>>4087119But the Shitma and Tamshit poorfags will still claim that their poorfag lenses render depth the same as the nikons 58mm nokton or leicas 90mm summilux or zeiss 50mm distagon or 35mm apo asph voigt for example...
You can take 10,000 images with a lens that renders depth nicely, all taken in different lighting, different times of day, different times of the year, different weather, different everything, overexposed, underexposed, doesn't matter... And every single little thing in the image, down to the smallest detail, would have depth to it.
And then you can do the same with a Shitma lens. You can take 10,000 images with a lens that renders depth nicely, all taken in different lighting, different times of day, different times of the year, different weather, different everything, overexposed, underexposed, doesn't matter... And every single little thing in the image, down to the smallest detail, would lack depth.
That's also why that retard who keeps asking for a side by side makes no sense. Literally browse Flickr groups by lens and look at images. Pick e.g Shitma 105mm f1.4 and then pick e.g Voigtlander 35mm APO ASPH and literally every single image in the Shitma group will be flat as fuck and not a single item, not a single thing in the image will have depth to it, even with perfect studio lighting and strobes and flashes... And then look at Voigtlander 35mm APO ASPH group and literally even the shitty overexposed snapshots from 90 year old grandpas will have depth to them because like you said; the lens renders depth better!
>pic relatedHere is an overexposed shitty snapshot by some rando on Flickr, literally one of the first terrible shots I could find in that group, shot with the aforementioned 35mm voigt and YOU CAN STILL SEE THE DEPTH OF EACH AND EVERY FUCKING LEAF AND BRANCH ON THAT TREE, AS WELL AS THE DISTANCE OF EACH BRANCH FROM THE OTHER. THEY ARE NOT RENDERED FLAT LIKE THEY ARE SLAPPED ONTO ONE ANOTHER 0.001mm DISTANCE FROM EACH OTHER!
