Thanks! I don't think it will change anyone's life, but its a cool concept that isn't really discussed anywhere.

Its comments like this that keep me going! Glad it was useful for you.

Perhaps my favorite comment of the year. Thanks!

@FilNenna Haha no problem!

Glad you found it helpful. It was fun to research and put as much as I could into a single video.

Glad you liked it!

That's a great use-case. Was it subtle like in this video, or more pronounced in your experience?

Yeah - photos where the reflection is really important. Thanks for commenting!

Glad you found it interesting. Yeah - lots of genres where it could be useful.

Agreed. Perhaps in some cases photographers are removing reflections on reflex without considering the aesthetics of what is revealed!

Its hard to think of examples, especially given it is so subtle. Let us know what ideas you come up with!

Glad it was helpful! Thanks for the comment.

Glad you are enjoying the videos!

That's awesome - exactly why I made the video! Glad you found it useful!

Thank you! I appreciate it.

Thanks! Glad you found it useful!

GREAT POINTS! I overlooked those top-plate buttons and I miss them, too. I've not got into RF lenses yet as I don't feel limited by using EF versions. Sad to hear they are more expensive but lower build quality. Hopefully the optical quality makes up for it?

@@FilNenna Thanks, a compliment that i'd like to give back. Megapixels and specs are important but everyone covers that. Your approach on the handling requires actual use and observation that i appreciate a lot. i did not realize that the tripod mount is shifted so far forward because of the mirrorless design. but i saw that my QR-Plate sticks out more than before. Same with the lens retraction. i did notice that upon shutdown it would focus to infinity but did not make the connection to lens retraction because i mostly own internally focusing ones.

I noticed I had no problems when filming through the linear polarisers with my R5 or an old 40d. I was using short lenses with still subjects, so I wondered if it might be worse with telephotos and faster subjects. Perhaps linear polarizers aren't as tricky as they are made out to be?

I love it when that happens! Glad you liked it.

Our smartphones are eavesdropping on us. I'm not kidding.

I had only used on-lens CPLs until recently. Putting filters on the light source really makes a difference.

Very much appreciated - thank you!

It was a 43" monster! I don't have it anymore. Took up way too much room!

@@FilNenna I bet! I had a 36" one and that felt too big. Just set up two 27" ProArt monitors and that's working out fine for now.

@J.ChrisPhoto it varies wildly depending on the size of the prints and how light or dark they are. I go through a few sets of ink a year.

@@FilNenna Oh, that's not too bad. My prints would be similar to the sizes in this video. Lots of white space on most of them since the ones I want to print and hang on my walls are ones I took that were inspired by Peter Lusztyk's macro photos. I've just been worried that I'd be changing the ink every few photos and I know Ink is pretty expensive.

It's an antique copy stand, a CS-4 made in NJ by TestRite Instruments.

@@FilNenna Nice! I like the simplicity of it.

@@FilNenna I'm not sure why I haven't thought of using a copy stand as an overhead shot rig.

Thank you!

The R5 has two stages; from 100 to 300-ish, and from 400 to maximum. In each stage, changing the ISO is similar to adjusting brightness in post. e.g if you brighten a shot at 400 by 5 stops in post it will have similar noise as a shot taken at 12800. Either way you look at it, we under exposed by 5 stops and have a similar noise penalty. I'm not sure how to word it, but the invariance means that there isn't a real base, though 100 is cleanest, and 400 is cleaner than 300. However one of the points in the video is that all of this is really in the weeds because the images are acceptably clean up to 1600 (or 2 stops of under exposure at 400) anyway.

Ha! You are exactly right! I'm glad that's not a common photography scenario for me...

I would love to see your video with the "correct" information

@@etniel7 I would love to see a world where only those who have truly committed to learning are teachers. And you would love to see a video with the correct information, whether it is mine or not, without having to navigate a sea of ​​​​imprecise information. Or maybe a text instead of the video, like the following: Only those who have a specific purpose, such as large prints to be viewed up close or delivering a particular type of work with precise parameters to be respected as in astrophotography or art reproduction, really need correct information (or the enthusiasts of knowledge). The others can rely on more user-friendly tools, such as AI software for reducing noise on RAW files, and enjoy the passion for photography without wasting time looking for technical details without learning the basics. In the case of ISO, for example, what is called White Balance is actually the imbalance of the amplification of the individual RGB channels: in an environment illuminated by a "warm" light in which the exposure meter suggests an ISO value of 1600, the Blue ISO could be 3200, but also 6400 or higher, up to problematic cases such as for sodium vapor light sources in which the emitted spectrum does not include the "cold" frequencies. The "perceived noise" will always be that of the most underexposed and over-amplified channel. And the noise will always be higher in the shadows rather than in the highlights, because the signal recorded by the RGB sensors must be amplified (in greater quantities in the shadows and less in the highlights) to correspond to human perception which is much brighter in dark areas (perhaps for evolutionary reasons of need to see prey and predators in that shadows, but I am not an evolutionary biologist). This "perceptual difference" results in noise in Low-Key scenes that is 1 or 2 Stops higher than in High-Key scenes. I'll stop here for now, without talking about Baked In Noise Reduction, thermal noise and Black Frame or anything else, but I think that to invalidate the test in the video, it would have been enough to have had the good sense to consider "tests" only the verifications of a theory carried out in many more scenarios than just one. 4397 Views at this time

Or are my hands shakier than average? Perhaps other people can use ibis to get slower shutter speeds - I think that's why we need to know our own limits. I appreciate your comment!

Agreed - the reciprocal rule and stabilization help with still subjects, but we need to figure out the slowest shutter to suit the motion of whatever specific moving subjects we have. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

See my comment above - that is spot-on to what I expected. But NOT with IBIS turned on!!!

Glad you find them interesting! And I agree that there are a lot of people talking about photography, but few with practical advice. I'll try to make more videos with that principle.

Bursts are a great way to do it. I generally can't because I use strobes, and that would really give them a workout!