Fuji GFX100s and "THAT" MF look

[mristuccia]

I usually don’t get camera lenses made of window glass.

True , but I still think that any passive element cannot add, only subtract.

 

[Makten]

True , but I still think that any passive element cannot add, only subtract.

Well, just look at the transmission figures of old versus new lenses. The modern ones are in most cases better, despite a lot of elements.
Sure there might be a certain "look" from lenses with few elements, but since they also often have inferior coatings, high contrast is usually not what they are associated with.

 

[schuster]

Speaking of windows, many years ago, a photographer friend insisted on putting a "protective" UA filter on all of his lenses. I claimed that the side of the flat glass filter that faced the lens, reflected-back the reflection that bounced off the front surface of the lens, and that bounced back through the aperture and made the exposure, sort of like a compressed letter "Z." He was even more of a nit-picker than I, and a week later, he called and said he tested his favorite sharpest glass with, and without the UA filter, and yes, the unfiltered image was razor sharp, and the filtered image not so much. "But," he said, "I like the filtered image better." His filter test was a portrait in the studio. He said that the "painterly" look that his clients liked, wasn't there with the unfiltered images, but was there with the filtered ones. A few days later, he brought the negs over to my place and we projected them onto the wall. No doubt about it, the edges of the filtered images had a "ghost" around the edges, which apparently was the secret sauce behind his "painterly" images. His portrait and product work had that effect, which you might call "pop" or 3D.

 

[Makten]

His portrait and product work had that effect, which you might call "pop" or 3D.

I think this only proves that "pop" and "3D" means totally different things to different photographers (or viewers). To me, it sounds like the opposite of "pop", but it's of course only a matter of opinion.
When I think of those terms, this is what I see: Deepish DOF but very rapid falloff to background blur, at relatively large focus distance. And it doesn't have to be a lot of background blur; just enough for separation.

Like this, with the little GF 50/3.5...

 

[dougpeterson]

I think the difference is from decisions made by the designers of the entire image chain.

This is the answer – right there as the first answer to the post!

No one factor is responsible for the cumulative effect of the visceral, tactile, dimensional, beautiful rendering of a Phase One camera (or for the unique rendering of any given camera system).

Heck, it's even hard to find the right words to describe the effect, and not everyone is seeing the same thing let alone describing it the same way.

Each design decision contributes, and the whole may well be greater than the sum of its parts.

It's like asking what one single factor makes a great car feel so nice to drive – yes, you can point to specific technical differences, but ultimately its the cumulative effect of hundreds of design decisions. And not everyone will agree that car is nice to drive, and not everyone will use the same words to describe what they feel when they drive it even among those who feel the same thing.

That doesn't mean it's unfruitful to continue searching/discussing/testing to see what factors are most impactful to you – as you've done by looking for alternative lenses for your new camera that get you closer to that feeling you wanted. It just means that any explanation made by someone that isolates a single variable as "THE" reason for "THE" look of a given camera system is inherently wrong.

 

[OleBe]

Let us make a list?

I am getting the most 3D looking results with following input parameters:

- huge dynamic range (this is where the bigger sensor play their game in my experience, the more f-stops the better)
- shallow depth of field with the main characteristics like Makten described it above
- contrast (not only) in terms of light and dark, but also might apply for colors
- atmospheric depth i.e. haze/fog

Last but not least, one extremely important part seems to be the lighting angle, however this applies for all cameras, 90-135° off axis in relation to camera and subject. In the cinematography/theatre world they would call it upstage lighting.

...to be continued