>>4164447>That's the point, if there is a difference that is seen between two images on the different sides of exposure bias, focus distance, and color contrasts available in the scene to begin with, you would be able to tell without whining.No wonder you people call it ''3DPOP.'' There is no magic. The thing you're calling ''3DPOP'' is just physics. What you see in the final product is just a reflection of the lenses ability (read; glass elements in a lens) to control tonal transitions and any deviations in light reflection, refraction and diffraction from their null/neutral point, as best as possible, as well as any change of variables regarding both of the aforementioned, as best as possible.
To put it simply;
Higher budget > Better engineers and people working on lenses > More time spent manufacturing and designing > Better machines > Better materials > Better manufacturing process > Better performing lenses.
Most lenses nowadays are mass manufactured in the shortest possible time, with the cheapest possible materials/people/machines, with only aberrations and sharpness on their checklist before the product is forwarded on to quality control engineers for inspection and approved for shelves. They make up for any loss in image quality by adding extra layers of coatings and/or by adding extra glass elements to correct whatever deficiencies the lens has/had due to poor engineering. Why do they do that, you ask? Because less time spent manufacturing and engineering = more pieces made = more product shipped = more money made. In other words; Gotta' get those fiscal quarter reports for NET profit to read ''Q2 2023 = +0.002%'' because apparently having a quarter year +0.002% NET profit is more important than making a quality product! - And that's sadly how 99% of 3rd party camera and lens manufacturers nowadays - especially the ''big trio;'' Samyang, Sigma and Tamron.
Sharpness and pixel peeping is a ''be all end all'' in a lens. Not even close...
