>>4088460when we say flat, we dont mean tones, we mean flat as in lacking depth,
e.g leaves on a tree being rendered as if they were all on the same focal plane instead of being infront of and behind of each other aka no depth/dimension of objects in the image.
or e.g eyes/clothes/skin of a person being rendered with depth, with dimension, even if shot from very far away, instead of being rendered like they are on the same plane as the person aka. no depth/dimension of objects in the image.
>>4088165you're that anti3d samefag that keep spamming here. GM lenses have amazing rendering, not flat at all and here's the reason why: Sony was in a legal contract collaboration with Zeiss from 2011 up until 2018 or so, when Sony decided to fuck up their partnership by doing side deals with Tamron, so then Zeiss cancelled their contracted partnership with Sony. Sony literally had legal but somewhat restricted access to Zeiss manufacturing secrets for over 6 years and the only reason why GM lenses even exist in the first place, is because of Zeiss. All of the GM lenses were made by Sony based on Zeiss manufacturing standards that they had access to while they were under partnership contract with Zeiss. Same goes for some of the cheaper Sony lenses, like the 50mm and 85mm 1.8 that were made in 2016 and 2017, both of these cheap lenses were made by Zeiss manufacturing standards, that's why they render so good, even though they cost only 300-400 EUR. also same applies to all of the ''ZA'' aka. Zeiss Approved lenses Sony made.
>>4088182false. the reason why some lenses render depth better IS because of amazing longitudinal aberration control and just overall aberration control, smooth contrast rendering, smooth and gradual saturation rendering, etc.
