Hey Tony and Chelsea, been years that I've stepped away from photography but lately I was asked to volunteer shoot for a good cause and it reminded me about what I missed about photography. So after ten years, I tuned back to your channel and one thing struck me, Father time has changed you in only one way but has had no effect on the energy and love you both carry as a couple and despite your channel being a photography channel i remember always enjoying your dynamic together, it's a rare and beautiful thing. ❤
[9:10] Admittedly, Northrup’s channel was one of a handful we watched that helped us rationalize our decision to use µ4/3 professionally. The choices of glass was extremely KEY, and with today’s post processing software, honestly, the end products are indistinguishable from other formats. We have ZERO regrets, and ZERO complaints with the results… Our decision to choose the path we have taken literally saved us TWO THIRDS of the cost of choosing otherwise, cameras bodies and lenses, that would have cost two and three times more, allowed a level of flexibility beyond measure… Limitations or lack of creativity is not the fault of the gear but rather the individual who uses them. What a person can’t accomplish, others have and with less… 🤔
I agree about creativity & the 22” behind the camera & people have done it with less. Learn how to best use your equipment within its limitations, if any! I do think good glass & great light rank right up there with creativity.
I'm just a hobbyist who purchased an Olympus EM10 around 2016 after owning a D60 & D80, and it was nothing but amazing that I purchased a Olympus EM1 Mark ii. Now I want to buy a full frame camera just to see what it's like. So I'm looking at buying a Nikon D610 soon. I have shot with my friends Canon 5D Mark III, but haven't been able to fully digest the experience. I say all that to say that Micro 4/3 are no slouches. I hate they don't get the love here in the US
i shoot with auto exposure (just set aperture and shutter speed), ignore the rule of thirds (if it looks good to me, then that's all that matters), i use my a6100 w/my sony 1.8 11mm (16.5) more than my sony a7iii with a 16-35 2.8 (the former is more compact, lighter and inexpensive - i worry less about them), i love minimalist landscapes, yet i love sunsets with massive waves and deeply textured clouds. i hate photoshop and generative AI. the only AI i use is denoise in LR. as usual, i love your vids and thanks for always keeping it real.
hello my friend. my spirit animal 😂 I got the R7 because of compactness and affordability, with sigmas f2.8 lenses, and the rfs 18-150 for general purpose, te rf100-500L for wildlife and whatever else. I shoot mostly landscapes and my local wildlife and sometimes aviation. Occasionally people. I also hate AI except the denoise in photolab.
@@marc_likes_marketing i dont have anything else to compare it to, especially lightroom or photoshop but i think it is very good in what it is supposed to do.
My first camera was a 1960's Nikkormat with a detached light meter. I crapped up a tonne of films doing this. Every innovation after that was welcomed by me as something that would make my process easier and better. I shoot for fishing magazines professionally (as an outdoor journalist) and wildlife as a hobby. My fishing shots are usually with the camera on P or S (with auto Iso), my wildlife shots on S or M if I want to close down my aperture a bit (all with auto Iso). I am happy with that, which is all that counts to me. As a 60+ years photo enthousiast I don't give a f## about what people I don't know personally, think about my choices (and many people I do know). Time is too valuable to waste it on useless opinions.
You guys touched quickly on a bunch of things that are all fairly complex. I think these are good thoughts to "prime the pump" for folks looking for more information. For me learning is one of the top reasons I love photography - I am always learning stuff! And I've been at it for about 37 years. Hmmm... maybe I'm a slow learner, LOL. One tip I would add is that people should take notes. As an example I was hired to shoot an event about a year ago and it involved setting up a "photo booth" portrait space, but also shooting the general activity like speakers, performers, people at tables eating, drinking and talking - all the things. It meant I was shooting both in a studio setup with my lights, and in a hotel event space setup without light - completely different settings and I had to switch back and forth a couple times. So I made notes of what settings and lenses worked. A year later I was hired to shoot the event again (just last weekend), and thanks to my notes I was able to refresh my memory easily and come prepared to shoot without problems. Yup - notes! Take them and learn :)
I use a full frame camera but I've started shooting with F4 lenses. I generally prefer a deeper depth of field these days for 2 reasons. 1. It forces me to consider the background and not just lazily obliterate it. If I wanted no background, I'd just shoot in a studio. 2. When I shot portraits of my daughter with my $3k F1.2, her response to the natural bokeh was "ew, why did you take these in 'portrait mode', that's so lame". A humbling moment
The rule of third is important because it stops beginners of always putting the subject in the middle (whatever the subject is, can be a person, an animal, a mountain range, an island). It leads to boring, bad photos that always need cropping and it was the rule of thirds that made me stop doing that. I hate post processing so if I can get it right when taking the photo, that's a win for me.
While I don’t follow the rule of thirds consciously, I find that the pictures I do take that stand out as the better photos have a strong rule of thirds layout.
Rule of thirds became a "rule" because it works for most scenes. There are exceptions to every rule. If you're shooting wildlife, and the critter is looking at you, centered works, too.
I got a Sony A7, and a Fujfilm X100S. Both by now older models yes. And yes with the right lens both have about the same expectations. Thing is the Fujifilm X100S is a whole lot of fun. And the quality of the images is perfectly fine for most use. Not to mention, it looks harmless, almost cute. Unlike my A7 ...
I remember I once had a bride that didn’t dye her blonde hair before the engagement photos. Think reverse skunk with the reversed roots. I was in no way technically able or patient enough to fix that in post.
It is always said that Medium format has a completely different depth of field. Mathematically speaking, it always stays the same. A larger sensor makes it a bit softer, partly due to the lenses. In addition, the medium format has 16 bit colors. Combination with a larger sensor, smoother sharpness depth, different sensor ratio
??? m43 has not enough or not the right lenses? First, m43 has the largest choices of native lenses of any camera system. Second, you can adapt any lens to m43 given that doubled focal length/increased DoF is what one wants. Third, there are some lenses for m43 that do not exist for other formats. Fourth, if m43 lenses are to cheap, go for a 25k$ Rodenstock cine lens.
I think you may have missed some of the point. It m43 may have tons of lenses, but does it have equivalent lenses to produce the same images as full frame? In a lot of cases, NO. Want the same fical length and depth of field as a 400 f2.8 then you need a 200 f1.4 which doesn’t exist. Want a 600 f/4, then you’ll need the 300 f/2, want an 85 f/1.2 then you’ll need a 42 f/0.6. How about a 70-200 f2.8, you’ll need the amazing 35-100 f/1.4. Any other lenses and you’ll get a totally different depth of field and not the same quality subject to background separation. So yes, you have a lot of lenses and can adapt even more, you just can’t get what you can get in full frame.
@@ppiercejr A nice as it would be to have an 'amazing' 35-100 f1.4 lens why do you think it would be necessary (other than great light gathering capability)? I shoot with the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 and have no trouble getting subject/background separation. I recently did some shots with this lens where the close eye of the subject was in sharp focus and the more distant eye was quite blurred. Just how much smaller dof are you wanting? (It wasn't a look I was aiming for and now wish I had shot at at f4 or 5.6). I have the Olympus 300mm f4 and every time I see some someone shooting with a full frame 600mm lens I rejoice in the fact that my lens is so much smaller (and cheaper!) than theirs. The size and weight difference is huge. Is there any disadvantage in terms of dof? Bugger all! I bet you would barely notice it. And maybe at times it may be an advantage in that I may have more of my subject in focus. And how about a full frame equivalent of the Olympus 12-100 f4? Can you imagine how big that lens would be if you made a PRO quality lens that covered 24-200mm for FF? Not to mention the cost! I think you are very much over dramatising the dof issue. It isn't that big a deal and if shallow dof is your aim then it can be achieved by using the right parameters (distance to subject, subject to background etc). And of course if you want greater dof for macro of landscape then mft has a potential advantage. No one that shoots mft is bleating about not having as shallow dof as full frame. They just use their skills to obtain the photos that they want. If I showed you a selection of my photos and you had no idea what camera system I use there is no possibility that you would be able to detect that they were shot with an mft camera rather than FF. Is FF inferior to medium format, because you can't get as shallow a dof with FF? Of course not! Regardless of your system/sensor size you just work things to obtain the photos you want.
@@ppiercejr Although technically I agree with this you also have to remember with M43 that 'technically' a f1.2 lens allows the same amount of light through per sq. cm. of sensor that a f1.2 FF lens does. What you lose is DoF, but not everyone needs less DoF some require more (landscapes, macro etc.) so it should be horses for courses. I shoot both Sony (A7r5) and Olympus (OM1).
The Full Frame fans always overplay this. If you want to minimise DOF, why stop at a little 36x24 sensor - why not GFX, Hasselblad, Phase One? Unless you're a wedding photographer taking people photos against st*tty backgrounds, usually we need MORE DOF - landscape, macro, group shots, sports & wildlife, etc. Micro Four Thirds is optimal for real world photography
For the snob, bigger is always better. As example recently you said [roughly] Size does not matter, here I am using my 45MP ..... and while a camera phone is better at everything ~ it is using a tiny sensor and while the images are wonderful, when photographers but them under the microscope ... there is noting there, while the 10x8 film or digital under the same microscope is like an astronomical adventure.
Happy to hear that you now balance your message about sensor size. I used Olympus in the past, tried Canon R5 for some year (with 100-500 and TC) and are now back to OM/Olympus. If you are not willing to invest in extremely expensive and heavy lenses I think this system is much better than FF. I urge you to really try the system and feel you can be more open to all the advantages.
If you are talking about Nikon or Sony sensors, then yes bigger sensors are better for photography. A few years back Canon sensors were behind. Nikon and Sony had a few APSC sensors that were better than some of the Canon FF sensors but that has changed Canon is doing much better now.
@@branimirteodorovic2297 Thanks for confirming what I said about Older Canon sensors not being good. The RP is 5 years old. The Canon is still better because if you look at the SNR18 the RP is over 4db better which means a lot less noise in the image.
Using a monochrome sensor has changed my life. The Leica Q2M is the most amazing camera I’ve ever owned. Shooting in almost pure darkness handheld with almost no noise/grain is a trip.
One thing that isn't mentioned in the debate about sensor size is that the full frame sensor is more familiar to those photographers who started out on 35mm film cameras. I had set photography aside about the time when digital was taking over the market. When I finally in 2023 bought a used Canon T3i, I didn't know what a crop sensor was and I immediately didn't like the fact that a 50mm lens didn't coincide with my memory of what 50mm' should look like. After doing the homework I should have done earlier I knew I needed a full sensor- additional quality was a bonus but not the main issue, I get decent pictures with the the T3i now that I know what it is and isn't. Please Miss Chelsea read my post.
Sounds like you just need to learn what crop factor is and how to convert the focal length to full frame equivalent. Your 50mm*1.6 is a 80mm full frame equivalent. If you want 50mm, divide that value by 1.6 and get an APSC lens around 30mm. Tony has a great video about that.
Being an old and new school photographer (I'm 68) we bought film for different lighting conditions and depended on the dark room and our printing skills to correct over and under exposed shots to a great extent. Shooting wild life and action subjects was much more difficult in the old days and to a great degree was much more hit and miss compared to auto focus and exposure metering of today's even most basic cameras. Relatively speaking, photography was more expensive historically then today as well.
“ full frame is better because there is more range of lenses available. Other size sensors would be fine if there were enough lenses but they don’t exist.” Have you looked at the Olympus/OM Ststems lineup? There’s plenty to choose from and they are renowned for having great glass. None of the other brands has more to offer in glass. Maybe as much but not more.
@@robfj3414 not really true. The widest m43 lens is 6mm (12mm equivalent) and the longest is 300mm (600mm equivalent) Canon has both 10mm and 800 and 1200 mm lenses all with f-stops that produce shallower depth of field than anything even remotely equivalent on m43. I mean the longest m43 is a 300 f/4 while Canon has a 600 f/4. Any picture that can be taken on a m43 can be taken exactly on a full frame camera, but not the other way around
@@robfj3414 I agree with the sentiment and love using both Sony and Olympus because both have fantastic glass but there's no doubt there is more native mount glass for Sony by virtue of having more brands making glass for the mount - between 350 and 400 lenses as ur stands (Inc. native mount cinema lenses).
actually, Olympus/OM System has both a 600mm (1200mm effective) zoom and a 400mm zoom with built in teleconverter giving it and affective reach of 1200mm at a fixed f stop equivalent to the comparable Canon. And, unless you’re counting after-market brands, The range of 4/3 lenses available is certainly just as broad. Counting after-market lenses, you’ll find the Asian market has plenty of 4/3 offerings as well.
The problem with bigger sensors is that the depth of field shrinks. If you want the same depth of field, you have to stop down so far that the advantage of catching more light with a bigger sensor is completely eliminated. If you like bokeh, a bigger sensor is great for you.
Y'all are great for the online photo community. Really appreciate both of your perspectives having years of unique experience. Glad you're still producing!
I Photoshop a lot of things too because I can. I've been using Photoshop since the mid 90's when it only had four tool for film separation. I had several expert level certificates. Sadly I don't do subscriptions but I am perfectly fine with using the older version which I own.
Film has a lot more latitude. And ISO is basically fixed. So for birds where you would have a min shutter speed, aperture would be the main adjustment, and that’s super fast.
Hey guys - really enjoy your channel, but i take issue with you regarding sensor size. I studied photography from 1974 - 1976 at the local tech school, and for the first year everything we did was done on a 4X5 view camera. I thought my 35mm work was good; but when I saw the sharpness that a good lens on a 4X5 could provide, I was totally ruined for anything smaller. Eventually I did 'downgrade' to an RB67 system, which I used throughout my career. I've just invested in a Nikon Z8 system, and am totally blown away by the technology. While I agree that lens selection is important, the Z8 has a very small selection of native lenses. If I had chosen my camera based on lens selection, I would have wound up with a Nikon D850; any Fmount lens built since 1959 will fit. I still maintain that, all else being equal, a full frame sensor will beat a half frame sensor. You don't have to enlarge the image as much to get to a given print size; and that will pay dividends in sharpness. Keep on rockin, folks - if you have a rebuttal to my comments, I'd love to hear it! Best, Charlie
The IBIS doesn't help you to freeze moving items or subjects, and doesn't help with noise, dynamic range, and bokeh. For hand-held tele, IBIS doesn't help with large wobble, which is why in-lens OIS (optical IS) is so important for tele (and IBIS is not a substitute for that). For tripod work, IBIS wouldn't bring any advantage onto the table.
14:30 My time when I used to do real estate photography I used to get the some agents tell the vendors, "don't worry, WE can fix that in photoshop". Always "WE". However if I was to miss a shot they wanted (but never mentioned) then it was ME who made the mistake.
I started shouting in 1970. Full manual everything, there were no other choices. As automation entered the scene many of us used as much of it as actually worked for our style of work. Gear never matters until it does. Anymore I’ll take better lenses over a newer body. I‘ve always thought that with sensor size there was a point of diminishing returns. The sensor size has way more to do with how you use the final image. Showing things on social media doesn’t need a 50+ megapixel sensor. I had a person who always made fantastic prints tell me that 12 megapixels was more than enough for up to 11x14 prints. Since I rarely make prints over that I’m more than happy with my 24 megapixel cameras. Oh, and I don’t care if it’s crop, full frame or medium format, which isn’t even 6x4.5 in film camera size. As for the “rules of composition” you really need to know the rules before you can break them. That said though you should know why you are breaking them
If you've gotten used to shooting with the latest professional full frame mirrorless cameras and the best glass out there, it's always helpful to leave all that gear at home for a weekend, and pick up a micro four thirds camera with a kit lens, or even a pocket size point and shoot, or an antique all manual film camera with manual lenses, and challenge yourself by just focusing on the basics of photography from time to time. The technology can give us super powers, but simple, old gear or cheap, crappy gear forces us to overcome limitations, to focus on the fundamentals of the craft, and makes us better artists.
Skimming the contents, I think many miss the main points: get it right in camera and it's more important to be comfortable with your gear than the specific gear you have. Other than fps for action photos, specs are mostly bragging rights for the manufacturers as cameras from all the major manufacturers are good enough for someone to get photos with. One myth is sensor size, once at 20 megapixels or higher, sensor size is less critical for most people. I tend to compose with the idea "if it looks right, it is right" than specifically using specific rules. However I do notice many of my better shots sort of compositional 'rules'.
Photography is subjective. What's regarded as "no good" by one can also been seen as "absolutely gold" to others. Same goes for the topic you are talking about here. It's not about specs or whatever. It's about the user, the situation, the environment, your surroundings and how you adapt to them at the time. By all means if you have the budget go for that ultra high end camera. It does not matter. Bottom line is YOU YOURSELF be HAPPY. You must also remember that 100% of the time you will mostly struggle to get what you really want.
I think that the real secret of how pros Make themselves look so good at their craft is that they know their camera inside out and they never show a photo that they haven't edited to their liking because the second rule works really well with some makes of camera
I would like to add that when you're buying your first camera, you should buy a basic inexpensive camera and explore all different types of photography. You don't know what you'll really like or dislike. If you find yourself shooting sports or portraits then you'll know what limitations you have. You will also learn more about what features would be more beneficial to you..and when you get a lens, try a variable zoom lens and a prime lens. This will help you try out different focal ranges and shooting methods. Don't spend too much. And apsc is fine for this. I call this your training camera and lens. You might think you like wild life but not enjoy it and rather do flash photography, or landscape. So before you spend tons of money try things out cheap. Once you see patterns then you will find out your needs and wants more concrete and can purchase the right lenses and cameras and other equipment. Otherwise you will buy something you thought you want and need, but rarely end up using it. An example: you buy a full frame camera with 2 large heavy prime lenses. You find out later you don't take it to trips because it's too heavy and bulky and would rather have bought an APSC smaller camera with 2 pancake lenses making it lighter and travel friendly. But you would not know that unless you actually tried it.
My self learning experience has been to experiment and learn the limitations of the photography gear and processing software. A Nikon 200-500 f 5.6 lens has light and range limitations dependent upon tge size of your subject, the distance to the subject, your standard for detail, your software and editing skill limitations. Multiply that be every subject, camera, lens and ambient condition variation.
Some of the rules, esp. the rule of thirds, is really great to get more compelling photos - in the beginning. When you get more experienced you learn, when to break the rules... Tony is right, when filling the frame is for the era of social media and small screens, but those photos are so forgetable - most of them. And I wouldn't get a print of any of those photos.
I will recommend that any beginner take time to learn to shoot fully manual to fully grasp the exposure triangle. It's not practical all the time, but its good to master. Also, experiment with other modes to see how they can be useful in different shooting scenarios.
The bigger sensor is bigger stems from the early 2000s when a lot of film photographers, wanting to dip their toe in digital first bought non DSLR digitals. In my case first it was a 2.1MP Kodak DC290 I bought in 2000 and I used to teach a 2001 class on Introduction to Digital in Manila Philippines sponsored by Kodak Philippine and another at Graphic Arts expo which covered Photo editing and RGB > CYMK color management for graphic artists. I was also the keynote speaker telling at the show-my day job was Director of the US State Department Publishing Center there. I took some great photos with that camera, up to 12x18 prints in a 3M Rainbow dye sub but none of them had shallow DOF or great Bokeh because of the small sensor. But it was the only non DSLR digital at the time with a PC connector for triggering my external flashes. A lot of commercial studio film shooters switched to then for checking lighting exposure instead of the Polaroid Type 55 neg/pos they had been because of PC > flash connector My next one a 5MP Minolta D7Hi purchased in 2001. One of the first EVF mirrorless with 28mm-100mm equiv zoom, shot RAW and videos and sync’d flash to 1/8000 but the small sensor / short actual focal length meant no shallow DOF. I was using it with a set of studio lights and the DOF was why in 2004 I switched to a 8.2 MP APS-C Canon 20D and invested for the long term in good glass 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200mm and EF-S 10-22mm to complete my ‘Holy Trinity’ With the combination of the APS-C and 2.8 glass I finally got the shallow DOF and Bokeh I was missing. The DOF on the smaller sensor optically was the short ACTUAL focal length. Back when everyone was still using 35mm format film stating that a digital camera had an EQUIVALENT focal length meant you got the same crop, like the 1.6 crop factor for APS-C vs FF, i.e., = 35mm The actual focal of the 28-100 equiv. D7Hi was around 10-40mm actual
Size does matter in one key area- Large format printing. At least that was my experience with Canon mirrorless cameras. I have taken identical photos with the same lens using three different cameras. Canon R, Canon R6, Canon R5. The series of shots were set up as equally as humanly possible and the very limited post processing was exactly the same for each camera with a 10% proportional crop around the outside of each image. While I am sure there are differences in how the different cameras process the image, when each picture was printed on a 13x19 and a 17x22 museum grade paper, the R6 with it's smaller sensor produced a substandard result. The 30 megapixel sensor on the R produced results that were relatively close to what came out of the R5. Main difference was in some places that transitioned from light to dark but the differences were very subtle. For that reason, I passed on the R6 and later, the R6 II due to the smaller sensor. Same goes for any camera with a sensor any smaller that the original R series. The smaller sensor is fine for social media, blogging, snapshots, family photo albums, etc., but falls short if you desire professional quality, large format prints. It gets even worse if the crop increases in post processing.
Let's not be crazy here. A 1D-series camera can get spectacular landscape captures if the photographer knows how to shoot and edit photos properly. Also, the bigger the sensor, the better. Of course not in ever situation, but objectively, bigger sensors are better, especially in low light situations, all else being equal.
15:19 Now don't laugh. I am an experienced Motorsport photographer of almost 50 years. I only changed to digital in 2006. I purchased the Lumix DMC FZ2500 the day it was released (after owning a bunch of bridge cameras) and its the best camera i have ever used. My forte is motion blur and the 2500 handles it with fantastic results. Having built-in ND filters is the key. So this 1" sensor is great, Oh and I'm not carrying a bunch of lenses..
Chelsea, Tony, I'm not a professional photographer, i'm an artist/painter. I love cameras, I love the design of the bodies, lens, i't addictive. I love taking pictures, but when you hear everyone always pushing full frame all the live long day, you feel guilty if you love APS-C, Micro four thirds or smaller sensors. I't like that seen in RED HEAT of Jim Belushi and Arnold comparing their weapons. I don't mind owning a full frame, but i hate always carrying a heavy camera, but i love those images.
Of course. If people could only use an IMAX camera your image would be completely amazing but try carrying that camera and equipment with you. It's all a balance between convenience and control.
As the owner of the D800 and the X-H2. I love my smaller frame X-H2 because of the bells & whistles, lack of a mirror and better video and great stills.
I have used my M50 and the R6 in comparison and it’s crazy to see how beautiful the photos from the M50 (with a flash)are compared to my R6 but, in low light the R6 definitely out shines the M50 by far! The lens of course made a huge improvement on the M50. Love listening to you guys✊🏼🤙🏼
Manual mode. I know of 2 popular wildlife photographers that make a living doing workshops shooting Manual iso. One for sure uses the lens control ring to ratchet the iso as needed & pretty sure the other uses the same technique. Got to remember they are out doing it all the time & the muscle memory is probably second nature. Add in they most likely approach the area & if clouds or shaded areas are present have an idea that eg; if panning right at a certain point they would need to crank the iso up seeing the correct exposure in todays EVF’s. Again they do it professionally. Not sure I’m sharp enough to but maybe with a couple of days with good sleep & mucho practice, I might trip over my own feet & land on an acorn.
Love your unbiased reviews.. brands must hate you guys 😆 I have the r5 and im a portrait photographer, have no reason to upgrade to the r5ii.. the autofocus is the only thing that caught my eye cause I do shoot in lowlight, plus sunset shoots. The video upgrade is nice but it’s not a must. If you got the money and want to splurge then sure get the latest and greatest.
Landscaping photographers use Manual all the time. Because there is no hurry. But in sports and wildlife auto ISO is pretty common. I often used to use Aperture Priority but finally Manual is fine. Just moving few dials. It is not a big deal!
FF (Lumix), APSC (Fuji) and MFT (Lumix) shooter here. IMHO the longer the lenses, smaller sensoc makes sense. The shorter the lens, the bigger sensor makes sense. When I was shooting wildlife I really adored the fixed 200/2.8 an 300/4 MFT system had. Reach of 400 and 600mm combined with excellent sharpness and Lumix class leading IBIS was just superb. But then I focused more on photographing my kids. All of a sudden Leica 42.5/1.2 for €1,800 didn't make sense as I could easily get Viltrox 75/1.2 or Lumix 85/1.8 for less than €600. I also admire the mich richer image depth on the larger sensor for nature and landscape photography. Sure, if I wanted to to wildlife with longer prime lenses on FF, that would on the other hand be much more expensive compared to the smaller sensors. In my eyes, there is almost no bad system on the market. I say almost because I'm completely switching from Fuji (H2 & H2s) to Lumix as Fuji's 4th generation of phase detect AF simply doesn't work compared to the very 1st generation of phase detect AF on Lumix which is insane. If my goal was to use €2,700 stacked sensor camera for some street snaps with pancake lenses? Yeaaaah maybe. 😂😂
Camera physics/engineering is so much simpler than people think. In the end, anything FF can do, any other sensor type can do too. HOWEVER every change to the sensor needs to be compensated accordingly in the lens in order to achieve the same result. And i mean, exactly the same result under the same conditions, same bokeh, same noise, same fov, same everything. My issue with APS-C and especially MFT is that "bad" sensors need "good" lenses to compensate, and well, making the sensor bigger is A LOT cheaper than improving the quality of EVERY lens you own in order to get the same results. MFT and APS-C lenses arent naturally smaller, ligher or cheaper, they just perform less than the user believes due to marketing. So personally, the ONLY reason i consider APS-C to be a good choice, is when you already have great lenses and prefer an APS-C secondary body over using a high MP primary body (i personally hate high MP because you dont need them and they waste storage, bandwidth etc.). I'd rather have my R6ii and get a R50ii in a few years than having a R5ii instead. Similarly you might appreciate a R7 if you have an R1/R3 and expensive lenses, in order to get a higher pixel density. MFT on the other hand is imho nonsensical, since there arent any other sensor types you can double down on using the lenses with. And if you are fine with a "bad" sensor and a "bad" lens, just get a bridge-camera. That's the lightest, cheapest, smallest and most versatile option, if image quality is not a priority. Or a compact camera works too. And finally, does that make medium format even better, in theory? Absolutely. The only issue is it's not widespread enough for the prices to be optimal. That's the benefit of FF, that it's just very common, and has the most variety, while also ranging from affordable to an open ceiling.
“Yeah, I guess what we’re saying is If you think bigger sensors are better it’s not necessarily true if you can get a good deal on a camera with a smaller sensor that’s fine you shouldn’t be just exclusively looking at that “. Chelsea said. SO in case I'm shooting the moon for example a higher pixel density crop sensor would be much more better then a full frame sensor even if the full frame sensor has a higher megapixels in total resolution but it lakes the higher pixel density especially when the lens is replaced with a telescope So the conclusion is as Chelsea said exactly .
High pixel density is not necessarily a good thing, in low light. I don't know of any pro camera of any sensor size, that outperforms the 12MP Sony A7Siii in low light. Those big photoreceptors really suck in the photons.
M43 sensor. I shoot both Sony (A7r5) and Olympus (OM1) both with a range of fast pro-level lenses (f.1.2, f1.4 etc). I've picked up my Sony less than half a dozen times since I bought the OM1 (and now added the OM5), simply because most of the time I don't require super low DoF and because the Oly offers a range of computational features and ridiculously good IBIS (far better than any FF camera - try hand holding a FF camera for 3-4 secs to blur crowds but keeping the environment pin sharp) that is simply not available in any FF camera. Both are superb cameras, both have superb lenses and both have their place in my kit.
I always agree with Chelsea, but I have to say, not with the thirds rule - remember Edward Weston’s advice about composition being “the strongest way of seeing” - every person can respond to the subject (Tony) differently, as individually, our visions are personal and hopefully not just a copy of the same old, same old…. A real challenge.
When photographing a flying bird, it's actually most useful to use full manual. Your bird will be properly exposed, whether it's flying against a bright sky, or a dark green forest.
Full frame is better than MFT because it's much easier to design 50mm f/1.2 FF than a 25mm f/0.6 MFT. It's just physics. Plus, FF will always have higher dynamic range. I'm not saying that FF is better for every genre of photography, but for most of people FF is better.
Th consumer does not care about lense design , we care about results and full frame does not give me better results. Ff is better on paper but not in the real world, if you know what you do. I do photo and video for money with my gh7 and the camera does great.
@@davestokes3446 On sunny days, I hike with a 800mm Canon RF 800mm F/11...very lightweight lens and I've got some great photos of caribou, bears, and moose up here in Alaska.
Dear friend. Now many people take pictures on a smartphone and at the same time take excellent photos, an example of this is the annual international mobile photography competition. After all, the best camera is the one that is always with you, and this is a smartphone in your pocket, and the camera, as a rule, remains lying on the shelf and collecting dust. Now the size of the matrix is becoming less relevant, with the introduction of neural networks, artificial intelligence.
I feel like bigger is better but money exists 😂 covering and experimenting all focal lenses in ff is very very expensive. Probably better for everyone to start with micro four thirds, because that small camera and lens combo will be used again at some point, even after buying full frame. You can get all focal lengths and a camera with tons of features for way under 1k usd. Then it’s easier to make the decision of what ff lens and camera to buy.
Sorry Tony but I just checked your two wildlife portfolios and honestly for the style of photos that are most appealing to me, I liked Chelsea’s. I do both styles but like to see more of the environment when it can be included.
Tony's advice about choosing the lenses first seems counterintuitive, but it probably is correct. How this can relate to you two learning golf is interesting. And maybe this will help you. One guy that I've golfed with, who was a golf coach, said to start at the cup and work your way back to the tee. Too many people start at the tee and work their way to the cup, in terms of learning the game. Much like your photography suffers if you don't have the right lenses and blow your whole budget on the body, your golf game blows up as you get closer to the cup, if you don't know how to chip and putt. It seems like putting the cart before the horse, but it's really determining your goal then figuring out what you need to achieve that, but you have to work backward from that goal...
The RF 24-105 4L is a "kit lens" in the sense that there are kits that contain a camera and this lens. It is a lens with "L" denomination, and therefore sharper than those super-cheap lesser kit lenses, but I found the chromatic aberrations make the results appear less sharp than expected.
Nice video guys. I love an APSC sensor because it means I can get my camera and lenses in my small bag when I'm out and about. I could buy a full frame but I would take a lot fewer photos.
I agree with Tony on the rule of thirds. For me the “rule” is a compositional crutch. Composition is about flow and balance not rules. The “rule” originally dealt with color ratios, not composition. Research “Sir Joshua Reynolds” to learn how this obscure creative straight jacket came about over three hundred years ago.
I picked up a used aps-c Sony and few years later, the FF big brother. The extra detail from the FF I like when blowing up the picture. Buying used....I picked up a-mount bodies to use with old Minolta lenses.
Nothing like a bit of healthy competition between spouses. Just have a full frame and an APSC body and all the lenses you can afford. I find the smaller sensor with a really good lens will give me better photos than a full frame and an "adequate" lens.
After 10 in photography I, finally, have Nikon Z8 and Nikkor 85 mm 1.2. After 10 days working with this dream combo all I have to say - invest big and liberate yourself. It's freedom and joy. Simple as that...
Anyone shooting landscape should be ready for great wildlife photographs that come about unexpectedly. Z( might be an overkill for landscape but in those situations when unexpected wildlife appears it would be God sent.
It's not about the price. It's about knowing about the basics and using them properly: aperture, shutter speed, ISO - plus (Auto-)focus and focal length. After this you'll know what tool to buy..😁👍🏼
There is no substitute for cc's is often heard in the motor vehicle world and I think the same applies to sensor size. If that wasn't so pro's would not be shooting MF and making more money with less expensive full frame cameras. But I think it does depend on your standards and intentions. No point in using a 100 MP X2D for publishing only on the web for photographs that are not heavily cropped. But if you print large and into Fine Art landscape or portrait photography I think larger sensors make sense as they offer better dynamic range and better colour. But as you say image content and post processing finesse is the No1 priority - a high end MF camera won't compensate for poor vision! Thanks for a thought provoking video!
Okay, you are out photographing animals. You see a scene and subject that you instantly know looks great. Take some pics and go home to view. You work on the image to make it look just the same as you viewed it in the field. (with blur) So the image is exactly the way you want it. You put it on your site to be sold at numerous sizes from small to huge. You offer it for sale and people try to buy it, but when they see it, it looks a little different from the original. At least the border will be different for all the different sized images. So the final image sold will not completely look like the original or really even the original scene. How do you compensate for all the different frame sizes when printing? And you both win but Chelsea wins a little more. Until she's not looking and then Tony wins.
My point of confusion is why do my mixed lighting, at night, run and gun photos need soooo much Photoshop while I see my friends iphone's doing a great job. I hope to see Ai playing out in cameras. My dream is small camera, interchangeable lenses and a Xperia 'brain". I want Fuji to buy the rights to the Nikon 1 mount...and go from there !
I shoot with a Nikon D90. It is an OK toy. For really sharp images I get out my Graphflex Century Graphic. A 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 size negative with a good fine grain film gives very good images. You can’t match it with the tiny toy cameras. Plus it has tilt and shift.shift, Correct some perspective in camera.
Love you guys, my wish; Bring back live shows, include talk about DLSRs, photography is about all photography right? Not just the latest technology... (I own mirrorless & dlsr, as many others do)
Thank you for a great show, what is your answer to people who say cell phones are the new norm for photography and that the pictures that's taken with cell phones is better than a Dslr or Mirrorless Camera?
I always enjoy your videos, but two things I am compelled to say…. Could you leave 5 seconds or so on your sign-off frame at the end of your videos rather than cutting it off right as Tony says “Bye?” When I hear you winding it up I rarely have time to pick up the remote and hit pause so I can click the Like, and often am in a rush so don’t have time to go back into history, start the video again so I can click Like …. My other point is that making me choose between the roguish charm of Tony, and the brilliant mind and stunning beauty that is Chelsea, well that is an impossible choice for this guy! Thanks again you two!
It's probably to make sure that you hit the post video advert. I've noticed quite a few videos don't bother with the "Click here for another video" end sequences now and just dump you into the advert.
Bigger negative is better, bigger sensor is better to. No discussion. The problem with "medium" format sensor, is that it is too SMALL compared with medium format negative of old cameras.
Love your work and I appreciate your videos. I would watch more of your videos if they were shorter; 5-8 min. Take it or leave it and I still love you guys ✌🏻
I don’t necessarily think there’s a shortage of people “into photography” as your last question assumes. Everyone on Instagram is into photography, the art , the creativity and story telling, whether it be girls working angles, designing the wardrobe and make up, story telling their day at the coffee shop or their daily hike etc, most people today are increddddddibly better at photography than the top RUclips Instagram influencer or average hobbyist would be 10 years ago. How we get them to care more is offer more affordable gear. Most people in North America are living paycheck to paycheck trying to keep shelter and food, smartphone and computer and car could be seen as a necessity, no one has $2k to spend on a body plus $1000’s extra for lenses. The cameras and lenses at these price points provide the quality boost it’s going to take to upgrade from a smartphone. No one wants to go from smartphone to $500 camera to barely notice a difference. I think camera manufacturers really limit the amount of money they could make by pricing the bodies so high, the more bodies they sell the more people they have in their ecosystem to make lenses purchases. Why should a r6 ii for example cost as much or more than a MacBook Pro? Perhaps lowering the price could entice more people.
Best golf tip, make your swing correct and figure out how far you can hit straight first. Selecting the particular club will be based on that knowledge.
I have to disagree with Tonys Sensor Size Statement. Size matters a lot … this time … 🙄 „Signal to Noise Ratio“ is usually better on bigger sensors. It‘s maybe less of a concern the more you photograph in controlled environments where you have control over the overall lighting. Full Frame is usually the sweet spot for the most use cases these days. But it is still not the best choice for everyone and any use case. That’s what you should know first and answer questions like „What transfer rate do you need (for continuous shooting)?“, „Is readout speed of the sensor a factor (rolling shutter)?“, „Which focal lenghts do you need for your specific use case?“, „How much weight are you willing to carry (the best camera is the camera you are taking with you)“, „How much budget do you have and what is the standard you want to achieve?“, etc. etc. Smartphone cams are great … if you don‘t have any standard at all … sorry to say that. They might look great on a smartphone but as soon as the environment gets more and more challenging or screens get bigger and you wanna go into details, they‘ll fall apart. Therefore I don’t think it is that easy regarding the statement, that sensor size don‘t matter.
It does not matter if full frame is better on paper. The result is what counts and smaller sensors give more than good enough results for any use case. By the way medium format cameras have better noise ratio and higher dynamic range than full frame... So number pushers like you should only use medium format..😂😂
@@andersistbesser Nope, that’s not what I‘ve said and I’m not interested in numbers ;-) It was about Tonys statement that sensor size don’t matter while it does (on a hardware basis). That doesn’t mean that you can get only good results with bigger sensors. In the end it’s about the photographer and his/her ability to create and/or see photographs/motives. But wildlife and sports photography won‘t work with a smartphone. Larger prints or if you watch photographs on big screens won‘t work with Smartphones etc. There are hardware based facts you cannot ignore. That’s why I mentioned only a few questions anyone has to answer before buying into a system and Chelsea&Tony should have spoken about. And no, Medium Format isn‘t the best for everything. There are a lot of diminishing returns regarding Medium Format Sensors besides that they are incredible expensive. In the end, keep it civil and don‘t make it personal when it’s not needed. I made an objective comment and I‘m happy to discuss about it.
The Rule of..... Treat the rules more like strong suggestions. However, the one rule that I pay very close attention to is The Rule of Motion, especially for wildlife, air shows, and sports in general. You want to ruin an otherwise good shot of a deer moving through the woods? Put more space behind the deer than in front of the deer when you're processing the shot. Or do the same with a P47 Thunderbolt making a high speed pass across the flight line. The shots lose perspective.
I only have a little canon 200d and i rarely use shutter priority or aperture priority and find them a waste on that camera because it doesn't have a setting for minimum shutter speed, it does however have a setting for maximum ISO which i set to 3200 for night street and 800 for daytime wildlife so its far easier to set and forget my shutter and aperture and use auto ISO. The only time I'm shooting full manual, is when doing nightscapes
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey Tony and Chelsea, been years that I've stepped away from photography but lately I was asked to volunteer shoot for a good cause and it reminded me about what I missed about photography. So after ten years, I tuned back to your channel and one thing struck me, Father time has changed you in only one way but has had no effect on the energy and love you both carry as a couple and despite your channel being a photography channel i remember always enjoying your dynamic together, it's a rare and beautiful thing. ❤
Photography - keep your head up. Golf - keep your head down.
Unless you're shooting with a TLR. 🤣
Funny, read golf as retired. :) They have retired from photography and taken up Golf, even if they don't know it yet themselves.
[9:10] Admittedly, Northrup’s channel was one of a handful we watched that helped us rationalize our decision to use µ4/3 professionally. The choices of glass was extremely KEY, and with today’s post processing software, honestly, the end products are indistinguishable from other formats. We have ZERO regrets, and ZERO complaints with the results…
Our decision to choose the path we have taken literally saved us TWO THIRDS of the cost of choosing otherwise, cameras bodies and lenses, that would have cost two and three times more, allowed a level of flexibility beyond measure…
Limitations or lack of creativity is not the fault of the gear but rather the individual who uses them. What a person can’t accomplish, others have and with less…
🤔
I agree about creativity & the 22” behind the camera & people have done it with less. Learn how to best use your equipment within its limitations, if any! I do think good glass & great light rank right up there with creativity.
I'm just a hobbyist who purchased an Olympus EM10 around 2016 after owning a D60 & D80, and it was nothing but amazing that I purchased a Olympus EM1 Mark ii. Now I want to buy a full frame camera just to see what it's like. So I'm looking at buying a Nikon D610 soon. I have shot with my friends Canon 5D Mark III, but haven't been able to fully digest the experience. I say all that to say that Micro 4/3 are no slouches. I hate they don't get the love here in the US
wait, can we have a contest between chelsea and tony where the community chooses between their photos? but don't tell us who took each photo
I vote for Chelsea, i don't care if she doesn't take any photos
I want in
What are you going to view them on - you phone or some 8k monitor?
@@neonsignguy I will vote but I'll be fair.
i shoot with auto exposure (just set aperture and shutter speed), ignore the rule of thirds (if it looks good to me, then that's all that matters), i use my a6100 w/my sony 1.8 11mm (16.5) more than my sony a7iii with a 16-35 2.8 (the former is more compact, lighter and inexpensive - i worry less about them), i love minimalist landscapes, yet i love sunsets with massive waves and deeply textured clouds. i hate photoshop and generative AI. the only AI i use is denoise in LR.
as usual, i love your vids and thanks for always keeping it real.
hello my friend. my spirit animal 😂
I got the R7 because of compactness and affordability, with sigmas f2.8 lenses, and the rfs 18-150 for general purpose, te rf100-500L for wildlife and whatever else. I shoot mostly landscapes and my local wildlife and sometimes aviation. Occasionally people. I also hate AI except the denoise in photolab.
@@christof4105 haha nice to meet you, friend 😁 how is photolab??
@@marc_likes_marketing i dont have anything else to compare it to, especially lightroom or photoshop but i think it is very good in what it is supposed to do.
@@christof4105 THANK YOU!
What's crazy is that the MEDIUM format is actually larger than FULL frame.
I have never thought about it that way. My brain itches. 🧠
That is because 35mm was once considered as Small Format and 4x5 and larger were Large Format.
My first camera was a 1960's Nikkormat with a detached light meter. I crapped up a tonne of films doing this. Every innovation after that was welcomed by me as something that would make my process easier and better. I shoot for fishing magazines professionally (as an outdoor journalist) and wildlife as a hobby. My fishing shots are usually with the camera on P or S (with auto Iso), my wildlife shots on S or M if I want to close down my aperture a bit (all with auto Iso). I am happy with that, which is all that counts to me. As a 60+ years photo enthousiast I don't give a f## about what people I don't know personally, think about my choices (and many people I do know). Time is too valuable to waste it on useless opinions.
You guys touched quickly on a bunch of things that are all fairly complex. I think these are good thoughts to "prime the pump" for folks looking for more information. For me learning is one of the top reasons I love photography - I am always learning stuff! And I've been at it for about 37 years. Hmmm... maybe I'm a slow learner, LOL.
One tip I would add is that people should take notes. As an example I was hired to shoot an event about a year ago and it involved setting up a "photo booth" portrait space, but also shooting the general activity like speakers, performers, people at tables eating, drinking and talking - all the things. It meant I was shooting both in a studio setup with my lights, and in a hotel event space setup without light - completely different settings and I had to switch back and forth a couple times. So I made notes of what settings and lenses worked. A year later I was hired to shoot the event again (just last weekend), and thanks to my notes I was able to refresh my memory easily and come prepared to shoot without problems. Yup - notes! Take them and learn :)
At 4:27 you can observe the phenomenon where the photographer only smiles at an aperture of less than 2
I have my late dad’s 50R. It’s certainly not everything, but it can help.
some kit lenses are pretty good - Nikon Z 24-70 f/4, Fuji 16-55 f/2.8-4....
These are not kit lenses.
Fixed aperture of F4 on the Nikon 24-70mm is not a feature of kit lenses.
@@shadyninja1 If it's sold as a kit, than it's a kit lens
When I got the Canon RP, it came with the 24-105 f4 as a kit lens.
It's quite a nice lens.
@@shadyninja1 It was sold as a kit....
I use a full frame camera but I've started shooting with F4 lenses. I generally prefer a deeper depth of field these days for 2 reasons. 1. It forces me to consider the background and not just lazily obliterate it. If I wanted no background, I'd just shoot in a studio. 2. When I shot portraits of my daughter with my $3k F1.2, her response to the natural bokeh was "ew, why did you take these in 'portrait mode', that's so lame". A humbling moment
Indeed, what's the point of shooting on location, if you blur out the location?
@@careylymanjonesI live in Hollywood. Gotta blur out the homeless people. 😅
The rule of third is important because it stops beginners of always putting the subject in the middle (whatever the subject is, can be a person, an animal, a mountain range, an island). It leads to boring, bad photos that always need cropping and it was the rule of thirds that made me stop doing that. I hate post processing so if I can get it right when taking the photo, that's a win for me.
While I don’t follow the rule of thirds consciously, I find that the pictures I do take that stand out as the better photos have a strong rule of thirds layout.
Rule of thirds became a "rule" because it works for most scenes. There are exceptions to every rule. If you're shooting wildlife, and the critter is looking at you, centered works, too.
One of the defining differences between a point and clicker and a professional thought out photo, IMHO
I got a Sony A7, and a Fujfilm X100S. Both by now older models yes. And yes with the right lens both have about the same expectations.
Thing is the Fujifilm X100S is a whole lot of fun. And the quality of the images is perfectly fine for most use. Not to mention, it looks harmless, almost cute. Unlike my A7 ...
I remember I once had a bride that didn’t dye her blonde hair before the engagement photos. Think reverse skunk with the reversed roots. I was in no way technically able or patient enough to fix that in post.
I certainly enjoyed the debate about the usefulness of the rule of thirds taking place in a shot composed bases on the rule of thirds.
It is always said that Medium format has a completely different depth of field.
Mathematically speaking, it always stays the same.
A larger sensor makes it a bit softer, partly due to the lenses. In addition, the medium format has 16 bit colors. Combination with a larger sensor, smoother sharpness depth, different sensor ratio
??? m43 has not enough or not the right lenses? First, m43 has the largest choices of native lenses of any camera system. Second, you can adapt any lens to m43 given that doubled focal length/increased DoF is what one wants. Third, there are some lenses for m43 that do not exist for other formats. Fourth, if m43 lenses are to cheap, go for a 25k$ Rodenstock cine lens.
I think you may have missed some of the point. It m43 may have tons of lenses, but does it have equivalent lenses to produce the same images as full frame? In a lot of cases, NO. Want the same fical length and depth of field as a 400 f2.8 then you need a 200 f1.4 which doesn’t exist. Want a 600 f/4, then you’ll need the 300 f/2, want an 85 f/1.2 then you’ll need a 42 f/0.6. How about a 70-200 f2.8, you’ll need the amazing 35-100 f/1.4. Any other lenses and you’ll get a totally different depth of field and not the same quality subject to background separation. So yes, you have a lot of lenses and can adapt even more, you just can’t get what you can get in full frame.
@ppiercejr Most pro's are stopping down F1.4's to F2.8 anyway so it's all trivial.
@@ppiercejr A nice as it would be to have an 'amazing' 35-100 f1.4 lens why do you think it would be necessary (other than great light gathering capability)? I shoot with the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 and have no trouble getting subject/background separation. I recently did some shots with this lens where the close eye of the subject was in sharp focus and the more distant eye was quite blurred. Just how much smaller dof are you wanting? (It wasn't a look I was aiming for and now wish I had shot at at f4 or 5.6). I have the Olympus 300mm f4 and every time I see some someone shooting with a full frame 600mm lens I rejoice in the fact that my lens is so much smaller (and cheaper!) than theirs. The size and weight difference is huge. Is there any disadvantage in terms of dof? Bugger all! I bet you would barely notice it. And maybe at times it may be an advantage in that I may have more of my subject in focus. And how about a full frame equivalent of the Olympus 12-100 f4? Can you imagine how big that lens would be if you made a PRO quality lens that covered 24-200mm for FF? Not to mention the cost!
I think you are very much over dramatising the dof issue. It isn't that big a deal and if shallow dof is your aim then it can be achieved by using the right parameters (distance to subject, subject to background etc). And of course if you want greater dof for macro of landscape then mft has a potential advantage. No one that shoots mft is bleating about not having as shallow dof as full frame. They just use their skills to obtain the photos that they want. If I showed you a selection of my photos and you had no idea what camera system I use there is no possibility that you would be able to detect that they were shot with an mft camera rather than FF. Is FF inferior to medium format, because you can't get as shallow a dof with FF? Of course not! Regardless of your system/sensor size you just work things to obtain the photos you want.
@@ppiercejr Although technically I agree with this you also have to remember with M43 that 'technically' a f1.2 lens allows the same amount of light through per sq. cm. of sensor that a f1.2 FF lens does. What you lose is DoF, but not everyone needs less DoF some require more (landscapes, macro etc.) so it should be horses for courses. I shoot both Sony (A7r5) and Olympus (OM1).
The Full Frame fans always overplay this. If you want to minimise DOF, why stop at a little 36x24 sensor - why not GFX, Hasselblad, Phase One?
Unless you're a wedding photographer taking people photos against st*tty backgrounds, usually we need MORE DOF - landscape, macro, group shots, sports & wildlife, etc. Micro Four Thirds is optimal for real world photography
For the snob, bigger is always better. As example recently you said [roughly] Size does not matter, here I am using my 45MP ..... and while a camera phone is better at everything ~ it is using a tiny sensor and while the images are wonderful, when photographers but them under the microscope ... there is noting there, while the 10x8 film or digital under the same microscope is like an astronomical adventure.
Happy to hear that you now balance your message about sensor size. I used Olympus in the past, tried Canon R5 for some year (with 100-500 and TC) and are now back to OM/Olympus. If you are not willing to invest in extremely expensive and heavy lenses I think this system is much better than FF. I urge you to really try the system and feel you can be more open to all the advantages.
If you are talking about Nikon or Sony sensors, then yes bigger sensors are better for photography. A few years back Canon sensors were behind. Nikon and Sony had a few APSC sensors that were better than some of the Canon FF sensors but that has changed Canon is doing much better now.
Canon RP has less dynamic range (11.9 stops) than all of modern MFT sensors (even Lumix GH5 has 13 stops)
@@branimirteodorovic2297 Thanks for confirming what I said about Older Canon sensors not being good. The RP is 5 years old. The Canon is still better because if you look at the SNR18 the RP is over 4db better which means a lot less noise in the image.
Edge Patrol - always check the edges of your frame to see what it intruding.
Using a monochrome sensor has changed my life. The Leica Q2M is the most amazing camera I’ve ever owned. Shooting in almost pure darkness handheld with almost no noise/grain is a trip.
One thing that isn't mentioned in the debate about sensor size is that the full frame sensor is more familiar to those photographers who started out on 35mm film cameras. I had set photography aside about the time when digital was taking over the market. When I finally in 2023 bought a used Canon T3i, I didn't know what a crop sensor was and I immediately didn't like the fact that a 50mm lens didn't coincide with my memory of what 50mm' should look like. After doing the homework I should have done earlier I knew I needed a full sensor- additional quality was a bonus but not the main issue, I get decent pictures with the the T3i now that I know what it is and isn't. Please Miss Chelsea read my post.
Sounds like you just need to learn what crop factor is and how to convert the focal length to full frame equivalent. Your 50mm*1.6 is a 80mm full frame equivalent. If you want 50mm, divide that value by 1.6 and get an APSC lens around 30mm. Tony has a great video about that.
Being an old and new school photographer (I'm 68) we bought film for different lighting conditions and depended on the dark room and our printing skills to correct over and under exposed shots to a great extent. Shooting wild life and action subjects was much more difficult in the old days and to a great degree was much more hit and miss compared to auto focus and exposure metering of today's even most basic cameras. Relatively speaking, photography was more expensive historically then today as well.
“ full frame is better because there is more range of lenses available. Other size sensors would be fine if there were enough lenses but they don’t exist.”
Have you looked at the Olympus/OM Ststems lineup? There’s plenty to choose from and they are renowned for having great glass.
None of the other brands has more to offer in glass. Maybe as much but not more.
@@robfj3414 not really true. The widest m43 lens is 6mm (12mm equivalent) and the longest is 300mm (600mm equivalent) Canon has both 10mm and 800 and 1200 mm lenses all with f-stops that produce shallower depth of field than anything even remotely equivalent on m43. I mean the longest m43 is a 300 f/4 while Canon has a 600 f/4. Any picture that can be taken on a m43 can be taken exactly on a full frame camera, but not the other way around
@@robfj3414 I agree with the sentiment and love using both Sony and Olympus because both have fantastic glass but there's no doubt there is more native mount glass for Sony by virtue of having more brands making glass for the mount - between 350 and 400 lenses as ur stands (Inc. native mount cinema lenses).
actually, Olympus/OM System has both a 600mm (1200mm effective) zoom and a 400mm zoom with built in teleconverter giving it and affective reach of 1200mm at a fixed f stop equivalent to the comparable Canon.
And, unless you’re counting after-market brands, The range of 4/3 lenses available is certainly just as broad.
Counting after-market lenses, you’ll find the Asian market has plenty of 4/3 offerings as well.
The problem with bigger sensors is that the depth of field shrinks. If you want the same depth of field, you have to stop down so far that the advantage of catching more light with a bigger sensor is completely eliminated. If you like bokeh, a bigger sensor is great for you.
Y'all are great for the online photo community. Really appreciate both of your perspectives having years of unique experience. Glad you're still producing!
I Photoshop a lot of things too because I can. I've been using Photoshop since the mid 90's when it only had four tool for film separation. I had several expert level certificates. Sadly I don't do subscriptions but I am perfectly fine with using the older version which I own.
Film has a lot more latitude. And ISO is basically fixed. So for birds where you would have a min shutter speed, aperture would be the main adjustment, and that’s super fast.
Hey guys - really enjoy your channel, but i take issue with you regarding sensor size. I studied photography from 1974 - 1976 at the local tech school, and for the first year everything we did was done on a 4X5 view camera. I thought my 35mm work was good; but when I saw the sharpness that a good lens on a 4X5 could provide, I was totally ruined for anything smaller. Eventually I did 'downgrade' to an RB67 system, which I used throughout my career. I've just invested in a Nikon Z8 system, and am totally blown away by the technology. While I agree that lens selection is important, the Z8 has a very small selection of native lenses. If I had chosen my camera based on lens selection, I would have wound up with a Nikon D850; any Fmount lens built since 1959 will fit. I still maintain that, all else being equal, a full frame sensor will beat a half frame sensor. You don't have to enlarge the image as much to get to a given print size; and that will pay dividends in sharpness. Keep on rockin, folks - if you have a rebuttal to my comments, I'd love to hear it! Best, Charlie
It’s not the size of the sensor, it’s the motion of the IBIS.
The IBIS doesn't help you to freeze moving items or subjects, and doesn't help with noise, dynamic range, and bokeh.
For hand-held tele, IBIS doesn't help with large wobble, which is why in-lens OIS (optical IS) is so important for tele (and IBIS is not a substitute for that).
For tripod work, IBIS wouldn't bring any advantage onto the table.
@@tubularificationedI think the joke may have gone over your head ...
Made me laugh.🤣
Gotta watch that IBIS motion.
LOL!
Oh yeah!
14:30 My time when I used to do real estate photography I used to get the some agents tell the vendors, "don't worry, WE can fix that in photoshop". Always "WE". However if I was to miss a shot they wanted (but never mentioned) then it was ME who made the mistake.
I started shouting in 1970. Full manual everything, there were no other choices. As automation entered the scene many of us used as much of it as actually worked for our style of work. Gear never matters until it does. Anymore I’ll take better lenses over a newer body. I‘ve always thought that with sensor size there was a point of diminishing returns. The sensor size has way more to do with how you use the final image. Showing things on social media doesn’t need a 50+ megapixel sensor. I had a person who always made fantastic prints tell me that 12 megapixels was more than enough for up to 11x14 prints. Since I rarely make prints over that I’m more than happy with my 24 megapixel cameras. Oh, and I don’t care if it’s crop, full frame or medium format, which isn’t even 6x4.5 in film camera size. As for the “rules of composition” you really need to know the rules before you can break them. That said though you should know why you are breaking them
I've been shouting since the 70s, too, but nobody ever listens
Your throat must be sore after 54 years.
If you've gotten used to shooting with the latest professional full frame mirrorless cameras and the best glass out there, it's always helpful to leave all that gear at home for a weekend, and pick up a micro four thirds camera with a kit lens, or even a pocket size point and shoot, or an antique all manual film camera with manual lenses, and challenge yourself by just focusing on the basics of photography from time to time. The technology can give us super powers, but simple, old gear or cheap, crappy gear forces us to overcome limitations, to focus on the fundamentals of the craft, and makes us better artists.
Chelsea of course. But it looks so lovely on camera, great chemistry
Skimming the contents, I think many miss the main points: get it right in camera and it's more important to be comfortable with your gear than the specific gear you have. Other than fps for action photos, specs are mostly bragging rights for the manufacturers as cameras from all the major manufacturers are good enough for someone to get photos with.
One myth is sensor size, once at 20 megapixels or higher, sensor size is less critical for most people.
I tend to compose with the idea "if it looks right, it is right" than specifically using specific rules. However I do notice many of my better shots sort of compositional 'rules'.
Right place...right time........that's better than sensor type 🤙😎🤙
Agree
Photography is subjective. What's regarded as "no good" by one can also been seen as "absolutely gold" to others. Same goes for the topic you are talking about here.
It's not about specs or whatever. It's about the user, the situation, the environment, your surroundings and how you adapt to them at the time.
By all means if you have the budget go for that ultra high end camera. It does not matter. Bottom line is YOU YOURSELF be HAPPY. You must also remember that 100% of the time you will mostly struggle to get what you really want.
I think that the real secret of how pros
Make themselves look so good at their craft is that they know their camera inside out and they never show a photo that they haven't edited to their liking because the second rule works really well with some makes of camera
I would like to add that when you're buying your first camera, you should buy a basic inexpensive camera and explore all different types of photography. You don't know what you'll really like or dislike. If you find yourself shooting sports or portraits then you'll know what limitations you have. You will also learn more about what features would be more beneficial to you..and when you get a lens, try a variable zoom lens and a prime lens. This will help you try out different focal ranges and shooting methods. Don't spend too much. And apsc is fine for this. I call this your training camera and lens. You might think you like wild life but not enjoy it and rather do flash photography, or landscape. So before you spend tons of money try things out cheap. Once you see patterns then you will find out your needs and wants more concrete and can purchase the right lenses and cameras and other equipment. Otherwise you will buy something you thought you want and need, but rarely end up using it.
An example: you buy a full frame camera with 2 large heavy prime lenses. You find out later you don't take it to trips because it's too heavy and bulky and would rather have bought an APSC smaller camera with 2 pancake lenses making it lighter and travel friendly. But you would not know that unless you actually tried it.
My self learning experience has been to experiment and learn the limitations of the photography gear and processing software. A Nikon 200-500 f 5.6 lens has light and range limitations dependent upon tge size of your subject, the distance to the subject, your standard for detail, your software and editing skill limitations.
Multiply that be every subject, camera, lens and ambient condition variation.
EXCELLENT! Huge difference between "that's nice" photo and a photo that tells a story.
Some of the rules, esp. the rule of thirds, is really great to get more compelling photos - in the beginning. When you get more experienced you learn, when to break the rules...
Tony is right, when filling the frame is for the era of social media and small screens, but those photos are so forgetable - most of them. And I wouldn't get a print of any of those photos.
I will recommend that any beginner take time to learn to shoot fully manual to fully grasp the exposure triangle. It's not practical all the time, but its good to master. Also, experiment with other modes to see how they can be useful in different shooting scenarios.
The bigger sensor is bigger stems from the early 2000s when a lot of film photographers, wanting to dip their toe in digital first bought non DSLR digitals.
In my case first it was a 2.1MP Kodak DC290 I bought in 2000 and I used to teach a 2001 class on Introduction to Digital in Manila Philippines sponsored by Kodak Philippine and another at Graphic Arts expo which covered Photo editing and RGB > CYMK color management for graphic artists. I was also the keynote speaker telling at the show-my day job was Director of the US State Department Publishing Center there. I took some great photos with that camera, up to 12x18 prints in a 3M Rainbow dye sub but none of them had shallow DOF or great Bokeh because of the small sensor. But it was the only non DSLR digital at the time with a PC connector for triggering my external flashes. A lot of commercial studio film shooters switched to then for checking lighting exposure instead of the Polaroid Type 55 neg/pos they had been because of PC > flash connector
My next one a 5MP Minolta D7Hi purchased in 2001. One of the first EVF mirrorless with 28mm-100mm equiv zoom, shot RAW and videos and sync’d flash to 1/8000 but the small sensor / short actual focal length meant no shallow DOF. I was using it with a set of studio lights and the DOF was why in 2004 I switched to a 8.2 MP APS-C Canon 20D and invested for the long term in good glass 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200mm and EF-S 10-22mm to complete my ‘Holy Trinity’
With the combination of the APS-C and 2.8 glass I finally got the shallow DOF and Bokeh I was missing.
The DOF on the smaller sensor optically was the short ACTUAL focal length. Back when everyone was still using 35mm format film stating that a digital camera had an EQUIVALENT focal length meant you got the same crop, like the 1.6 crop factor for APS-C vs FF, i.e., = 35mm
The actual focal of the 28-100 equiv. D7Hi was around 10-40mm actual
Size does matter in one key area- Large format printing. At least that was my experience with Canon mirrorless cameras. I have taken identical photos with the same lens using three different cameras. Canon R, Canon R6, Canon R5. The series of shots were set up as equally as humanly possible and the very limited post processing was exactly the same for each camera with a 10% proportional crop around the outside of each image.
While I am sure there are differences in how the different cameras process the image, when each picture was printed on a 13x19 and a 17x22 museum grade paper, the R6 with it's smaller sensor produced a substandard result. The 30 megapixel sensor on the R produced results that were relatively close to what came out of the R5. Main difference was in some places that transitioned from light to dark but the differences were very subtle. For that reason, I passed on the R6 and later, the R6 II due to the smaller sensor. Same goes for any camera with a sensor any smaller that the original R series.
The smaller sensor is fine for social media, blogging, snapshots, family photo albums, etc., but falls short if you desire professional quality, large format prints. It gets even worse if the crop increases in post processing.
Let's not be crazy here. A 1D-series camera can get spectacular landscape captures if the photographer knows how to shoot and edit photos properly. Also, the bigger the sensor, the better. Of course not in ever situation, but objectively, bigger sensors are better, especially in low light situations, all else being equal.
15:19 Now don't laugh. I am an experienced Motorsport photographer of almost 50 years. I only changed to digital in 2006. I purchased the Lumix DMC FZ2500 the day it was released (after owning a bunch of bridge cameras) and its the best camera i have ever used. My forte is motion blur and the 2500 handles it with fantastic results. Having built-in ND filters is the key. So this 1" sensor is great, Oh and I'm not carrying a bunch of lenses..
Chelsea, Tony, I'm not a professional photographer, i'm an artist/painter. I love cameras, I love the design of the bodies, lens, i't addictive. I love taking pictures, but when you hear everyone always pushing full frame all the live long day, you feel guilty if you love APS-C, Micro four thirds or smaller sensors. I't like that seen in RED HEAT of Jim Belushi and Arnold comparing their weapons. I don't mind owning a full frame, but i hate always carrying a heavy camera, but i love those images.
Of course. If people could only use an IMAX camera your image would be completely amazing but try carrying that camera and equipment with you. It's all a balance between convenience and control.
Most help content on RUclips is not filled with annoying Ads like square space over and over but your content is extremely helpful and entertaining,
In photography and golf. Learn the basics, then learn how to bend them so they work for you personally.
As the owner of the D800 and the X-H2. I love my smaller frame X-H2 because of the bells & whistles, lack of a mirror and better video and great stills.
I have used my M50 and the R6 in comparison and it’s crazy to see how beautiful the photos from the M50 (with a flash)are compared to my R6 but, in low light the R6 definitely out shines the M50 by far! The lens of course made a huge improvement on the M50. Love listening to you guys✊🏼🤙🏼
Manual mode. I know of 2 popular wildlife photographers that make a living doing workshops shooting Manual iso. One for sure uses the lens control ring to ratchet the iso as needed & pretty sure the other uses the same technique. Got to remember they are out doing it all the time & the muscle memory is probably second nature. Add in they most likely approach the area & if clouds or shaded areas are present have an idea that eg; if panning right at a certain point they would need to crank the iso up seeing the correct exposure in todays EVF’s. Again they do it professionally. Not sure I’m sharp enough to but maybe with a couple of days with good sleep & mucho practice, I might trip over my own feet & land on an acorn.
Love your unbiased reviews.. brands must hate you guys 😆 I have the r5 and im a portrait photographer, have no reason to upgrade to the r5ii.. the autofocus is the only thing that caught my eye cause I do shoot in lowlight, plus sunset shoots. The video upgrade is nice but it’s not a must. If you got the money and want to splurge then sure get the latest and greatest.
Landscaping photographers use Manual all the time. Because there is no hurry.
But in sports and wildlife auto ISO is pretty common.
I often used to use Aperture Priority but finally Manual is fine.
Just moving few dials. It is not a big deal!
I’m with Chelsea on the rule of thirds issue. I don’t use a grid on my display, but I automatically frame my shots based on the rule of thirds.
FF (Lumix), APSC (Fuji) and MFT (Lumix) shooter here. IMHO the longer the lenses, smaller sensoc makes sense. The shorter the lens, the bigger sensor makes sense.
When I was shooting wildlife I really adored the fixed 200/2.8 an 300/4 MFT system had. Reach of 400 and 600mm combined with excellent sharpness and Lumix class leading IBIS was just superb.
But then I focused more on photographing my kids. All of a sudden Leica 42.5/1.2 for €1,800 didn't make sense as I could easily get Viltrox 75/1.2 or Lumix 85/1.8 for less than €600. I also admire the mich richer image depth on the larger sensor for nature and landscape photography.
Sure, if I wanted to to wildlife with longer prime lenses on FF, that would on the other hand be much more expensive compared to the smaller sensors.
In my eyes, there is almost no bad system on the market. I say almost because I'm completely switching from Fuji (H2 & H2s) to Lumix as Fuji's 4th generation of phase detect AF simply doesn't work compared to the very 1st generation of phase detect AF on Lumix which is insane. If my goal was to use €2,700 stacked sensor camera for some street snaps with pancake lenses? Yeaaaah maybe. 😂😂
Camera physics/engineering is so much simpler than people think. In the end, anything FF can do, any other sensor type can do too. HOWEVER every change to the sensor needs to be compensated accordingly in the lens in order to achieve the same result. And i mean, exactly the same result under the same conditions, same bokeh, same noise, same fov, same everything.
My issue with APS-C and especially MFT is that "bad" sensors need "good" lenses to compensate, and well, making the sensor bigger is A LOT cheaper than improving the quality of EVERY lens you own in order to get the same results. MFT and APS-C lenses arent naturally smaller, ligher or cheaper, they just perform less than the user believes due to marketing. So personally, the ONLY reason i consider APS-C to be a good choice, is when you already have great lenses and prefer an APS-C secondary body over using a high MP primary body (i personally hate high MP because you dont need them and they waste storage, bandwidth etc.). I'd rather have my R6ii and get a R50ii in a few years than having a R5ii instead. Similarly you might appreciate a R7 if you have an R1/R3 and expensive lenses, in order to get a higher pixel density.
MFT on the other hand is imho nonsensical, since there arent any other sensor types you can double down on using the lenses with. And if you are fine with a "bad" sensor and a "bad" lens, just get a bridge-camera. That's the lightest, cheapest, smallest and most versatile option, if image quality is not a priority. Or a compact camera works too.
And finally, does that make medium format even better, in theory? Absolutely. The only issue is it's not widespread enough for the prices to be optimal. That's the benefit of FF, that it's just very common, and has the most variety, while also ranging from affordable to an open ceiling.
“Yeah, I guess what we’re saying is If you think bigger sensors are better it’s not necessarily true if you can get a good deal on a camera with a smaller sensor that’s fine you shouldn’t be just exclusively looking at that “. Chelsea said. SO in case I'm shooting the moon for example a higher pixel density crop sensor would be much more better then a full frame sensor even if the full frame sensor has a higher megapixels in total resolution but it lakes the higher pixel density especially when the lens is replaced with a telescope So the conclusion is as Chelsea said exactly .
High pixel density is not necessarily a good thing, in low light. I don't know of any pro camera of any sensor size, that outperforms the 12MP Sony A7Siii in low light. Those big photoreceptors really suck in the photons.
M43 sensor. I shoot both Sony (A7r5) and Olympus (OM1) both with a range of fast pro-level lenses (f.1.2, f1.4 etc). I've picked up my Sony less than half a dozen times since I bought the OM1 (and now added the OM5), simply because most of the time I don't require super low DoF and because the Oly offers a range of computational features and ridiculously good IBIS (far better than any FF camera - try hand holding a FF camera for 3-4 secs to blur crowds but keeping the environment pin sharp) that is simply not available in any FF camera. Both are superb cameras, both have superb lenses and both have their place in my kit.
The S5II has really good IBIS. Definitely better than my Sony, but probably not as good as the GH7.
I always agree with Chelsea, but I have to say, not with the thirds rule - remember Edward Weston’s advice about composition being “the strongest way of seeing” - every person can respond to the subject (Tony) differently, as individually, our visions are personal and hopefully not just a copy of the same old, same old…. A real challenge.
When photographing a flying bird, it's actually most useful to use full manual. Your bird will be properly exposed, whether it's flying against a bright sky, or a dark green forest.
Full frame is better than MFT because it's much easier to design 50mm f/1.2 FF than a 25mm f/0.6 MFT. It's just physics. Plus, FF will always have higher dynamic range. I'm not saying that FF is better for every genre of photography, but for most of people FF is better.
Th consumer does not care about lense design , we care about results and full frame does not give me better results. Ff is better on paper but not in the real world, if you know what you do. I do photo and video for money with my gh7 and the camera does great.
I will hike up a mountain with a 300mm mft lens; definitely not taking a 600mm ff.
@@davestokes3446 I agree. That's why I said FF is not better of all types of genres
@@davestokes3446 On sunny days, I hike with a 800mm Canon RF 800mm F/11...very lightweight lens and I've got some great photos of caribou, bears, and moose up here in Alaska.
Dear friend.
Now many people take pictures on a smartphone and at the same time take excellent photos, an example of this is the annual international mobile photography competition.
After all, the best camera is the one that is always with you, and this is a smartphone in your pocket, and the camera, as a rule, remains lying on the shelf and collecting dust.
Now the size of the matrix is becoming less relevant, with the introduction of neural networks, artificial intelligence.
I feel like bigger is better but money exists 😂 covering and experimenting all focal lenses in ff is very very expensive. Probably better for everyone to start with micro four thirds, because that small camera and lens combo will be used again at some point, even after buying full frame. You can get all focal lengths and a camera with tons of features for way under 1k usd. Then it’s easier to make the decision of what ff lens and camera to buy.
Sorry Tony but I just checked your two wildlife portfolios and honestly for the style of photos that are most appealing to me, I liked Chelsea’s. I do both styles but like to see more of the environment when it can be included.
Tony's advice about choosing the lenses first seems counterintuitive, but it probably is correct.
How this can relate to you two learning golf is interesting. And maybe this will help you. One guy that I've golfed with, who was a golf coach, said to start at the cup and work your way back to the tee. Too many people start at the tee and work their way to the cup, in terms of learning the game. Much like your photography suffers if you don't have the right lenses and blow your whole budget on the body, your golf game blows up as you get closer to the cup, if you don't know how to chip and putt.
It seems like putting the cart before the horse, but it's really determining your goal then figuring out what you need to achieve that, but you have to work backward from that goal...
The RF 24-105 4L is a "kit lens" in the sense that there are kits that contain a camera and this lens. It is a lens with "L" denomination, and therefore sharper than those super-cheap lesser kit lenses, but I found the chromatic aberrations make the results appear less sharp than expected.
I think “kit lens” refers to a starter’s or beginner’s kit, not just any lens sold with a body.
Not all kit lenses are bad . The panasonic 12-60mm is really sharp and colours are amazing
Nice video guys. I love an APSC sensor because it means I can get my camera and lenses in my small bag when I'm out and about. I could buy a full frame but I would take a lot fewer photos.
I have full frame Sony but I recently bought a 1/2.5 inch Lumix CCD camera that shoots RAW and I am having a lot of fun with its images.
I agree with Tony on the rule of thirds. For me the “rule” is a compositional crutch. Composition is about flow and balance not rules. The “rule” originally dealt with color ratios, not composition. Research “Sir Joshua Reynolds” to learn how this obscure creative straight jacket came about over three hundred years ago.
Tony's portfolio better?... That's a myth and a "ticket" to sleep in the coutch 🤣🤣🤣
I picked up a used aps-c Sony and few years later, the FF big brother. The extra detail from the FF I like when blowing up the picture. Buying used....I picked up a-mount bodies to use with old Minolta lenses.
I love how you both "challenge" each other.
Nothing like a bit of healthy competition between spouses.
Just have a full frame and an APSC body and all the lenses you can afford. I find the smaller sensor with a really good lens will give me better photos than a full frame and an "adequate" lens.
After 10 in photography I, finally, have Nikon Z8 and Nikkor 85 mm 1.2. After 10 days working with this dream combo all I have to say - invest big and liberate yourself. It's freedom and joy. Simple as that...
Anyone shooting landscape should be ready for great wildlife photographs that come about unexpectedly. Z( might be an overkill for landscape but in those situations when unexpected wildlife appears it would be God sent.
It's not about the price. It's about knowing about the basics and using them properly: aperture, shutter speed, ISO - plus (Auto-)focus and focal length. After this you'll know what tool to buy..😁👍🏼
Thanks - another great infotainment photography video. I really like you guys.
There is no substitute for cc's is often heard in the motor vehicle world and I think the same applies to sensor size.
If that wasn't so pro's would not be shooting MF and making more money with less expensive full frame cameras.
But I think it does depend on your standards and intentions.
No point in using a 100 MP X2D for publishing only on the web for photographs that are not heavily cropped.
But if you print large and into Fine Art landscape or portrait photography I think larger sensors make sense as they offer better dynamic range and better colour.
But as you say image content and post processing finesse is the No1 priority - a high end MF camera won't compensate for poor vision!
Thanks for a thought provoking video!
Okay, you are out photographing animals. You see a scene and subject that you instantly know looks great. Take some pics and go home to view. You work on the image to make it look just the same as you viewed it in the field. (with blur) So the image is exactly the way you want it. You put it on your site to be sold at numerous sizes from small to huge. You offer it for sale and people try to buy it, but when they see it, it looks a little different from the original. At least the border will be different for all the different sized images. So the final image sold will not completely look like the original or really even the original scene. How do you compensate for all the different frame sizes when printing? And you both win but Chelsea wins a little more. Until she's not looking and then Tony wins.
My point of confusion is why do my mixed lighting, at night, run and gun photos need soooo much Photoshop while I see my friends iphone's doing a great job. I hope to see Ai playing out in cameras. My dream is small camera, interchangeable lenses and a Xperia 'brain". I want Fuji to buy the rights to the Nikon 1 mount...and go from there !
I shoot with a Nikon D90. It is an OK toy. For really sharp images I get out my Graphflex Century Graphic. A 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 size negative with a good fine grain film gives very good images. You can’t match it with the tiny toy cameras. Plus it has tilt and shift.shift, Correct some perspective in camera.
Love you guys, my wish; Bring back live shows, include talk about DLSRs, photography is about all photography right? Not just the latest technology... (I own mirrorless & dlsr, as many others do)
Ken has a very dry sense of humour. My favourite line of his was the professional lawn and patio furniture association approved lens.
Guy is a genius!
Thank you for a great show, what is your answer to people who say cell phones are the new norm for photography and that the pictures that's taken with cell phones is better than a Dslr or Mirrorless Camera?
I always enjoy your videos, but two things I am compelled to say…. Could you leave 5 seconds or so on your sign-off frame at the end of your videos rather than cutting it off right as Tony says “Bye?” When I hear you winding it up I rarely have time to pick up the remote and hit pause so I can click the Like, and often am in a rush so don’t have time to go back into history, start the video again so I can click Like ….
My other point is that making me choose between the roguish charm of Tony, and the brilliant mind and stunning beauty that is Chelsea, well that is an impossible choice for this guy!
Thanks again you two!
It's probably to make sure that you hit the post video advert. I've noticed quite a few videos don't bother with the "Click here for another video" end sequences now and just dump you into the advert.
Bigger negative is better, bigger sensor is better to. No discussion. The problem with "medium" format sensor, is that it is too SMALL compared with medium format negative of old cameras.
Love your work and I appreciate your videos. I would watch more of your videos if they were shorter; 5-8 min. Take it or leave it and I still love you guys ✌🏻
I agree that compositions are quite different when shooting for a smartphone.
I don’t necessarily think there’s a shortage of people “into photography” as your last question assumes. Everyone on Instagram is into photography, the art , the creativity and story telling, whether it be girls working angles, designing the wardrobe and make up, story telling their day at the coffee shop or their daily hike etc, most people today are increddddddibly better at photography than the top RUclips Instagram influencer or average hobbyist would be 10 years ago. How we get them to care more is offer more affordable gear. Most people in North America are living paycheck to paycheck trying to keep shelter and food, smartphone and computer and car could be seen as a necessity, no one has $2k to spend on a body plus $1000’s extra for lenses. The cameras and lenses at these price points provide the quality boost it’s going to take to upgrade from a smartphone. No one wants to go from smartphone to $500 camera to barely notice a difference. I think camera manufacturers really limit the amount of money they could make by pricing the bodies so high, the more bodies they sell the more people they have in their ecosystem to make lenses purchases. Why should a r6 ii for example cost as much or more than a MacBook Pro? Perhaps lowering the price could entice more people.
Best golf tip, make your swing correct and figure out how far you can hit straight first. Selecting the particular club will be based on that knowledge.
Best golf tip is, Go straight to the 19th.🤓
I have to disagree with Tonys Sensor Size Statement. Size matters a lot … this time … 🙄 „Signal to Noise Ratio“ is usually better on bigger sensors. It‘s maybe less of a concern the more you photograph in controlled environments where you have control over the overall lighting. Full Frame is usually the sweet spot for the most use cases these days. But it is still not the best choice for everyone and any use case. That’s what you should know first and answer questions like „What transfer rate do you need (for continuous shooting)?“, „Is readout speed of the sensor a factor (rolling shutter)?“, „Which focal lenghts do you need for your specific use case?“, „How much weight are you willing to carry (the best camera is the camera you are taking with you)“, „How much budget do you have and what is the standard you want to achieve?“, etc. etc. Smartphone cams are great … if you don‘t have any standard at all … sorry to say that. They might look great on a smartphone but as soon as the environment gets more and more challenging or screens get bigger and you wanna go into details, they‘ll fall apart. Therefore I don’t think it is that easy regarding the statement, that sensor size don‘t matter.
It does not matter if full frame is better on paper. The result is what counts and smaller sensors give more than good enough results for any use case. By the way medium format cameras have better noise ratio and higher dynamic range than full frame... So number pushers like you should only use medium format..😂😂
@@andersistbesser Nope, that’s not what I‘ve said and I’m not interested in numbers ;-) It was about Tonys statement that sensor size don’t matter while it does (on a hardware basis).
That doesn’t mean that you can get only good results with bigger sensors. In the end it’s about the photographer and his/her ability to create and/or see photographs/motives.
But wildlife and sports photography won‘t work with a smartphone. Larger prints or if you watch photographs on big screens won‘t work with Smartphones etc. There are hardware based facts you cannot ignore. That’s why I mentioned only a few questions anyone has to answer before buying into a system and Chelsea&Tony should have spoken about. And no, Medium Format isn‘t the best for everything. There are a lot of diminishing returns regarding Medium Format Sensors besides that they are incredible expensive.
In the end, keep it civil and don‘t make it personal when it’s not needed. I made an objective comment and I‘m happy to discuss about it.
[14:02] Tank Man… One of the most impactful images ever taken in the history of images taken…
😳
The Rule of..... Treat the rules more like strong suggestions. However, the one rule that I pay very close attention to is The Rule of Motion, especially for wildlife, air shows, and sports in general. You want to ruin an otherwise good shot of a deer moving through the woods? Put more space behind the deer than in front of the deer when you're processing the shot. Or do the same with a P47 Thunderbolt making a high speed pass across the flight line. The shots lose perspective.
I only have a little canon 200d and i rarely use shutter priority or aperture priority and find them a waste on that camera because it doesn't have a setting for minimum shutter speed, it does however have a setting for maximum ISO which i set to 3200 for night street and 800 for daytime wildlife so its far easier to set and forget my shutter and aperture and use auto ISO. The only time I'm shooting full manual, is when doing nightscapes
I think full frame cameras are more Cinematic than crop sensor cameras
and more light sensitive at night