You guys are not idiots, and don't look like idiots. I love you guys. I know you do your best to be honest and that's what I'm looking for. I COUNT on you guys to state any reason(s) for bias, and to be as honest as possible. Thanks for your integrity.
Yeah. Integrity is one of the hardest things to find today. I'd be entirely okay with you guys getting payed for a review IF you also had the ability to be entirely honest about the gear. I obviously want my favourite reviewers to be able to put food on their table.
Chelsea is obviously sponsored by Tony and Tony is obviously sponsored by Chelsea. You both must have had your coffee today, you're in such a good mood. Had a nice time watching this episode, thanks!
Correct me but im wrong, but at the same aperture, even when we have different sensor sizes, the light should be equal right? I mean sure, we can't expect a phone to be able to get blurry backgrounds with an f/1.8 lens like a FF camera would, but it should capture as much light as a dslr f1.8 lens right? Thus, making it better in low light! I think people would be even more confused if we started rating it based on the depth of field, in proportion to 35mm sensor ( f/16 and such )
I remember you telling a story about YT camera reviewer who accidentaly send his prices for positive reviews in a group email instead of replying directly to the camera company. This whole influencer business unfortunately will always exist.
Re: influencers-I have to say I love how you guys never just say you love something. You always gives the pros & cons of items & what they’re best for & worst for & let people decide for themselves based on their needs.
As a 55 year old in the Lawn & Landscape field, nothing is more frustrating or evident than the role "influencers" play. There are some extremely talented young people crushing it in any and all fields, but a camera, a drone, a RUclips channel and 50k subs shouldn't drive my industry. And, to your Apple example, tech, in general, companies are not putting dollars into R&D to bring about long lasting, value added improvement, they change a look, or color to come out with a different model each year. This is not Cutting Edge, it's not Bleeding Edge, tech to mech, it's merchandising of the lowest order. Great video
Its good you guys pointed out the shortcomings of a phone camera. Its obvious the a pin size sensor is not a full frame sensor. Its not physically possible.
1 tenth of 1 percent of people buying cameras actually want to or care about vlogging. Every RUclipsr who reviews cameras is ensuring every camera that comes out has a flippy screen and video features I don't want. 99%+ of people don't want or actually need these features and
well for most vlogs: The audio is SOO much more important than the video. Always think where the key information is, if you talk, then it's audio, even blurry video with clean audio will do. Unless you have key information in ur video, then need u sharp video,... in the example of this video here, ... if video quality would much less it wouldn't matter, but if the audio would be shit it would be un"watchable" ;) ,....
two ways of looking at the X times zoom factor: 1) the human vision is comparable with a 50mm lens. A 10 times zoom (i.e. of common binoculars) is therefore the equivalent of a 500mm zoom lens. 2) factor = maximum focal length / minimum focal length. I have an old Sony cam corder with an optical zoom of 20x. The lens says 3.6mm - 72mm focal length. 72/3.6 = 20 (of course the focal length value can't be compared to a full frame camera lens, as the chip on this old cam corder has for sure a pretty high crop factor). It also says it has an 80 times digital zoom, which is of course absolute bogus.
@Tony ok, so I’ve been doing some research to try to answer my own question about aperture and sharpness in response to this video: How can I know what my lens is actually with the crop factor in mind? Here we go... So I am rocking a Panasonic GH5 (x2) with an active Metabones EF - MFT mount T Speedbooster XL (x0.64) with a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Because the metabones is active it tells me the “f/stop” of my lens. When my lens is wide open the GH5 tells me I’m at f/2.5 = 4*0.64 but as you informed me that only half of the equation... I then need to account for the crop factor of my sensor thus my “f/2.5” * 2 = f/5 If you would please help me figure this out, is this setup as sharp as the full frame equivalent? GH5 setup f/2.5 @24mm subject about 2 meters (full frame equivalent f/5 @30mm)
Stacking has the same problem as the image stabilization that everyone seems to love nowadays, and even tripods. None of these solutions apply to the subject.
I don't know how we always have the same ideas. Just kidding, I wiretapped your apartment. I'm eager to hear your thoughts on bias in reviews. We've seen you get a lot of blowback for telling the truth several times and know how that feels from first-hand experience. ~Chelsea
At first I failed to recognize why this video is so stimulating, and then I noticed Tonys pants! I really do appreciate what you guys do, keep up the good work!
I think when phone manufacturers talk about f stop, they usuallly big up the phone's low light performance as opposed to blur. So I think that's a reasonable degree of honesty.
Probably, but it is also misleading. They advertise a full frame equivalent focal length like 28 mm, but an f-stop that has not been adjusted accordingly. The phone doesn't have low light performance like a full frame 28 mm f1.8. It has low light performance like a full frame 28mm f13 or something. The f stop is useless information if you don't know the crop factor. Even phones have different sensor sizes so you cannot compare phones just by f-stop.
Even that could be misleading. A 25 mm f/1.7 t/2.2 on micro four thirds equals a 50 mm f/3.4 t/4.4 on full frame in field if view, depth of view and total light transmitted onto the sensor (and thus: low light performance). When crop factor is applied to the focal length, it should also be applied to t-stop (and f-stop).
@@ChristianKoehler77 t-stop is not effected by sensor size, noise performance is. Tony made a video about that. That's part of the reason why cinema lenses use t-stop and not f-stop.
It's almost amusing to see how smartphone companies keep saying that the gap between smartphones and pro cameras is getting narrower, but, in reality, that only happens in daylight and almost perfect light conditions. And, even then, if you try to print those photos you will clearly see the difference. One thing very few people are talking (and I admit the Tony is one of the few that does) is the role of computational photography and how it will widen the gap once camera companies begin to adopt it as much as smartphone companies are doing. In my night photography I certainly notice the giant gap between these two photo "platforms".
The Night Camera, newsflash: most people only take photos in daytime, and almost nobody prints photos anymore. Certainly few people under 40. What we’re back to is like the 1970s: ILCs were only used by actual photographers, a tiny minority of the people taking photos.
Just check out google pixel’s night mode... sure, it’s computational, but the devs working on smartphones are better than those working on cameras so... the gap will close
I agree, there are too many people shilling for products/companies. I see tons of "reviews" on amazon and other sites where the last line of the review says something like, "I am making this review as part of a promotion" or "I received this product for free in exchange for this review", and every one of those "reviews" were good for the product, at least they stated their review was in exchange for a free product, but how are you supposed to trust them? You can't really.
the whole influencer thing is always interesting the Manufacturers "artisans" and "explorers" etc - you know that they have some relationship and benefits, and yet often lead people to believe that they're completely unbiased Pretty difficult to think thats the case.... I like that you guys just draw a line in the sand and get your sponsorship from a non-related party, saves a lot of explanation!
I've had phones with f/1.7 aperture, and you do get the shallow depth of field... IF you shoot to scale. Meaning, since you have a tiny lens, tiny sensor, you have to shoot something tiny or up close to get that shallow focal plane. I've done it. Same thing with those bridge cameras with the super huge zoom ranges and 2.8 aperture. Their sensor size is small, thus the math works to scale.
#2 While I agree with Tony's outrage, I really wouldn't worry too much about it. Most people who buy a smartphone _for_ the camera have no clue what an f-stop is anyway. Anyone with even just a little experience with DLSRs/lenses will know better than to expect the same DOF from a small lens.
We owned a GE dishwasher that CR rated very low. When we needed to replace it we bought the highest rated CR dishwasher. Needless to say the GE worked far better then the piece of cr*p we’re stuck with now.
Yea, Consumer Reports is not that trustworthy. Their ratings are pretty suspect if you know anything about the subject. My go to on this is probably 7 years ago now, they were rating laptops by screen size. Now, that isn't irrelevant, but @ 13" they were comparing a Macbook with a consumer HP. Of course the Macbook "won", but it was $1300 compared to $650. That's kind of a no duh moment. The other problem there is that back then, a Mac really didn't run the same software as a PC, and that was IMHO far more relevant than screen size. Also, it basically in several groups "won", including 15" IIRC, but they were never comparing like price to like price - i.e not one ThinkPad for instance. I started to notice this with other stuff I researched, like they would weight one thing really high and discount something else, but not really explain that. Like 3 years ago Speed Queen washing machines would get horrible ratings because they used a lot of water, and had simple controls and design, but get no points for being 2-3 times as solidly built, and built in the USA and 5 year warranties and expected 20 year lifetimes compared to Samsungs etc... This is fine if you're looking for high efficiency in water use, but maybe not fine if you want long lasting washing machines. I'd probably have rated them equivalent - one tried and true and likely to last 20 years and one high tech and likely to last 5 years. Choose what it is you want. And this goes even further in general with BIAS - even if you're not paid, you'll likely have different values than some reviewers. I.e. some reviewers just say "don't bother" unless the camera is Full Frame, and some go further and say if it's not Sony right not, it's not worth buying. But that's obviously not true to say there are no good APS-C or MFT cameras. Sometimes the cost is more important (hello to anyone doing it as a hobby). And on and on, it's what you're weighting and how. All the "Canon is bad due to Video" is so much noise if you only shoot stills. . . .
@@jamespulver3890 Couldn't agree with you more. I'm a car guy and was noticing some odd discrepancies with CR's ratings when I did the math and realized that EVERYTHING had the same value. They didn't weight the severity of problems. A busted piece of plastic was the same as a leaking valve cover. I wrote them many times to get an answer on this and they never responded. They are an okay source of info but if anyone is using CR for their ONLY source of info they are screwed.
One thing about lens reviews in particular I've always thought of as problematic is sample variation. A company that sends out a copy of a lens to a reviewer will likely triple check that it's a "good copy". If that company generally doesn't have great quality control though, sample variation might be large. A customer can't guarantee that he'll get a good copy when he buys the lens, so they might get a product that's not even physically in line with what the reviewer(s) tested.
Companies also sponsor influencers based on that persons established preference toward that brand's product. Such ambassadors are cheerleaders --- not to be confused with reviewers.
While sitting in my fabulous BMW X1 that is the ultimate driving experience, I thought about your claims concerning "influencers." Cradling the Fujifilm T3 in my arms with Fuji's amazing 50mm f1.2 (and yes, that might actually be the 35 mm equivalency correct f stop, you will never convince me otherwise) , sipping my Starbucks's Sumatra I asked myself does this problem actually exist? I phoned a close friend of mine on my Google Pixel 3 XL with an amazing camera to hear his experience in the camera industry. He said if I sent him $100 he would give me the truth of influencers. After sending a $100 money order from the best bank in Canada - The Bank of Montreal - via UPS, I can always depend on them, my friend told me what I wanted to hear (even though I wasn't wearing my Resound hearing aid): "Rick, No!! There are no influencers." So there you have it.
Important to note that the laws about disclosing sponsorship are US laws. A youtuber may be based in Canada, Europe or somewhere else and completely different laws may apply. People should also be cautious about reviews where the reviewer gets an early copy of a product to review. A reviewer might have the tendency to make a positive review in order to maintain a good relationship with the company, so that in the future they are still allowed to make early reviews and thus have content to earn money off. Basically, the only reviews one can trust is the ones from sources that do not make money from the reviews directly, or sources that sell reviews to consumers.
Great show, thank you. My fav reply for blurry cell pictures: When somebody says oh I see some really cool lights in the sky. Then they respond with it: " You should have taken a picture you had your cell phone " or " Why is this so blurry, I can't tell what it is.? I tell people go outside and take a picture of a bird about 4 or 5 truck lengths away from you. Then look at that photo and zoom in on it....now how's your detail.? Cell phone cameras are good in the house or in a vehicle.
In the film industry, it is called "product placement"...in my business, fashion, beauty, it is called "advertorials" or "co-branding". You could be paid for an advertorial, but you wouldn't want to call it a review. You could present an expose or a feature about a camera or product that is basically an infomercial or advertorial. But the people watching your vlog would know it was produced by the manufacturer. Just another advertising break in your vlog post. Oh and by the way, I have been sponsored by the likes of Canon, Fujifilm (in the real film days), Agfa and Pentax and in all cases, they approached me. I did not have to promote their products, but I certainly did nonetheless just by virtue of using them. 🙂
As for vlogging, would not the DJI Osmo Pocket be a good choice. I di not k ow if you could use an external microphone, but with active tracking of your face I would think it would solve the framing issue, and perhaps even focus issue. You could also connect a phone an check the focus. A 360 camera might also be good, but may pose a challenge in regards to microhphone input and focus.
Not a "lie" per se, but it bugs me when a company says their camera has X number of stops sensor stabilization, but fail to mention except in the fine print that that's only true when paired with a specific focal length or based on particular axes. Take Sony for example. They claim the A7III has 5 stops of stabilization. Testing (including my own) shows that IBIS alone can usually provide 3 stops of stabilization in general use when you don't have a stabilized lens. The fine print on the full spec sheet actually tells you that the 5-stop numbers are based on pitch and yaw only with the 50mm F1.4 ZA. So sure, it may be true that it'll give you 5-stops of stabilization, but only really in the best case scenario with a particular focal length. (For the record, I've tested it at 35mm and between 80 and 300mm. None of the lenses themselves were stabilized.)
Did you hear the story of the two slightly deaf old ladies who went to have their portrait taken? t They sat there for some time while the photographer set his camera. One old lady says, what is he doing Min. He is trying to focus Annie. What both of us Min? (Think about it)
Good discussion and topic. It's about integrity. Your reputation is worth more in the long run. Nothing wrong with doing a paid product "Show Case" if you're honest about it. A real review is when you share your honest opinion. Like when you buy it yourself and don't have to please a sponsor. Keep calling it out, especially the laws on being incentivised. Even the company sales rep may not know.
Chelseamakes a great point about bias and awareness, and it applies to all media or marketing; if only people understand this point more, Fake News won't be such a problem. with any news or reviews, we should never stake our decisions souls on third party sources of information.
In terms of how much light the sensor gets per mm^2, the f-stop actually tells you exactly what you would expect. The crop factor doesn't matter for this. It only matters for depth of field. If you'd take a picture with a full frame camera at 25 mm f/2.8 ISO100, you would get approximately the same result in terms of exposure as with the 5-115 mm camera at 5 mm, f/2.8, ISO 100. It would be incredibly inconvenient if they would actually sell it as a 5-115. The focal length does look like a 25-600 because of the crop factor. People are used to see focal lengths as a full frame equivalent - and this makes sense, because like that they can easily be compared.
3:38 Why is that?... I think it's because the microphone is so "built in" and plastic around is it obstructing it and so forth. I mean, microphones generally want to be exposed. - And even though I'm into audio, I'm not 100% sure about the following, but I think microphone diaphragms "need" to be larger for better quality. Not necessarily, it's also a sound-character thing, but I can imagine tiny microphones just not having a proper "resolution" in terms of capturing sound-waves. - There is a thing with audio in that "larger is better". For example, larger tuber or transistors or transformers will give arguably better sound. Larger speakers and cabinets as well... I mean, we're talking about vlogs with cameras, streamed through the internet and usually played on mobile speakers if not earbuds and occasionally better headphones, so it's not THAT critical. But I'm just saying, cameras (and other mobile devices) probably have tiny microphones in them that don't get the space they need. - On top of that, it's also a case of placement and how the sound is hitting the microphone and so forth, which is really particular stuff, so yea...
It's Only Me that is logical. When you go shopping you look for what is best. So you look at stuff on which you already agree is good. When you get it home and it isn't maybe then you look at the negative reviews. Unless ofcourse you are a really objective person then you may look at both good and bad for more correct opinion before you buy.
Interesting topics, thanks for talking and sharing about it. All those "lies" (marketing vibes of great new features and improvement over their previous models, new innovation and technology etc.) from the camera makers doesn't affect me much since I will only buy a camera after many reviewers publish their reviews/opinions (not that I understand all of it anyway) AND more importantly, I will only buy once the price drop a little bit (maybe during one of those stock clearance sales). In 2019, still using the good old 7-8 years old Fujifilm X10.
I think you need to separate out what your ‘equivalent apertures’ are in reference to... because it’s actually not a lie at all, a wide aperture on a smartphone camera is for exposure so that you can shoot with a lower ISO in a given situation. Yes, aperture has a side effect in altering the depth of field, but so does distance to subject, and sensor size... so is it as relevant?
I'm a relatively new photographer. I used Nikon D60 which was given by my brother but now i want a camera of my own and i really want to used a used Canon 6d + 50mm 1.8 because i love doing portraits but the problem is if i buy it, i wont have any money left for extra lenses but if i buy a used 70d + 50mm 1.8, i'd probably get one extra 85mm 1.8. what do you all suggest? I really want to do portraits and get into wedding photography when i'm ready.
Hi guys. I think you get overly concerned about the f-stop issue. If the phone says f1.8, that's what it is (it's a ratio after all, so if the focal length / sensor are smaller, so is the aperture). The average picture taker uses a cell, and mostly uninterested to 'blur' the background anyway. For all other purposes, the f-stop , as far as the amount of light it gathers, is correct (as you're well aware of). In fact, the average person likes the entire scene as sharp as a tac. Also usually photographers buy the f1.4 or f1.2 instead of the 1.8, simply because they are higher in quality (and more $ of course), and they rarely shoot with them wide open. The sweet spot is usually between f4 and f6.3. I think the camera 'lies' are like the stated mileage consumption in cars (measured at 40 degrees, straight line, closed windows, in a vacuum :)
What are your thoughts about a Sony a6400 as a professional camera for photography... Please help me to buy my first and best camera for photography.... 😭😭
As overall performance: would be better using a dslr with a superzoom lens like a 18 400, or a bridge camera with a costant aperture of f 2.8 or a high end performing 1 inch sensor sony rx10 mk 4?
I think a B-roll of a VLOG showing the actual process would be interesting. Like where are the cameras? What prompts do you use on laptops or phones for continuity or whatever? Also, Justin seems to be an "engineer/producer". What is he doing back there behind the curtain during your videos? Thanks!
f/1.8 is only showing that you can get relatively better low light pictures. Most people don't think about shallow dof when they see f/1.8. In terms of the exposure, there's nothing wrong with marking the lens as f/1.8. Shallow dof is not the entire world of photography. Grow up, Tony. Come on, Tony. Be a man and tell people that you were wrong this whole time and you're sorry.
With a Go Pro, I would have thought that having a screen to see yourself for focusing sharpness was not a issue since the Go Pro has a deep depth of field. For composing the shot and other aspects yes, a screen may be necessary for many. Many vloggers are so use to adapting their Go pro to Vlogging without a screen and getting ok results. I would feel uncomfortable without one, but could get use to it if there was no other choice available.
Marketing tip for Chelsea: Make a proper competition out of it. "With Tony's coupon you only pay 90% of the total cost, but with Chelsea's voucher you get a whole 10% off!"
Learned something. Thanks. I’ve been a childlike fool! You mention the honesty of some bloggers who do not reveal they have a contract to say nice things about the camera to people who expect honest opinions. I have newspaper reporter experience, and here’s how it works. You do not accept airline tickets or meals or any other gift. With Canon’s introduction of the EOS R it was sort of alright to accept a flight to Hawaii and multiple meals. As for the Canon R introduction, one of your fellow reviewers starts a video comment by explaining he had a “...wonderful time on this boat” that Canon paid for as a reason he feels uncomfortable reporting on the laggy R viewing screen. He concludes that segment with, “...that’s it for complaining on the cruise.” It’s as though he would have preferred not to make any criticisms of the camera because of the cruise. He probably believes he was unbiased while admitting on-screen that the cruise influenced his critique. If you have to state you were not influenced, you were. Now then. Having said that, I did accept airline tickets and meals when moving from newspapers to trade magazines, Flew all the way to London and was criticized by the airline that sponsored the trip for “not staying with the group” every minute although I did use the free hotel room. Moving on to an association magazine, one reporter was told to ask a source for free airline tickets. That’s moving down a step on the honesty scale. But shame on me, because honesty isn’t graded on a curve. It’s an on or off thing, and once I left newspapers it was off.
On the 'vlogging' topic, guys explain why a nice camcorder would not be a good vlogger camera? Gosh a Canon HF R800 Camcorder can be had for less than $200. Thanks
I enjoyed this podcast. I found Tony and Chelsea to be very funny and very informative (as with all other "Northrup" videos). I agree with Tony's main point regarding "crop factors". However, I think "crop factor" is a very complicated subject, so I give my views in the very long general comments below (I have used "full-frame" film SLR's a lot, and currently own a Lumix FZ200).The size of "sensor and camera" system that a person needs depends on what type of photography a person requires. If they can afford it, some photographers might want a number of different sized cameras for different occasions. This might include phone cameras, compact cameras, larger format cameras (all three types can usually record both still and moving images), and even microscope and telescope systems. All of which enhance the capability of the human eye."Aperture value" can be defined as the ratio,"The lens entrance pupil diameter" divided by "the lens focal length".This ratio is the definition of "aperture value" that seems to be used by most lens manufacturers (the "entrance pupil diameter" is the diameter of light entering the lens system).The "aperture value" defined above, simultaneously "represents" a convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor" (approximately the angle of a "cone" of light), and a "size" of lens opening that can be compared across cameras.For the usual range of camera settings, the "aperture value" gives quite an accurate approximation to the convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor". Particularly because there is a subjective range for image exposure.The "iris" (the diaphragm device which helps to control the size of "the lens entrance pupil diameter") is itself often referred to as the "aperture". The "iris" hole size depends on the position of the "iris" in the lens system. The "iris" is an "aperture" in the literal sense ("an opening, hole or gap"), but it would reduce confusion if it were called the "iris"or "pupil stop", or, at worst, the "aperture stop".In addition, the following definition of camera "aperture" is often given as the ratio:"The lens focal length" divided by "the entrance pupil diameter" (or divided by the "iris" hole diameter).Using this type of "reciprocal version" of the ratio no longer directly represents convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor". Also, as the "iris" hole diameter depends on its position in the lens systems, I can't understand definitions that use it. It may be right, but I prefer the definition I understand (given above called "aperture value"). Camera and lens manufacturers state correct aperture values, but sometimes state "full-frame equivalent focal lengths" without clear explanation, which is potentially very misleading. Most camera users (but not all), realize that if they have a smaller than full-frame sensor, their focal lengths are still likely to be quoted as "full-frame equivalents". So they know that:If also they use the same aperture value, shutter duration and sensor amplification (ISO) as the full-frame camera.They will get the same, exposure, enlargement and field of view in their final image as the full-frame camera.They also expect, and work around, issues of depth of field being bigger (sometimes wanted, sometimes not wanted), and the "signal to noise" ratio being worse (never wanted). For camera users who want, or need, to know "full-frame equivalence" for all settings on their cameras (aperture value, shutter duration and sensor amplification (ISO) in addition to focal length), approximate conversion methods have been devised elsewhere as follows (using the same shutter duration on both cameras):"full-frame" focal length = "crop" focal length* "crop-factor""full-frame" aperture value = "crop" aperture value * (1 / "crop-factor"), where "aperture value" has the definition of "entrance pupil diameter" / "lens focal length"."full-frame" ISO (sensor amplification) = "crop" ISO * (crop factor)^2The shallow depth of field and low noise of "full-frame" might be desirable, but it is impractical to use larger aperture values at the longest end of the zoom range on a small sensor camera. At the longest focal lengths, the diameter of the lens's "objective element" would have to be enlarged. That would require the lens to be a bigger diameter and hence heavier. That would remove part of the advantage of a small sensor camera (such as lower cost and light weight). Note though, the maximum focal length of the lens would still be short (108 mm on the Lumix FZ200). The physical length of the lens system would only need to increase to accommodate the extra thickness of lens elements (I don't think such a lens system could be built for the Lumix FZ200, but probably it would not need to be as long as a lens system for a full-frame camera with f2.8 and a focal length of 600 mm).Based on extracts from my book to be published via Amazon in the first half of 2019 ("Eye and Camera Optics Decoded").
I found this misleading definition of focal length and f-stop when I was trying to get my head around depth of field. Being cash strapped and wanting to explore still life photography, and having access to an android phone with a 12.2MP camera, I downloaded some Depth of Field and Photography calculator suites, and researched the specifications of the camera. After trawling through Google I found an obscure forum where a discussion revealed that the focal length of the camera's lens wasn't 26mm but 4.2mm with a default f-stop of 1/1.8. The 26mm was a 35mm "equivalence". Argghh! OK, well the target audience of mobile phone photographers are not going to be camera nerds. The vast majority just want to point and shoot but, as this particular phone Camera has a "Pro mode" where users can manually adjust the Holy Trinity - exposure, ISO, and shutter speed - I feel uncertain about what quality I'm going to get out of my phone's camera. I don't think the manufacturers are taking the Photography side really seriously. They're too wrapped up in just blowing up advertising puffs to sell more units. I do plan to get a DSLR as soon as I can afford to but after binge watching your content, I may have to be cautious there too. Thanks anyway guys for educating your audience about the art, science, and business of photography. Keep up the good work.
What probably most people think when they see aperture f 1.8: Great low light performance! And when they now also hear: "But you get the DOF like f 13" they think "great depth of field, too!" What else do you want? No fullframe camera can offer low light performance plus great depth of field. (Bokeh is so yesteryear fashion.)
I keep posting these "I shoot film!" comments like I'm full of myself, but it's too bad (but also good) that a lot of this doesn't apply to me. Because I like you guys and your show, but it doesn't really tell me much, other than the frustrations in the digital and current world I'm avoiding. - Well, it's still interesting, but it's really like "This doesn't concern me.". - Sounds arrogant, but it's true. I have no stake in marketing about things like megapixels or any other digital features, or let's say zoom-factors and so on. I use old cameras/lenses that don't need to be pushed on the market anymore, and the good part I was talking about is that I just don't need to bother with these things. It's very liberating after having been into digital cameras to just be kind of more "whatever" and just shoot away without much obsession and worry over performance and so on. It's just not the way I like to shoot (anymore), I just like to look at composition, lighting, focus and depth and those things. I don't want to have the "Is my camera good enough??" in the back of my mind. And whatever is projected onto the film and whatever the emulsion does to it is fine, I'll see and perhaps manipulate it later. BUT, it is interesting to see the differences and also quite important to talk about so that people are aware and also look at these things more realistically.
Hello Tony! Great info as always, but i will put a mark again that you should ALWAYS mention that if you speak for f stop 1,8 the exposure will be that same in iphone or canon crop camera for ex.. The ONLY difference will be DOF (dept of field) . Yes picture quality will be better with the bigger sensor, but exposure values will be the same. Take 50 mm 1.8 and use spot meter and do proper expo. with full frame ,then make same thing with crop body and same F stop. all will be the same EXEPT dept of field. You always mention that L lenses will not be good on Canon ApsC , but they give the same exposure at 2.8 like crop lenses 2.8. I saw your comparason where you mention how different they are, and guess what , for me they are the same, AGAIN exept with a depth of field, not exposure value.
"This influencer loves it." I've been seeing that lately with respect to the DJI Osmo Pocket. Finally, they came out with a 3.5mm audio adapter that only costs $49.00 with shipping. And, 90% of the reviewers have been gushing over it, with only the lightest negative comments on the price. What's worse is that there is still a lot of variability in the performance of using an external mic, and none of these reviewers have been covering that. The only people talking about it are the aveage Joe who really wanted to use an external mic, but was disappointed to find that good audio was sort of a coin toss.
Now I can ‘picture’ how influencers ‘frame’ there content to ‘develop’ a revenue stream. Thanks for the ‘snapshot’ on how that works, your honesty ‘exposes’ them in a ‘negitive’ way. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
i think many manufacturers have no idea how big vlogging or even that whole gamer scene is. So many gamers use greenscreens so 10 bit should be a must. they don't understand the importance of good tone and autofocus internally but they all say "if it should be professional you need a operator and external sound" iheard that excuse sooo often. Idk ... they need more young people and more influence by todays mediaculture i think ... some Canon guys still say "who needs a big dynamic range, just expose right" ... these are difficult times for manufacturers i think :D
My personal fav are the folks that do great videos with studio lighting and have reasonable cost gear (Buff for example) and then suddenly have a whole studio full of Profoto lights and modifiers. Like wow! How did that happen? My suspicions were confirmed when I got a survey from Profoto (since I am a user/purchaser) that asked specifically how many followers I had on my social media...
I suspect Tony may be the only person who gets confused about "equivalence". Most people who know enough to associate f1.8 with shallow depth of field also know enough not to expect that (optically) from a phone. And it is an f1.8 lens because that's the intensity of light gathered. That's the exposure. It determines low light performance. That's why we've never seen a camera with a bokeh dial.
I very much appreciate the clarification of the actual function of the fstop,aperture, lens and focal length we are using and also clarifying marketing BS. We need to know this. Like Fonzi said: "Bullshit makes the world go round". However, I need to understand the bullshit so very much appreciate these clarifying videos. Actually I am finding I need to go back and watch these videos over again to completely understand. I just ordered a Sony RX10 iv. I will have to look this up but I am wondering if the ISO 100 Sony is listing is actually ISO 100 relative to FF or is it 729 relative to FF.
I agree with checking multiple sources. Also, I have to say you can't put 100 percent trust in Consumer Reports. They recently came out with their pick of the best place to get photo prints. They rated Walgreens number 1. Well, I decided to get prints there. Last set of prints seemed to be too warm. The faces of people were on the red side. I came home and checked with what I was seeing. I then thought that perhaps my monitor could be the problem but then the previous prints at another photo printer were very close to what I was seeing on the monitor. So, I went to Costco to get the same prints done. Sure enough, Walgreens was printing photos too warm in color. I don't know which Walgreens Consumer Reports tested but the one in my area did not do a good job. Someone needs to do a color calibration on their printer. So, I don't put a lot of trust in Consumer Reports either.
Sooner or later, everybody found out that camera manufacturers and their henchmen pulled a shade over the eyes of consumers. And the people that get hurt the most are beginners, especially those who have no formal training in photography. The more one learns about photography, the more I realise that the business strives on hype.
Stacking and averaging (or median) is such a great way of getting practically noise free photos. It should be mandatory to implement in all imaging devices.
My ultimate vlogging camera would be a body like the canon M50 with better preamps and an APSC DPAF 4k native sensor (something like the GH5s), sold with the 11-22mm (or something wide, fast and stabilized) and maybe in a kit with the new Rode WirelessGo and a small tripod. UHD@30fps FHD@24-30-60-120fps. BT and WIFIac connectivity to phones is a must. But canon never listens. They think they protect their EosCinema cameras but in fact they are protecting the sony and panasonic mirroless cameras. (vloggers dont need 10bit RAW video files) :-| A extra battery in the kit would be awesome and a free video version of the CanonPhotoProfesional would be a delight but all this paragraph just turned into an unrealistic dream. BTW. You should review the new Rode WirelessGo
We should always research several different sources when shopping for anything. With so many YT creators nowadays, it's hard to say who lies and who is honest. I have been offered lots of incentives for reviews in my previous life and it's hard to be critical of a company that sends you free stuff AND puts in advertisement on your site. You just have to be honest and upfront with them. I was told to not publish a review that was too critical, which is a shame because the readers don't get the truth about the product.
The point is that small sensor manufacturers always quote the equivalent focal length but the physical f-stop, because that type of cherry picking overstates the quality of their equipment. They'll advertise their 300mm f4 as a "600mm equivalent f4 lens" and then show it next to the full frame version, that's like four times the size and weight. That's dishonest because that 300mm piece of MFT glass doesn't produce the same images as a 600mm f4 on full frame, but like a 600mm f8. Thus: Either quote the physical attributes, which are 300mm f4, or convert to the equivalent, which is 600mm f8.
@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 Whatever that's supposed to mean. There are significant benefits to having a larger sensor. That's got nothing to do with a complex, it's a simple fact.
@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 There are two benefits to a small sensor: Size and weight of the system. That advantage is consistently shrinking with modern mirrorless full frame bodies. Quality wise, bigger sensors are simply better. And that's at any ISO, not just in low light. MFT bodies usually start at ISO 200, whereas my D810 starts at ISO 64. Considering that it's also 2 stops cleaner at equal ISO, I get about 4 stops cleaner images at base ISO, in other words 1/16th of the noise a MFT camera produces in ideal lighting conditions. Oh, and nearly twice the resolution and about two full stops more dynamic range. There is a place for MFT due to weight savings on lenses, but that system won't match bigger ones for image quality. It's a niche product for people who need the smallest, lightest gear available for whatever reason. But this meme of "it's just as good as full frame" MFT users like to push is just nonsense. The people who say that usually have never used a larger system and seen the difference.
It completely baffles me why the companies aren't listening to their customers. The example you gave in this is Sony, the producers of the A7RIII and A9, cameras that do continual auto focus and yet they produce a vloging camera that has no continuous auto focus. Canon and Nikon produce a mirrorless cameras that don't exactly fit the niche of sports and wedding photography, yet the people who want mirrorless the most are sports and wedding photographers. Seems like they are forgetting the four W's. Who, Why, what, where and when. I also question whether the people that manufacture a product actually use their own product.
In defense of a GoPro as a vlogging camera, you said without a screen you can't see focus but...that's not really an issue on a GoPro and you're pretty much going to get the composure with a wide angle. The built in audio is going to be terrible but, focus shouldn't be an issue. It's certainly not perfect.
Thanks guys. Nothing new here for me personally but many need to hear all this. Great job. Thanks for your integrity in this video and for the videos you produce to help others. Very proud of you guys. Take care. God bless!!
The more you watch these influencers, the easier it is to pick them out. I also love how quick everyone is to put all of these potatoes against the Sony a7III and how full of s their tests are.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
You guys are not idiots, and don't look like idiots. I love you guys. I know you do your best to be honest and that's what I'm looking for. I COUNT on you guys to state any reason(s) for bias, and to be as honest as possible.
Thanks for your integrity.
Yeah. Integrity is one of the hardest things to find today. I'd be entirely okay with you guys getting payed for a review IF you also had the ability to be entirely honest about the gear. I obviously want my favourite reviewers to be able to put food on their table.
Chelsea is obviously sponsored by Tony and Tony is obviously sponsored by Chelsea. You both must have had your coffee today, you're in such a good mood. Had a nice time watching this episode, thanks!
Digital zoom is how you make bigfoot videos that people will debate for a hundred years if it's real or not. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth....
Digital zoom. I had that on the p and s and I only used it once and discovered it was the equal of a potato camera.
great for ufo footage as well
Correct me but im wrong, but at the same aperture, even when we have different sensor sizes, the light should be equal right? I mean sure, we can't expect a phone to be able to get blurry backgrounds with an f/1.8 lens like a FF camera would, but it should capture as much light as a dslr f1.8 lens right? Thus, making it better in low light! I think people would be even more confused if we started rating it based on the depth of field, in proportion to 35mm sensor ( f/16 and such )
Brand X - "How much for the review?"
T&C - "Free camera/lens for every subscriber"
That one sounds fair, make it happen !
With my negative comments , i will never get one :) .right?
Vladislav Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more
"Observe this cluster of brown pixels... It is a moose!" 😂🤣😂
I remember you telling a story about YT camera reviewer who accidentaly send his prices for positive reviews in a group email instead of replying directly to the camera company. This whole influencer business unfortunately will always exist.
Best part of the video.
Chelsea: "That was a very dramatic interpretation...."
Tony: "Ok, the waves got a little screwy"
😂😂
Re: influencers-I have to say I love how you guys never just say you love something. You always gives the pros & cons of items & what they’re best for & worst for & let people decide for themselves based on their needs.
As a 55 year old in the Lawn & Landscape field, nothing is more frustrating or evident than the role "influencers" play. There are some extremely talented young people crushing it in any and all fields, but a camera, a drone, a RUclips channel and 50k subs shouldn't drive my industry. And, to your Apple example, tech, in general, companies are not putting dollars into R&D to bring about long lasting, value added improvement, they change a look, or color to come out with a different model each year. This is not Cutting Edge, it's not Bleeding Edge, tech to mech, it's merchandising of the lowest order. Great video
Its good you guys pointed out the shortcomings of a phone camera. Its obvious the a pin size sensor is not a full frame sensor. Its not physically possible.
Damn it, Chelsea and Tony! Now I'm biased toward critical thinking!
One mind at a time. :)
We love the fact that the two of you are not paid for reviews. We place far more trust in you than we could otherwise. Thanks.
1 tenth of 1 percent of people buying cameras actually want to or care about vlogging. Every RUclipsr who reviews cameras is ensuring every camera that comes out has a flippy screen and video features I don't want. 99%+ of people don't want or actually need these features and
well for most vlogs: The audio is SOO much more important than the video. Always think where the key information is, if you talk, then it's audio, even blurry video with clean audio will do. Unless you have key information in ur video, then need u sharp video,... in the example of this video here, ... if video quality would much less it wouldn't matter, but if the audio would be shit it would be un"watchable" ;) ,....
The cars had important roles in Breaking Bad, when he came in the Dodge Mr. White is dead and gone, now it's only Heisenberg left...
I wish your podcasts were 2+ hours long. I could listen to you two banter about photography forever.
britalynnae agree totally
They could talk about the best lures for catching Goldfish------I would listen😄😄😄
two ways of looking at the X times zoom factor:
1) the human vision is comparable with a 50mm lens. A 10 times zoom (i.e. of common binoculars) is therefore the equivalent of a 500mm zoom lens.
2) factor = maximum focal length / minimum focal length. I have an old Sony cam corder with an optical zoom of 20x. The lens says 3.6mm - 72mm focal length. 72/3.6 = 20 (of course the focal length value can't be compared to a full frame camera lens, as the chip on this old cam corder has for sure a pretty high crop factor). It also says it has an 80 times digital zoom, which is of course absolute bogus.
@Tony ok, so I’ve been doing some research to try to answer my own question about aperture and sharpness in response to this video: How can I know what my lens is actually with the crop factor in mind?
Here we go... So I am rocking a Panasonic GH5 (x2) with an active Metabones EF - MFT mount T Speedbooster XL (x0.64) with a Canon 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Because the metabones is active it tells me the “f/stop” of my lens. When my lens is wide open the GH5 tells me I’m at f/2.5 = 4*0.64 but as you informed me that only half of the equation... I then need to account for the crop factor of my sensor thus my “f/2.5” * 2 = f/5
If you would please help me figure this out, is this setup as sharp as the full frame equivalent? GH5 setup f/2.5 @24mm subject about 2 meters (full frame equivalent f/5 @30mm)
Camera Conspiracies got to your head LOL!
Camera conspiracies will show us the board room meeting held to discuss these lies and how to send free perfect cameras to us all !!!!
No conspiracy-just greed
@@appraisalfirst Camera Conspiracies is a channel.
Stacking has the same problem as the image stabilization that everyone seems to love nowadays, and even tripods. None of these solutions apply to the subject.
This was fun to watch, your chemistry was great. Love the friendly banter!
hahah great. Yet again we've have converged, I have a video touching on point #5 coming tomorrow.
I don't know how we always have the same ideas. Just kidding, I wiretapped your apartment.
I'm eager to hear your thoughts on bias in reviews. We've seen you get a lot of blowback for telling the truth several times and know how that feels from first-hand experience.
~Chelsea
At first I failed to recognize why this video is so stimulating, and then I noticed Tonys pants! I really do appreciate what you guys do, keep up the good work!
I think when phone manufacturers talk about f stop, they usuallly big up the phone's low light performance as opposed to blur.
So I think that's a reasonable degree of honesty.
Probably, but it is also misleading. They advertise a full frame equivalent focal length like 28 mm, but an f-stop that has not been adjusted accordingly.
The phone doesn't have low light performance like a full frame 28 mm f1.8.
It has low light performance like a full frame 28mm f13 or something.
The f stop is useless information if you don't know the crop factor.
Even phones have different sensor sizes so you cannot compare phones just by f-stop.
Methinks they should use t-stop instead of f-stop
Even that could be misleading.
A 25 mm f/1.7 t/2.2 on micro four thirds equals a 50 mm f/3.4 t/4.4 on full frame in field if view, depth of view and total light transmitted onto the sensor (and thus: low light performance).
When crop factor is applied to the focal length, it should also be applied to t-stop (and f-stop).
@@ChristianKoehler77 t-stop is not effected by sensor size, noise performance is. Tony made a video about that. That's part of the reason why cinema lenses use t-stop and not f-stop.
It's almost amusing to see how smartphone companies keep saying that the gap between smartphones and pro cameras is getting narrower, but, in reality, that only happens in daylight and almost perfect light conditions. And, even then, if you try to print those photos you will clearly see the difference.
One thing very few people are talking (and I admit the Tony is one of the few that does) is the role of computational photography and how it will widen the gap once camera companies begin to adopt it as much as smartphone companies are doing.
In my night photography I certainly notice the giant gap between these two photo "platforms".
The Night Camera, newsflash: most people only take photos in daytime, and almost nobody prints photos anymore. Certainly few people under 40.
What we’re back to is like the 1970s: ILCs were only used by actual photographers, a tiny minority of the people taking photos.
Just check out google pixel’s night mode... sure, it’s computational, but the devs working on smartphones are better than those working on cameras so... the gap will close
You guys are great. Fun to watch. I’m a fan. Thanks.
I agree, there are too many people shilling for products/companies. I see tons of "reviews" on amazon and other sites where the last line of the review says something like, "I am making this review as part of a promotion" or "I received this product for free in exchange for this review", and every one of those "reviews" were good for the product, at least they stated their review was in exchange for a free product, but how are you supposed to trust them? You can't really.
the whole influencer thing is always interesting
the Manufacturers "artisans" and "explorers" etc - you know that they have some relationship and benefits, and yet often lead people to believe that they're completely unbiased
Pretty difficult to think thats the case....
I like that you guys just draw a line in the sand and get your sponsorship from a non-related party, saves a lot of explanation!
I've had phones with f/1.7 aperture, and you do get the shallow depth of field... IF you shoot to scale. Meaning, since you have a tiny lens, tiny sensor, you have to shoot something tiny or up close to get that shallow focal plane. I've done it. Same thing with those bridge cameras with the super huge zoom ranges and 2.8 aperture. Their sensor size is small, thus the math works to scale.
#2 While I agree with Tony's outrage, I really wouldn't worry too much about it. Most people who buy a smartphone _for_ the camera have no clue what an f-stop is anyway. Anyone with even just a little experience with DLSRs/lenses will know better than to expect the same DOF from a small lens.
We owned a GE dishwasher that CR rated very low. When we needed to replace it we bought the highest rated CR dishwasher. Needless to say the GE worked far better then the piece of cr*p we’re stuck with now.
Yea, Consumer Reports is not that trustworthy. Their ratings are pretty suspect if you know anything about the subject. My go to on this is probably 7 years ago now, they were rating laptops by screen size. Now, that isn't irrelevant, but @ 13" they were comparing a Macbook with a consumer HP. Of course the Macbook "won", but it was $1300 compared to $650. That's kind of a no duh moment.
The other problem there is that back then, a Mac really didn't run the same software as a PC, and that was IMHO far more relevant than screen size. Also, it basically in several groups "won", including 15" IIRC, but they were never comparing like price to like price - i.e not one ThinkPad for instance.
I started to notice this with other stuff I researched, like they would weight one thing really high and discount something else, but not really explain that. Like 3 years ago Speed Queen washing machines would get horrible ratings because they used a lot of water, and had simple controls and design, but get no points for being 2-3 times as solidly built, and built in the USA and 5 year warranties and expected 20 year lifetimes compared to Samsungs etc... This is fine if you're looking for high efficiency in water use, but maybe not fine if you want long lasting washing machines. I'd probably have rated them equivalent - one tried and true and likely to last 20 years and one high tech and likely to last 5 years. Choose what it is you want.
And this goes even further in general with BIAS - even if you're not paid, you'll likely have different values than some reviewers. I.e. some reviewers just say "don't bother" unless the camera is Full Frame, and some go further and say if it's not Sony right not, it's not worth buying. But that's obviously not true to say there are no good APS-C or MFT cameras. Sometimes the cost is more important (hello to anyone doing it as a hobby). And on and on, it's what you're weighting and how. All the "Canon is bad due to Video" is so much noise if you only shoot stills. . . .
@@jamespulver3890 Couldn't agree with you more. I'm a car guy and was noticing some odd discrepancies with CR's ratings when I did the math and realized that EVERYTHING had the same value. They didn't weight the severity of problems. A busted piece of plastic was the same as a leaking valve cover. I wrote them many times to get an answer on this and they never responded. They are an okay source of info but if anyone is using CR for their ONLY source of info they are screwed.
One thing about lens reviews in particular I've always thought of as problematic is sample variation. A company that sends out a copy of a lens to a reviewer will likely triple check that it's a "good copy". If that company generally doesn't have great quality control though, sample variation might be large. A customer can't guarantee that he'll get a good copy when he buys the lens, so they might get a product that's not even physically in line with what the reviewer(s) tested.
Companies also sponsor influencers based on that persons established preference toward that brand's product. Such ambassadors are cheerleaders --- not to be confused with reviewers.
I love this channel. Thank you for your honesty. Being honest is great because I brought one of your ebook.
Hello Tony , I want a suggestion from you , I own a d500 and know which lens to get nikkor 500mm f5.6 pf vr or 200-500mm f5.6 vr , thanks
One of the main reasons I watch these podcasts of yours is the way Chelsea announces the ads. It's hilarious :)
While sitting in my fabulous BMW X1 that is the ultimate driving experience, I thought about your claims concerning "influencers." Cradling the Fujifilm T3 in my arms with Fuji's amazing 50mm f1.2 (and yes, that might actually be the 35 mm equivalency correct f stop, you will never convince me otherwise) , sipping my Starbucks's Sumatra I asked myself does this problem actually exist? I phoned a close friend of mine on my Google Pixel 3 XL with an amazing camera to hear his experience in the camera industry. He said if I sent him $100 he would give me the truth of influencers. After sending a $100 money order from the best bank in Canada - The Bank of Montreal - via UPS, I can always depend on them, my friend told me what I wanted to hear (even though I wasn't wearing my Resound hearing aid): "Rick, No!! There are no influencers." So there you have it.
Important to note that the laws about disclosing sponsorship are US laws. A youtuber may be based in Canada, Europe or somewhere else and completely different laws may apply.
People should also be cautious about reviews where the reviewer gets an early copy of a product to review. A reviewer might have the tendency to make a positive review in order to maintain a good relationship with the company, so that in the future they are still allowed to make early reviews and thus have content to earn money off.
Basically, the only reviews one can trust is the ones from sources that do not make money from the reviews directly, or sources that sell reviews to consumers.
Krekkertje how can one know what country a video comes from or is filmed in.
@@bngr_bngr most youtubers do not make a secret of where they live.
Great show, thank you.
My fav reply for blurry cell pictures: When somebody says oh I see some really cool lights in the sky. Then they respond with it: " You should have taken a picture you had your cell phone " or " Why is this so blurry, I can't tell what it is.? I tell people go outside and take a picture of a bird about 4 or 5 truck lengths away from you. Then look at that photo and zoom in on it....now how's your detail.? Cell phone cameras are good in the house or in a vehicle.
In the film industry, it is called "product placement"...in my business, fashion, beauty, it is called "advertorials" or "co-branding". You could be paid for an advertorial, but you wouldn't want to call it a review. You could present an expose or a feature about a camera or product that is basically an infomercial or advertorial. But the people watching your vlog would know it was produced by the manufacturer. Just another advertising break in your vlog post. Oh and by the way, I have been sponsored by the likes of Canon, Fujifilm (in the real film days), Agfa and Pentax and in all cases, they approached me. I did not have to promote their products, but I certainly did nonetheless just by virtue of using them. 🙂
As for vlogging, would not the DJI Osmo Pocket be a good choice. I di not k ow if you could use an external microphone, but with active tracking of your face I would think it would solve the framing issue, and perhaps even focus issue. You could also connect a phone an check the focus. A 360 camera might also be good, but may pose a challenge in regards to microhphone input and focus.
Ugh it's the worst. It's not wide angle enough and the stabilization is garbage if you're walking.
Not a "lie" per se, but it bugs me when a company says their camera has X number of stops sensor stabilization, but fail to mention except in the fine print that that's only true when paired with a specific focal length or based on particular axes. Take Sony for example. They claim the A7III has 5 stops of stabilization. Testing (including my own) shows that IBIS alone can usually provide 3 stops of stabilization in general use when you don't have a stabilized lens. The fine print on the full spec sheet actually tells you that the 5-stop numbers are based on pitch and yaw only with the 50mm F1.4 ZA. So sure, it may be true that it'll give you 5-stops of stabilization, but only really in the best case scenario with a particular focal length.
(For the record, I've tested it at 35mm and between 80 and 300mm. None of the lenses themselves were stabilized.)
Did you hear the story of the two slightly deaf old ladies who went to have their portrait taken? t
They sat there for some time while the photographer set his camera. One old lady says, what is he doing Min. He is trying to focus Annie. What both of us Min? (Think about it)
Alex Lancashire Photography I didn't get it until I read it aloud with a Scottish accent...
Good discussion and topic. It's about integrity. Your reputation is worth more in the long run. Nothing wrong with doing a paid product "Show Case" if you're honest about it. A real review is when you share your honest opinion. Like when you buy it yourself and don't have to please a sponsor. Keep calling it out, especially the laws on being incentivised. Even the company sales rep may not know.
Chelseamakes a great point about bias and awareness, and it applies to all media or marketing; if only people understand this point more, Fake News won't be such a problem. with any news or reviews, we should never stake our decisions souls on third party sources of information.
In terms of how much light the sensor gets per mm^2, the f-stop actually tells you exactly what you would expect. The crop factor doesn't matter for this. It only matters for depth of field. If you'd take a picture with a full frame camera at 25 mm f/2.8 ISO100, you would get approximately the same result in terms of exposure as with the 5-115 mm camera at 5 mm, f/2.8, ISO 100.
It would be incredibly inconvenient if they would actually sell it as a 5-115. The focal length does look like a 25-600 because of the crop factor.
People are used to see focal lengths as a full frame equivalent - and this makes sense, because like that they can easily be compared.
If I didn't know y'all were married, I'd swear you were best friends having a good time. Y'all are so cool together.
3:38 Why is that?... I think it's because the microphone is so "built in" and plastic around is it obstructing it and so forth. I mean, microphones generally want to be exposed. - And even though I'm into audio, I'm not 100% sure about the following, but I think microphone diaphragms "need" to be larger for better quality. Not necessarily, it's also a sound-character thing, but I can imagine tiny microphones just not having a proper "resolution" in terms of capturing sound-waves. - There is a thing with audio in that "larger is better". For example, larger tuber or transistors or transformers will give arguably better sound. Larger speakers and cabinets as well... I mean, we're talking about vlogs with cameras, streamed through the internet and usually played on mobile speakers if not earbuds and occasionally better headphones, so it's not THAT critical. But I'm just saying, cameras (and other mobile devices) probably have tiny microphones in them that don't get the space they need. - On top of that, it's also a case of placement and how the sound is hitting the microphone and so forth, which is really particular stuff, so yea...
Many youtubers want views and I have seen reports showing that positive reviews get more views.
Hence they produce a positive review regardless.
It's Only Me
that is logical. When you go shopping you look for what is best. So you look at stuff on which you already agree is good. When you get it home and it isn't maybe then you look at the negative reviews. Unless ofcourse you are a really objective person then you may look at both good and bad for more correct opinion before you buy.
Positive reviews get more views and more sponsorships. Sponsors aren't too keen on a reviewer that's going to expose a major product flaw.
Interesting topics, thanks for talking and sharing about it. All those "lies" (marketing vibes of great new features and improvement over their previous models, new innovation and technology etc.) from the camera makers doesn't affect me much since I will only buy a camera after many reviewers publish their reviews/opinions (not that I understand all of it anyway) AND more importantly, I will only buy once the price drop a little bit (maybe during one of those stock clearance sales). In 2019, still using the good old 7-8 years old Fujifilm X10.
I think you need to separate out what your ‘equivalent apertures’ are in reference to... because it’s actually not a lie at all, a wide aperture on a smartphone camera is for exposure so that you can shoot with a lower ISO in a given situation. Yes, aperture has a side effect in altering the depth of field, but so does distance to subject, and sensor size... so is it as relevant?
"I'm extremely optimistic..." So am I 😘 🙌🏻 That was very sweet indeed! 🙂
I'm a relatively new photographer. I used Nikon D60 which was given by my brother but now i want a camera of my own and i really want to used a used Canon 6d + 50mm 1.8 because i love doing portraits but the problem is if i buy it, i wont have any money left for extra lenses but if i buy a used 70d + 50mm 1.8, i'd probably get one extra 85mm 1.8. what do you all suggest? I really want to do portraits and get into wedding photography when i'm ready.
I agree Chelsea, say you're older and weigh more... Then everyone says, "wow you look great!"
Hi guys. I think you get overly concerned about the f-stop issue. If the phone says f1.8, that's what it is (it's a ratio after all, so if the focal length / sensor are smaller, so is the aperture). The average picture taker uses a cell, and mostly uninterested to 'blur' the background anyway. For all other purposes, the f-stop , as far as the amount of light it gathers, is correct (as you're well aware of). In fact, the average person likes the entire scene as sharp as a tac. Also usually photographers buy the f1.4 or f1.2 instead of the 1.8, simply because they are higher in quality (and more $ of course), and they rarely shoot with them wide open. The sweet spot is usually between f4 and f6.3. I think the camera 'lies' are like the stated mileage consumption in cars (measured at 40 degrees, straight line, closed windows, in a vacuum :)
What are your thoughts about a Sony a6400 as a professional camera for photography... Please help me to buy my first and best camera for photography.... 😭😭
12:10 That picture is magestic, and it makes me grenvious.
Edited: Oh no, my comment got pixel shifted!
As overall performance: would be better using a dslr with a superzoom lens like a 18 400, or a bridge camera with a costant aperture of f 2.8 or a high end performing 1 inch sensor sony rx10 mk 4?
I think a B-roll of a VLOG showing the actual process would be interesting. Like where are the cameras? What prompts do you use on laptops or phones for continuity or whatever? Also, Justin seems to be an "engineer/producer". What is he doing back there behind the curtain during your videos? Thanks!
All I do is look at the itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny glass and know what's going on. I have never had to resort to mathematical equations.
f/1.8 is only showing that you can get relatively better low light pictures. Most people don't think about shallow
dof when they see f/1.8.
In terms of the exposure, there's nothing wrong with marking the lens as f/1.8. Shallow dof is not the entire world of photography. Grow up, Tony.
Come on, Tony. Be a man and tell people that you were wrong this whole time and you're sorry.
With a Go Pro, I would have thought that having a screen to see yourself for focusing sharpness was not a issue since the Go Pro has a deep depth of field. For composing the shot and other aspects yes, a screen may be necessary for many. Many vloggers are so use to adapting their Go pro to Vlogging without a screen and getting ok results. I would feel uncomfortable without one, but could get use to it if there was no other choice available.
Marketing tip for Chelsea: Make a proper competition out of it. "With Tony's coupon you only pay 90% of the total cost, but with Chelsea's voucher you get a whole 10% off!"
Learned something. Thanks. I’ve been a childlike fool! You mention the honesty of some bloggers who do not reveal they have a contract to say nice things about the camera to people who expect honest opinions. I have newspaper reporter experience, and here’s how it works. You do not accept airline tickets or meals or any other gift. With Canon’s introduction of the EOS R it was sort of alright to accept a flight to Hawaii and multiple meals. As for the Canon R introduction, one of your fellow reviewers starts a video comment by explaining he had a “...wonderful time on this boat” that Canon paid for as a reason he feels uncomfortable reporting on the laggy R viewing screen. He concludes that segment with, “...that’s it for complaining on the cruise.” It’s as though he would have preferred not to make any criticisms of the camera because of the cruise. He probably believes he was unbiased while admitting on-screen that the cruise influenced his critique. If you have to state you were not influenced, you were. Now then. Having said that, I did accept airline tickets and meals when moving from newspapers to trade magazines, Flew all the way to London and was criticized by the airline that sponsored the trip for “not staying with the group” every minute although I did use the free hotel room. Moving on to an association magazine, one reporter was told to ask a source for free airline tickets. That’s moving down a step on the honesty scale. But shame on me, because honesty isn’t graded on a curve. It’s an on or off thing, and once I left newspapers it was off.
Great topic breakdowns... in my opinion, your channel is the standard for honest reviews, trainings and info, period.
Chelsea at 13:17 : "You start your pixel-peeping journey and you peep upon some problems..." Okay, that cracked me up.
On the 'vlogging' topic, guys explain why a nice camcorder would not be a good vlogger camera? Gosh a Canon HF R800 Camcorder can be had for less than $200. Thanks
No interchangeable lenses, small sensor size. Just worse quality.
I enjoyed this podcast. I found Tony and Chelsea to be very funny and very informative (as with
all other "Northrup" videos).
I agree with Tony's main point regarding "crop factors". However, I think "crop factor" is a
very complicated subject, so I give my views in the very long general comments
below (I have used "full-frame" film SLR's a lot, and currently own a Lumix FZ200).The size of "sensor and camera" system that a person needs depends on what type
of photography a person requires. If they can afford it, some photographers might want a number of different sized cameras for different occasions. This might include phone cameras, compact cameras, larger format cameras (all three types can usually record both still and moving images), and even microscope and telescope systems. All of which enhance the capability of the human eye."Aperture value" can be defined as the ratio,"The lens entrance pupil diameter" divided by "the
lens focal length".This ratio is the definition of "aperture value" that seems to be used by most lens manufacturers (the "entrance pupil diameter" is the diameter of light entering the lens system).The "aperture value" defined above, simultaneously "represents" a convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor" (approximately the angle of a "cone" of light), and a "size" of lens opening that can be compared across cameras.For the usual range of camera settings, the "aperture value" gives quite an accurate approximation to the convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor". Particularly because there is a subjective range for image exposure.The "iris" (the diaphragm device which helps to control the size of "the
lens entrance pupil diameter") is itself often referred to as the "aperture". The "iris" hole size depends on the position of the "iris" in the lens system. The "iris" is an "aperture" in the literal sense ("an opening, hole or gap"), but it would reduce confusion if it were called the "iris"or "pupil stop", or, at worst, the "aperture stop".In addition, the following definition of camera "aperture" is often given as the ratio:"The lens focal length" divided by "the entrance pupil diameter" (or divided by the "iris" hole diameter).Using this type of "reciprocal version" of the ratio no longer directly represents convergence angle for the "light travelling from the lens to the image sensor". Also, as the "iris" hole diameter depends on its position in the lens systems, I can't understand definitions that use it. It may be right, but I prefer the definition I understand (given above called "aperture value"). Camera and lens manufacturers state correct aperture values, but sometimes state "full-frame equivalent focal lengths" without clear explanation, which is potentially very misleading. Most camera users (but not all), realize that if they have a smaller than full-frame sensor, their focal lengths are still likely to be quoted as "full-frame equivalents". So they know that:If also they use the same aperture value, shutter duration and sensor amplification (ISO) as the full-frame camera.They will get the same, exposure, enlargement and field of view in their final image as the full-frame camera.They also expect, and work around, issues of depth of field being bigger (sometimes wanted, sometimes not wanted), and the "signal to noise" ratio being worse (never wanted).
For camera users who want, or need, to know "full-frame equivalence" for all settings on their cameras (aperture value, shutter duration and sensor amplification (ISO) in addition to focal length), approximate conversion methods have been devised elsewhere as follows (using the same shutter duration on both cameras):"full-frame" focal length = "crop" focal length* "crop-factor""full-frame" aperture value = "crop" aperture value * (1 / "crop-factor"), where "aperture value" has the definition of "entrance pupil diameter" / "lens focal length"."full-frame" ISO (sensor amplification) = "crop" ISO * (crop factor)^2The shallow depth of field and low noise of "full-frame" might be desirable, but it is impractical to use larger aperture values at the longest end of the zoom range on a small sensor camera. At the longest focal lengths, the diameter of
the lens's "objective element" would have to be enlarged. That would require the lens to be a bigger diameter and hence heavier. That would remove part of the advantage of a small sensor camera (such as lower cost and light weight). Note though, the maximum focal length of the lens would still be short (108 mm on the Lumix FZ200). The physical length of the lens system would
only need to increase to accommodate the extra thickness of lens elements (I
don't think such a lens system could be built for the Lumix FZ200, but probably
it would not need to be as long as a lens system for a full-frame camera with
f2.8 and a focal length of 600 mm).Based on extracts from my book to be published via Amazon in the first half of 2019 ("Eye and Camera Optics Decoded").
It was a BIG FLAW... OK so Nikon was bribing reviewers of their mirrorless cameras so they dont mention poor AF right? :-P
I found this misleading definition of focal length and f-stop when I was trying to get my head around depth of field. Being cash strapped and wanting to explore still life photography, and having access to an android phone with a 12.2MP camera, I downloaded some Depth of Field and Photography calculator suites, and researched the specifications of the camera. After trawling through Google I found an obscure forum where a discussion revealed that the focal length of the camera's lens wasn't 26mm but 4.2mm with a default f-stop of 1/1.8. The 26mm was a 35mm "equivalence". Argghh! OK, well the target audience of mobile phone photographers are not going to be camera nerds. The vast majority just want to point and shoot but, as this particular phone Camera has a "Pro mode" where users can manually adjust the Holy Trinity - exposure, ISO, and shutter speed - I feel uncertain about what quality I'm going to get out of my phone's camera. I don't think the manufacturers are taking the Photography side really seriously. They're too wrapped up in just blowing up advertising puffs to sell more units. I do plan to get a DSLR as soon as I can afford to but after binge watching your content, I may have to be cautious there too. Thanks anyway guys for educating your audience about the art, science, and business of photography. Keep up the good work.
What probably most people think when they see aperture f 1.8: Great low light performance! And when they now also hear: "But you get the DOF like f 13" they think "great depth of field, too!" What else do you want? No fullframe camera can offer low light performance plus great depth of field. (Bokeh is so yesteryear fashion.)
I keep posting these "I shoot film!" comments like I'm full of myself, but it's too bad (but also good) that a lot of this doesn't apply to me. Because I like you guys and your show, but it doesn't really tell me much, other than the frustrations in the digital and current world I'm avoiding. - Well, it's still interesting, but it's really like "This doesn't concern me.". - Sounds arrogant, but it's true. I have no stake in marketing about things like megapixels or any other digital features, or let's say zoom-factors and so on. I use old cameras/lenses that don't need to be pushed on the market anymore, and the good part I was talking about is that I just don't need to bother with these things. It's very liberating after having been into digital cameras to just be kind of more "whatever" and just shoot away without much obsession and worry over performance and so on.
It's just not the way I like to shoot (anymore), I just like to look at composition, lighting, focus and depth and those things. I don't want to have the "Is my camera good enough??" in the back of my mind. And whatever is projected onto the film and whatever the emulsion does to it is fine, I'll see and perhaps manipulate it later.
BUT, it is interesting to see the differences and also quite important to talk about so that people are aware and also look at these things more realistically.
8:35 what about the 200-500 apo sigmonster with a 2x teleconvertor?
Hello Tony! Great info as always, but i will put a mark again that you should ALWAYS mention that if you speak for f stop 1,8 the exposure will be that same in iphone or canon crop camera for ex.. The ONLY difference will be DOF (dept of field) . Yes picture quality will be better with the bigger sensor, but exposure values will be the same. Take 50 mm 1.8 and use spot meter and do proper expo. with full frame ,then make same thing with crop body and same F stop. all will be the same EXEPT dept of field. You always mention that L lenses will not be good on Canon ApsC , but they give the same exposure at 2.8 like crop lenses 2.8. I saw your comparason where you mention how different they are, and guess what , for me they are the same, AGAIN exept with a depth of field, not exposure value.
A very good podcast. I have learnt that if something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.
I notice they do not reply or answer many questions viewers have. Are you two even reading the comments?
I loved Tony's Matrix analogy!
"This influencer loves it." I've been seeing that lately with respect to the DJI Osmo Pocket. Finally, they came out with a 3.5mm audio adapter that only costs $49.00 with shipping. And, 90% of the reviewers have been gushing over it, with only the lightest negative comments on the price. What's worse is that there is still a lot of variability in the performance of using an external mic, and none of these reviewers have been covering that. The only people talking about it are the aveage Joe who really wanted to use an external mic, but was disappointed to find that good audio was sort of a coin toss.
Now I can ‘picture’ how influencers ‘frame’ there content to ‘develop’ a revenue stream. Thanks for the ‘snapshot’ on how that works, your honesty ‘exposes’ them in a ‘negitive’ way. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist)
You two have such a great balance.
i think many manufacturers have no idea how big vlogging or even that whole gamer scene is. So many gamers use greenscreens so 10 bit should be a must. they don't understand the importance of good tone and autofocus internally but they all say "if it should be professional you need a operator and external sound" iheard that excuse sooo often. Idk ... they need more young people and more influence by todays mediaculture i think ... some Canon guys still say "who needs a big dynamic range, just expose right" ... these are difficult times for manufacturers i think :D
My personal fav are the folks that do great videos with studio lighting and have reasonable cost gear (Buff for example) and then suddenly have a whole studio full of Profoto lights and modifiers. Like wow! How did that happen? My suspicions were confirmed when I got a survey from Profoto (since I am a user/purchaser) that asked specifically how many followers I had on my social media...
FWIW we passed on a relationship with Profoto bc we felt the gear was too expensive for our audience... So we use Godox (that we bought ourselves).
I saw you were using Speedotron Brownline a while back. I can relate to that too 😊
Love your channel, keeping fantastic work. Cheers.
I suspect Tony may be the only person who gets confused about "equivalence". Most people who know enough to associate f1.8 with shallow depth of field also know enough not to expect that (optically) from a phone. And it is an f1.8 lens because that's the intensity of light gathered. That's the exposure. It determines low light performance. That's why we've never seen a camera with a bokeh dial.
The first one should be categorized under “Lies that RUclipsrs tell you”. They are the ones making the hype videos.
I very much appreciate the clarification of the actual function of the fstop,aperture, lens and focal length we are using and also clarifying marketing BS. We need to know this. Like Fonzi said: "Bullshit makes the world go round". However, I need to understand the bullshit so very much appreciate these clarifying videos. Actually I am finding I need to go back and watch these videos over again to completely understand. I just ordered a Sony RX10 iv. I will have to look this up but I am wondering if the ISO 100 Sony is listing is actually ISO 100 relative to FF or is it 729 relative to FF.
I agree with checking multiple sources. Also, I have to say you can't put 100 percent trust in Consumer Reports. They recently came out with their pick of the best place to get photo prints. They rated Walgreens number 1. Well, I decided to get prints there. Last set of prints seemed to be too warm. The faces of people were on the red side. I came home and checked with what I was seeing. I then thought that perhaps my monitor could be the problem but then the previous prints at another photo printer were very close to what I was seeing on the monitor. So, I went to Costco to get the same prints done. Sure enough, Walgreens was printing photos too warm in color. I don't know which Walgreens Consumer Reports tested but the one in my area did not do a good job. Someone needs to do a color calibration on their printer. So, I don't put a lot of trust in Consumer Reports either.
They're good for general consumer products. You and I have different needs for printers, monitors, etc.
Sooner or later, everybody found out that camera manufacturers and their henchmen pulled a shade over the eyes of consumers. And the people that get hurt the most are beginners, especially those who have no formal training in photography. The more one learns about photography, the more I realise that the business strives on hype.
Stacking and averaging (or median) is such a great way of getting practically noise free photos. It should be mandatory to implement in all imaging devices.
You can do that in post with any camera you want. Putting it in the body would only cause a need for more processing power, thereby increase prices.
My ultimate vlogging camera would be a body like the canon M50 with better preamps and an APSC DPAF 4k native sensor (something like the GH5s), sold with the 11-22mm (or something wide, fast and stabilized) and maybe in a kit with the new Rode WirelessGo and a small tripod. UHD@30fps FHD@24-30-60-120fps. BT and WIFIac connectivity to phones is a must. But canon never listens. They think they protect their EosCinema cameras but in fact they are protecting the sony and panasonic mirroless cameras. (vloggers dont need 10bit RAW video files) :-|
A extra battery in the kit would be awesome and a free video version of the CanonPhotoProfesional would be a delight but all this paragraph just turned into an unrealistic dream.
BTW. You should review the new Rode WirelessGo
Thanks for keeping it real and talking about the elephant in the room, undisclosed sponsorships.
We should always research several different sources when shopping for anything. With so many YT creators nowadays, it's hard to say who lies and who is honest. I have been offered lots of incentives for reviews in my previous life and it's hard to be critical of a company that sends you free stuff AND puts in advertisement on your site. You just have to be honest and upfront with them. I was told to not publish a review that was too critical, which is a shame because the readers don't get the truth about the product.
Always great info! Thanks
so hat do you guys suggest, regarding the f stop thing, that companies advertise lenses as (f13)? MFT's 5.6 (for their zooms)?
The point is that small sensor manufacturers always quote the equivalent focal length but the physical f-stop, because that type of cherry picking overstates the quality of their equipment. They'll advertise their 300mm f4 as a "600mm equivalent f4 lens" and then show it next to the full frame version, that's like four times the size and weight. That's dishonest because that 300mm piece of MFT glass doesn't produce the same images as a 600mm f4 on full frame, but like a 600mm f8. Thus: Either quote the physical attributes, which are 300mm f4, or convert to the equivalent, which is 600mm f8.
@@youknowwho9247
@Landscope 360 (small sensor) manufacturers...when are we going to get rid of that superiority complex?
@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 Whatever that's supposed to mean. There are significant benefits to having a larger sensor. That's got nothing to do with a complex, it's a simple fact.
And there are tons of benefits of a smaller sensor, which are facts also, but they don't matter, eh? All that matters is the bawkeh and 52000 iso huh?
@@ofmetalphilosophy4837 There are two benefits to a small sensor: Size and weight of the system. That advantage is consistently shrinking with modern mirrorless full frame bodies. Quality wise, bigger sensors are simply better. And that's at any ISO, not just in low light. MFT bodies usually start at ISO 200, whereas my D810 starts at ISO 64. Considering that it's also 2 stops cleaner at equal ISO, I get about 4 stops cleaner images at base ISO, in other words 1/16th of the noise a MFT camera produces in ideal lighting conditions. Oh, and nearly twice the resolution and about two full stops more dynamic range.
There is a place for MFT due to weight savings on lenses, but that system won't match bigger ones for image quality. It's a niche product for people who need the smallest, lightest gear available for whatever reason. But this meme of "it's just as good as full frame" MFT users like to push is just nonsense. The people who say that usually have never used a larger system and seen the difference.
I somehow expect that Yongnuo can make a 600mm f2.8 full frame lens which costs only like $2999 USD, awesome.
frederickletterblair under $500.
It completely baffles me why the companies aren't listening to their customers. The example you gave in this is Sony, the producers of the A7RIII and A9, cameras that do continual auto focus and yet they produce a vloging camera that has no continuous auto focus. Canon and Nikon produce a mirrorless cameras that don't exactly fit the niche of sports and wedding photography, yet the people who want mirrorless the most are sports and wedding photographers. Seems like they are forgetting the four W's. Who, Why, what, where and when. I also question whether the people that manufacture a product actually use their own product.
In defense of a GoPro as a vlogging camera, you said without a screen you can't see focus but...that's not really an issue on a GoPro and you're pretty much going to get the composure with a wide angle. The built in audio is going to be terrible but, focus shouldn't be an issue. It's certainly not perfect.
Thanks guys. Nothing new here for me personally but many need to hear all this. Great job. Thanks for your integrity in this video and for the videos you produce to help others. Very proud of you guys. Take care. God bless!!
The more you watch these influencers, the easier it is to pick them out. I also love how quick everyone is to put all of these potatoes against the Sony a7III and how full of s their tests are.