I don’t specifically have a video about that but what concerns you?

@@MartinCastein I would like to know the differences, mostly about the "look". I was thinking that for the same composition the compression is different because you need other focal length or the depth of field is different because you need to step back with a smaller sensor. About the concern. I like the look I get when using my 6D. I always thought it was because it's full frame, my other bodies are APSC. So I'm afraid an APSC sensor cannot give me the same. It's the fear of missing something maybe.

D700 is just so pleasing always

Lens choice is good. I’d say only get the d810 if you can definitely afford it and want it. It is a better camera for landscape overall. You would benefit from the exposure preview in live view too.

@@MartinCastein hey! Thanks for the reply! I’m worried about not having a back up body…I’m away 10 days and will be bouncing around in a truck I guess! I have the xt-1 and a bunch of lenses but felt I needed the full frame for landscape…never really done landscape before…can find a D810 for around £500..

Oh and love your videos, just discovered them and like the honesty and seriously useful information!

Thank you, well if it’s not going to cause you financial issues get the d810 rather than having two different systems around. I bet you will have an amazing trip.

I have d800 as well choosing something different. The d800 is “better” image quality but I prefer the 5d ii images. Both great cameras.

@@MartinCastein I loved the 5D2 at the time, but found the images tended to be very 'digital'-looking and harsh compared to the amazing depth of the D800/D810/D850 sensors. The Nikon handling is far better in my view and reminds me of my old Nikon F5. (I also own a couple of Panasonic cameras). But in the end it's all down to personal taste of course. My main reason for switching away from Canon was that as much as I liked the 'L' lenses, I preferred the build quality and glass of the legendary Nikkors.

Build quality of the Nikons is like it’s meant for war they are so tough

@@MartinCastein Especially the original crinkle finish AF-D lenses.

Thanks yes i put the 6d and 5d mark ii on par with each other so see everything i say as interchangeable

Firstly, thats normal to feel like that. You are not alone. What you need to do is a few things. Confidence comes from experience. Get used to photographing couples, even for free so you can get to the point where it feels normal. Additionally create challenges like go out and try to photograph anything randomly and quickly. Get to know your gear inside out until you dont have to think about how to use it. Gaining confidence is about getting to the point wither you camera AND your subjects where it feels like you can do it on autopilot. When you get to that stage it will feel much easier. Then build confidence further by photographing some events for free. Such as a work event, a family gathering like a birthday maybe or something to do with a hobby maybe. Get peoples reactions to your work and start understanding what people want not just what you want. Again when you are comfortable like this, weddings wont seem so daunting.

Ok i understand That is what i needed to hear, Now i have a starting point You are awsome Can't thank you enough

no problem, i wish you all the best! be bold, if you dont go for it, it wont happen anyway so might as well go for it.

That's true Thank you ❤️💪💪

sure, and i think it depends on what you do, especially if you photograph people that are moving i think mirrorless makes complete sense for that, for instance if i were shooting weddings again id definitely go for mirrorless as focus speed trumps everything.

it depends if you are going to shoot at 2.8 or not, if you are buying the f4 you get excellent image quality in a much lighter lens, for instance for landscapes im more like to be at f8 even so 2.8 is pointless, if you are shooting people the 2.8 lenses make more sense unless you are in a studio where you can control light but the 2.8 might be the look you want. For landscape for me the 2.8 offers no benefit over the f4. Answer is, it depends.

@@MartinCastein Yes! I was thinking about a set like this: a) 16-35 f4 (for Landscape) b) but... 24-70 f2.8 (for people) c) ---> and a macro lens... I think 70-200 f4 or 70-300 f4-5.6... I dont know for the f2.8... but I wonder If you want to take a picture let's say of "the iris of the eye", should there a f2.8 be more efective?? Or the f4 is capable also for that kind of stuff? (Ι feel confused about the "c" option... what do you think... any advice should be very useful...)

@@johnnathan2149 yeah thats a sensible list of options and what i would do as well, i think the C option sort of needs to be C and D because deciding between a macro or a 70-200 are two different categories which is probably why C feels confusing. Split C into C and D so 70-200 and a macro and get whichever you need most first and the other. later.

This is a hard question to answer like this and its a video i need to make. To try and think of a simple answer, you should be aiming to make the picture look the way you want it to and not trying to fit some idea of non blown highlights or whatever. If you like the highlights blown then do that. but there arent many ways to get the info from the file without doing something that achieves that if you want the highlights. I edit by eye though, I will use the clipping points sometimes as a reference if im not sure. The answer is it doesnt matter as long as you get the result you like.

@@MartinCastein Thanks Martin, I've gotten a bit obsessive about it. Canon is notorious for that white sky effect which I think you've alluded to in other videos and I think I just need to start with clipping turned off so I can look at an image for what it is as i am editing instead of focusing on making sure nothing is clipping because it feels like a fool's errand. As long as the main subject isn't blown out/clipping, it probably doesn't matter. Thanks for the insight! I thought it was odd I could recover highlights easier on my 5Dc than on my 6d2 but it's more likely that the larger sensor is just picking up more colors/gradation thus it's a much more gradual transition when backing off the highlights than the steeper cliff of less colors/pixels of the 5D

It depends on how much editing you want to do. But if you use your histogram when you are setting your exposure, if you want nothing to blow in the picture you can just make sure the far right hand side of your histogram does peak. That will mean raising the shadow areas, depending on how much contrast is in the scene you might be better off taking one exposure for the mid ones and one for the sky and blending after. That would get you a well balance picture. Depends on what you want, or you can let the sky go, its really up to you in the end.

@@MartinCastein thanks for the insight Martin, always appreciated! I did some comparisons this weekend between the canon 5dc and my 6d2; the differences weren't as extreme as I thought they would be with the latter just needing the tint adjusted less green more magenta and the saturation/vibrance knocked down a tad

thats good, if you can get it pretty close then great really!

Thank you!

I know and sharp doesnt mean good, i think i experienced this when i saw 4k video on tv the first time in the nature documentaries and thought no, thats not for me. Also tv series that have spanned the film to digital transition, you can see it there. Yes its sharper but it doesnt look as good.

I really think medium format is just wasted on landscapes anyway. Thats for commercial work imo. i mean maybe if they get the lenses right and so on but yeah. i think this setup does everything i need. maybe i will change my mind one day I dont know but dont think so.

haha yes, well thats what the shelf is for, the gear i use is in camera bags.

Did it gain weight after you bought it?

I actually looked it up after recording and found the same. I think it must be that the Nikon one is front heavy or something because it always feels much heavier like a lump of a lens to me, I’d still absolutely use it though.

thats fair enough, not everything is right for everyone for sure!

For landscapes mostly, i use the rear screen a lot on KZbin to show what I’m doing too, but for landscapes almost entirely the rear screen but not for portraits, then I use the viewfinder but might use the live view to set exposure