>>4089148Shut the hell up... He made perfect sense.
>if you only could grasp how much this sounds FUCKING STUPIDWhat exactly that he said, ''sounds FUCKING STUPID''? Elaborate precisely, please.
>>4088900 He explained this pretty fucking well and universally easy to understand, actually the best laymans explanation in this entire god forsaken thread.>I wish I could hear you say that stupid bullshit to someone who actually understands opticsHear him say what exactly? Once again, you will have to elaborate yourself more precisely. He's literally explaining to you the best way he can, why Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica and Hasselblad lenses (as well a small number of lenses from other manufacturers) render depth and object separation better than lenses that were purposefully engineered not to do so. In fact, just like one anon said, Voigtlander and Hasselblad have quite literally proven with all of their lenses made in the past 10 years, that a lens can be engineered for both precise sharpness on high resolution sensors and for that so called ''3D'' aka. real life like rendering, not just one or the other - and I can say the same for Leica and Zeiss as well. Leicas new lenses are tack sharp as well and so is all Zeiss glass for Sony E mount system. So I'm pretty fucking sure that entire engineering teams in Zeiss, Hasselblad, Voigtlander and Leica, would pretty much confirm this AND they would also use the proper vocabulary and scientific terms to explain it too...
>>4088900>especially the first two images of trees, in one image you can clearly tell which leaf is behind/in front of other leaves on the tree, leaves relative distance to each other, their shapes, their separation and you can clearly tell apart each leaf from one another without straining your eyes or without having to resort to pixel peeping.>on the sigma tree example, you can barely tell the tree in front from that one tree in the back.this two sentences pretty much explain this entire thread
