the way to go for 3D pop.

[@claudemartin5907]

I see that the Sony has more saturation but less contrast. The Tonéh is strong in both. My honest opinion is that I first thought that the Nikon footage lacks pop and then when I saw the Sony I thought this looked even more like green screen. So I guess there is a bit more pop on the Nikon. But it's really not that much. I don't know if this really that important.

[@Isaac_SimanBrothersOutdoors]

The pop is real in this one, debating a test to see how my lineup stacks up. Granted my current lineup is weak sauce currently but looking to improve. Panasonic GH6 Sigma 16mm 1.4 Sigma 30mm 1.4 Lumix 9mm 1.7 Panleica 12-60 2.6-4 LUMIX 45-175 4-5.6 And wildcard with some vintage Pentax 50 1.8 Nikkor 50 1.4 Nikkor 135 3.5

[@dleise]

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.

[@dleise]

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.

[@ashesofourpast]

This video has taught me two things: 1) I prefer the color science on Sony over Nikon 2) I'm a snob for clinical lenses, love the sharpness and perfection

[@mikemitchell3889]

Karl Thunderfartin, was it? Excellent illustration of the pop, Karl. Does contrast seem to add a popish element (corn pop was a bad dude, like yourself, Karl) I think it's easier with a green screen, which you could do at home...and, bonus, we get to hear the neighbor's headboard slamming her bedroom wall some more. Yongnou, Karl, AF, EF mount. There's yer ticket.

[@DjCjFoto]

Yes, Canon lens definitely looks like 3D, no question. BTW, I can't wait to see your take on new nikon 50mm f1.4, I'm seriously considering that lens..

[@TheNathanMChannel]

The color differences are what I notice on the railroad shot, the bokeh is nearly identical. I think what looks good is shot composition and having multiple layers of objects within the frame at different distances offering multiple levels of blur. You did this in another video where you were squatting down on a trail. It had 3 levels at least. But as far as me understanding a quality that you see in an image which you describe as “3D pop” I am still unsure, but that’s okay. Wet plate portraits on Petzval lenses are very 3D to me, but that can be excessive. If your depth of focus is shorter than a human head it’s too much toneh imho.

[@ry_space]

Im a Voigtlander addict because of the pop. Bought a set of Sigmas and they have been sitting on the shelf since i found voigty pop. side note: if you want to see some astounding quality 3d pop i recommend watching the Aussie netflix series "Boy swallows universe". Best pop I've seen in a modern show. It got Ragnar from vikings in it also. 👍

[@galacticmex]

Now I’m a believer, the 3D pop is real, in my following shoots I’ll aim to pop hard… 😂😂😂😂😂 your reviews are hilarious

[@MikeMena]

PLEASE GET the Voity 50mm f1, it has TONYSWIRL like I’ve never seen before. We need you to confirm the pop. Or, QUESTION: do all voity lenses have pop?

[@LiveMyJourneyTom]

Honestly I didn’t see it in this comparison. I have seen it in some of my own footage in the past but if I had to put my finger on what was causing it would have been the lighting as same lens in some conditions would pop and not pop in others. After going through boat load of great but budget vintage glass I found that the lens that I’ve seen most of it in was a quite modern TAMRON 35-150 f2.8-4 for EF.

[@3dtrip870]

Some observations: the Nikon has darker darks (green shirt in shadow) than the Sony; this could be altered in post if you push contrast. The Sony is definitely clinically sharp. In video, the less clinical looks more soothing and natural. They both have some pop, but I do prefer the Nikon this time around.

[@zandtussenjetenen]

People who wear glasses are not able to spot POP.. They only can see blurred, flat images.. But hey, if you believe in fairytales you sure can believe in POP.. K-POP.. Pop your'e girl.. Regards and thanks for the nonsens again.. Love it.. Keep it coming..

[@gordon3988]

Does it even matter anymore…with AI tools you can add just about anything you want and it doesn’t matter if it’s real…like all video clips in 1950 Panavison style on KZbin. Still, your sense of humour exceeds the capabilities of AI, so far!

[@serkanonf]

Maybe due to color science causes 3d pop effect, nikon background have less vibrant colors so object infront of it pops. Sony rendering backgrounds like a green screen so no pop effect.

[@scarcesense6449]

To be honest I still have no idea what I'm supposed to be seeing. Although I do prefer the image on the Nikon in this example. Also, well done on the colour coordination: the bag and the shirt with the turning leaves. Perfect!