I didn't understand where's the lie?

It's actually more simple than that. Forget about focal lenght and distance, it's all about ratio (how big the subject is in the frame).

Thankyou for a great take on the subject! I only took up photography in March of last year and jumped straight into manual as I couldn’t get the images I wanted using auto settings. I have never been able to balance the perceived wisdom of the exposure triangle with my experience gained through much trial and error. I feel somewhat validated after watching this. Your version of how the three elements correlate makes much more sense.

Thank you so much for the clear and concise information. I'm less confused now! 👌👌👌

Excellent explanation! Thanks for sharing.

"Correct exposure" never was put into a standard in the first place. The ISO institute still does not do it with their "ISO" [1] unit. ASA didn't do it. Din didn't do it. I still remember an Agfa executive complaining about being measured against Kodak's choices by naive independent reviewers. The difference was almost marginal and in the case of "positive" (aka color reversal) film completely understandable. Conceptually, the triangle becomes interesting if we turn it into a triangular pyramid. Where the light level - the ambient - is the pyramid's top. That must be balanced by the choices in the ambient and the photographer's opinion on what exactly is "correct". If we mirror that pyramid with the triangle in the middle, then the other top can represent the light level of our artificial lights (like strobes). And we have said nothing about correctness. [1] "ISO" is a word derived from the classical Greek "isos" that means similar, equal, equivalent. So, when you say I-Ass-Oh, you know you're doing it wrong. And, it's only about "equivalence" in amounts of energy. In Western languages "iso" has an old history, for example in combination-words like "isotherm" or "isobar" - nouns that reference lines in a weather map of equal temperature (iso therm) and equal pressure (iso bar). We would measure "density" in the film days as function of "log i*t" (where "I' = intensity and "t" = exposure time). That "log" was a 10-base so if you read an old book on densitometry and think that a contrast envelope of 4.5 is "not a lot" then you need to be aware that EV relate to a 2-log scale. Note that 10-log 4.5 gets you in the 32000 ballpark and 2-log 15 gets you in a similar ballpark. Treating the triangle like a concept, I would replace "aperture" and "shutter" by the i and the t. And ISO by "sensitivity". What the triangle tries to do is work the "EV table" of exposure equivalents into one graph with sensitivity. The assumption in here is that sensitivity is not impacted by i becoming very small, or t becoming either very small or very large. If you need to fill a bucket of 10 with water that has a pressure of 1, then you can opent the tap a bit and need a long time to fill it, or you can open the tap completely and it takes much shorter. The triangle relates the opening of the tap i to the time t needed to fill the bucket in relation with bucket content 10. Not specifying correct exposure means that ISO does not say what the i*t should be for each sensitivity - bucket content. This makes correct exposure an opinion of the photographer and the photographer's relating the ISO sensitivity number to i*t then is an opinion as well. In the film past, we had worldwide almighty Kodak setting the standard. That's no longer here and if it lives on, it will be in the Sekonic light meter. But measuring light is another can of works like correct exposure. It is good to be aware that this means that measuring light with a Sony camera and then setting a Canon to that exposure manually, is asking for problems for two reasons: (i) You measure through a lens at an aperture value but do not know that lens's T value (how much light it transmits) if you only know the f/number and (ii) you don't know how much the lens is aperture-breathing when set nearer by than infinity. In old-school large format photography we had to take this all into account or waste a sheet of film and its processing - today a single shot at 8"*10" involves between US$10 and US$20 for the film plus the processing. When a Ytoober test-reviews cameras and measures with one and next sets that to the other brand/lens combination, so as to next look at the images and say that one over o under exposes, you now know they are incompetent.

I'm not updating my Canon R5 right now, but I think it's inevitable that I will update at some point. Canon has fixed pretty much every complaint I had about the R5 and it's just a matter of time before I'll feel compelled to upgrade. The R5 is an outstanding camera but knowing a superior version of the camera exists will be too tempting to ignore indefinitely. The good new is that if you can wait and upgrade your Canon gear mid-cycle you can almost always get a better deal.

I think they ought to have said expose to the right but don’t clip the whites - and just seen u have said that 😊

Hi, watching your vids - good luck !!!

i have a R5, and don't see it worth upgrading unless you do video. The R1 - aimed at sports dudes but it doesn't seem to be a leap forward from the R3 by all accounts. But i would happily have either for the right price 😊

Nice video, but the noise on the mic makes it really hard to listen to. Please fix it, sound matters alot in video.

BSI and stacked... ! The R5II is faster than the R5 because he has a STACKED sensor, not because it's a BSI sensor : this is the huge difference between the 2.

would you be interested in joining me on one of my livestreams ?

Why does this sound so noisy?

I'm not buying it either. I have the R5 which is adequate for pretty well all my still image needs and 8K video if I ever need it. Especially since I also have a DJI OSMO Pocket 3 for video and vlogging and a smart camera for astro and tracking wildlife, a Dwarf II(soon to be III). As far as the R5 II is concerned, the differences are very marginal with the R5 in my opinion. The question is, will the differences really mean that you get that greatest ever picture that is pin sharp and award winning ? The chances are you will have the in-camera settings wrong, that you will be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the lighting will be off etc... If you are a professional and need efficiency and guaranteed results then it's probably worth the upgrade, after all you are already successful and rich and have a vast array of bodies and lenses. For the amateur and enthusiastic hobbyist it's a waste of money. Just get an R5, new or used, and decent lenses and shoot more images, you will have great images among those that you take.

Why should I care who's not buying this camera?

In my case, as an Aviation & Navy photographer and videographer it will be amazing!! I'm facing a lot of issues with the old R5, with the electronic Shutter 20 and there's no video switch (I also using 3rd party lens Sigma 60-600mm and after Canon released the new firmware 2.0, most of the pictures come blurry.. I sent it to the lab, they said, everything is fine, stop complaining to the whole world and his wife, use a mechanical shutter... I didn't switch form 5D mk IV for mechanical shutter..). But the price tag is too much for me, the price outside of US/EU is way more expensive... I wish Canon could do a trade in with R5 users, cut the price in a half...

Good night! Great news that you are not buying the R5II.

Maybe he's right. I generally try to leave a little more headroom on the top end though to avoid accidently blowwing out the upper end.

After watching Mark II videos all morning long, it seems that for many photographers who are coming to the R5 platform from DSLR's, the $2999.00 Mark I is a choice worth considering. It is still the exceptional camera that it was last week.

I wouldn’t be it either if I were the same kind if shooter you are. But the main features they advertised (except for NR and up scaling - silly features imo) are exactly what I need from the r5m2, so I put in my preorder.

I wouldn’t buy it either if I were the same kind of shooter you are. But the main features they advertised (except for NR and up scaling - silly features imo) are exactly what I need from the r5m2, so I put in my preorder.

Why is there so much static in this video? It sounds as if it were recorded ip years ago.

A lot of money to have fun with a camera; considering a photo has an avg of 15 seconds of admiration

Great video brother. There is a little bit of white noise going on.

im with you on this score in most you said . im really happy with the mk1 . so unless thay come out with alot more im not going to upgrade and its like tony n and his wife said most things have now been done in cams so what more can they do .

Wait for the R2D2

9:45 on the R8 you can turn on the beep and then the electronic shutter makes a sound when set to high speed. And silent mode set to off obviously. I have a bespoke setup for high speed under C2, including beep on. For all other settings beep is off. Isn’t that the same in other R models?

I only care about doing portrait photography. It would be almost impossible to notice the difference in files image quality between the R5 and R5 Mark II. The only difference I see is the -$1394.25 more that it costs after sales tax compared to the R5 (brand new).

I too am a Blipper - Chantler63 - been doing it a while - its a useful quick catalog system too!!

Very clearly explained - thankyou.

You have no problem with Adobe present terms of Use ?!

I have to say NO. Underexposing a photo can be done with a camera with good dynamic range and ISO invariance. For example... I use a Pentax K1, if I under expose at -4 stops I don't have any problems because my sensor is ISO invariant and it has a great dynamic range, I also have a very good chance of shooting handheld most of the time! So underexposure is great if you have a great sensor and know what your camera can do,you must know your limit.

I just went on Prime to buy the R8 and the price is £1189, not £899. Ill have to pursue this further

Thanks for your info, I was just about to buy a 2nd Canon body to go along with the R8 i already have, but this is a great deal. AS are all the others . Im already a prime member and had missed these offers. To boot im also in Edinburgh, so hope you will get some small commission

Some good advice, but it does not apply everywhere. The problem is that you are providing context specific information without providing the context. Here are some contexts in which your advice does not apply: * When you want to give colors a bit of extra saturation in camera (Useful in nature photography) * When you want to protect highlights (for example you have large dark areas in the frame, that trick the camera into overexposing, or you just have a lot of contrast) * Low key photography * High key photography * HDR photography * The Film Noir genre * The Neo Noir genre What you are saying is perfectly fine, in some contexts, but it is not generic advice that fits in any context.

Underexposing your photos does not make them better?

Do you have any idea, why this lens collar should not work with any other than the named R cameras (e.g. why not with the original EOS R)?

Thanks for sharing this video and information with us.

The histogram in-camera shows an 8 bit jpeg so it's not an accurate representation of the data captured by a camera sensor.

In the example of the lilly you have increased the iso to 125 . Is this not underexposing the image because of this?.

Excellent explanation on this topic 😊

I agree with much of what you're saying, however artistic vision and intent Francis had may have been to have the hillside and figure be a silhouette and not exposed, personally I like the touch-up of the sky but prefer the dark silhouette of the hill and figure. My DSLR doesn't have a onscreen histogram (until the photo is taken) so I'm working with the light meter and I'm forced to use my own judgement based on the colour of the subject vs the background as well as experience using my gear to gauge what I'm likely to get. Even during post and editing I rarely look at the histogram, sometimes I want blacked out or blownout areas I'm more concerned about what I want the image to look like, you are correct deliberately underexposing as a matter of course isn't good advice.

Under exposing your photos does not make them better !

First time to the channel, Mr. Dyson. Thanks for your outlook and explanations. I'm an amateur photographer that has not been shooting a very long time. That said, I do not agree completely with your explanation, and I'm happy to explain why. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on my comment - as that is how I learn - and I don't mind a good conversation around photography. 1st: I understand where you are coming from with ETTR. If I get a bit wordy here it's not for you, but those reading the comment and wondering what we are talking about. Exposing to the right (ETTR) provides more photons (data) to create the image. The first assumption I think you make is that we then want to edit the image with post processing - using the additional information in the shadows, midtones, and highlights to tweak it to our satisfaction. Understood. There are two reasons your argument isn't exactly sound. A. There are the cases when you get it right in camera and your shooting to crush the blacks (i.e. ETTL) or protect the highlights because of very bright subject or lighting. Blown highlights is lost data, compared to a lower signal to noise ratio (but retained data) in the shadows. Yes, I realize if you ETTR the image and then bring the highlights down (assumed not blown) you have more data in the shadows - but if you don't want to process the image much (for what ever reason) and you capture the look you are going for, then underexposing may be appropriate for "some" images -depending on taste. My second issue is with how you personally arrive at your conclusion in this video: And please hear me out on this one. My first assumption is that we are talking Digital Photography. Early in the video (prior to the 3 3/4 minute mark) you lump a number of issues together. A. Underexposure vs ETTR, B. The effects of increasing exposure. And C. The amount of data underexposure vs ETTR present in the file size. I get it, but the way you present the argument is flawed in my opinion, and here is why. 1. You talk about increasing exposure 2 stops by decreasing your shutter speed 2/3rds of a stop (fair enough) and increasing ISO 1 1/3 stops. This last statement in my view, is wrong on a number of fronts. A. ISO is not part of exposure in the majority of cases. It is gain and amplification of the Signal to Noise (S/N) ratio after exposure has taken place. Exposure is the amount of light/photons captured by the sensor because of the size of the aperture or speed of the shutter or sensor capture. That's it. To maintain the same exposure, you balance that seesaw. If you want better exposure, more photons/information in the image without clipping the highlights, you need to slow your shutter down (which you did), or open your aperture (which you did not). Increasing ISO just produces a brighter image, but does not contribute to exposure directly. On that note, if your goal was ETTR, and all you did was increase your ISO by 2 stops - you've done nothing to improve the image or improve exposure prior to post. You've just increased the brightness of the image - and in an ISO invariant sensor - it wouldn't matter if you shoot underexposed with ISO 100 and bring it up to ISO 400, or shot at ISO 400 to begin with. Underexposing and raising the ISO 2 stops gives you the same S/N ratio as if you shot at ISO 400 to begin with. In your example, there would be "more data" because you slowed your shutter speed down - and increased exposure - i.e. photons/signal. Had you left ISO alone, and opened your aperture up 1 1/3 stops, you'd have an even greater exposure (or information) without magnifying the amount of shot noise in the shadows. None of this may be relevant to the finished look of the photo, but it could in many circumstances. In the end, my view is that if you want to increase the amount of data/photons/information in your photo, then you need to increase your exposure by either opening up the aperture, and/or slow the shutter speed down. That will increase the signal to noise (photons to shot noise) in the shadows - where information is thin, and in the highlights where information is plentiful and everywhere in between. ISO plays no role in this or ETTR (EXPOSE - to the right). It just brightens your image and raises noise with it. I bring this up because I believe the intent of your tutorial was to increase information in the photo, and raising ISO as part of your argument just complicates the picture (so to speak). Your thoughts?

Just tying out Reeflex camera app on my iphone12pm with the histogram on, in a generally dark shot with some bright highlights (say from a window looking out) the histogram definitely shows the highlights blown out unless EV reduced.

Good video, but add more examples with highlights like at night in the city

underexposing does not cause an increase in noise. it's only if someone is trying to bring back shadows. I also would say the histogram is a tool and not to bog down your art by just relying on that. It's often easier to bring back a darker image than an overexposed one. Most modern cameras are a bit bright and underexposing helps with this. Depending on the situation I often underexpose by 0.3 to 0.7 You also can't rely on file size as "more or less" information. As an image with gain will give you much more data and that doesn't mean better. So that is hardly "bad advice"

Interesting. I'll have to do some trials myself to see if I can noticed the difference, but I only underexposed by 0.7 of a stop. I don't often use the histograms but perhaps I should as it'll give me more info about my images. I use an iphone12pm. Thanks

To the left, to the right, it's not politics, you should learn the exposure triangle and expose to get all the information for it. 67-90% of the time, it will be to the left, the other to the right, with the rest of the exposures at 0 ev.