5 Photo Myths BUSTED

[@pvolkspvolks]

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. ❤

[@mountainskyaerialphotograp3921]

Me too. Closed my business about 2 years ago. I had broken my camera (fell off tripod) "My mistake". But with the regulations in the Drone industry (Drone ID). Still have my license, but put it on pause. Now, I have come full circle. Just purchased a Canon R8. Looking forward to getting "back into it".

[@BabyEleven11]

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

[@neonsignguy]

I vote for Chelsea, i don't care if she doesn't take any photos

[@FireImageFM1]

I want in

[@babajaiy8246]

What are you going to view them on - you phone or some 8k monitor?

[@bumblebee_ms]

@@neonsignguy I will vote but I'll be fair.

[@mdog6726]

Photography - keep your head up. Golf - keep your head down.

[@careylymanjones]

Unless you're shooting with a TLR. 🤣

[@gerardbonus5354]

Funny, read golf as retired. :) They have retired from photography and taken up Golf, even if they don't know it yet themselves.

[@heliosending]

What's crazy is that the MEDIUM format is actually larger than FULL frame.

[@mattstone8878]

I have never thought about it that way. My brain itches. 🧠

[@Scooter_123_abc]

That is because 35mm was once considered as Small Format and 4x5 and larger were Large Format.

[@jdpattok4357]

...and also MUCH smaller than true medium format. Calling the GFX sensors medium format is actually kind of bogus.

[@GS-XV]

Just as a MINIGUN is quite a bit larger than your "normal" gun 🤣

[@Superz3ro]

[<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="550">9:10</a>] 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… 🤔

[@thomastuorto9929]

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.

[@leewilson5151]

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

[@davidgommeren7283]

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.

[@GuiFan]

At <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="267">4:27</a> you can observe the phenomenon where the photographer only smiles at an aperture of less than 2

[@Knowledge-hit]

What about the very excellent Olympus 40-150 f2.8 pro lense? This would be an example of a smaller sensor being brought out to be pro level.

[@kkehoe5]

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.

[@careylymanjones]

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.

[@ugpfpv361]

One of the defining differences between a point and clicker and a professional thought out photo, IMHO

[@marc_likes_marketing]

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.

[@christof4105]

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]

@@christof4105 haha nice to meet you, friend 😁 how is photolab??

[@christof4105]

@@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.

[@marc_likes_marketing]

@@christof4105 THANK YOU!

[@christopherjs4945]

some kit lenses are pretty good - Nikon Z 24-70 f/4, Fuji 16-55 f/2.8-4....

[@shadyninja1]

These are not kit lenses. Fixed aperture of F4 on the Nikon 24-70mm is not a feature of kit lenses.

[@branimirteodorovic2297]

@@shadyninja1 If it's sold as a kit, than it's a kit lens

[@amberhawke]

When I got the Canon RP, it came with the 24-105 f4 as a kit lens. It's quite a nice lens.

[@christopherjs4945]

@@shadyninja1 It was sold as a kit....

[@TheOlandex]

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 :)

[@nickadams1051]

??? 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.

[@ppiercejr]

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.

[@JoeMaranophotography]

​@ppiercejr Most pro's are stopping down F1.4's to F2.8 anyway so it's all trivial.

[@davidreinhard7476]

@@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.

[@kevinharding9361]

@@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).

[@jamescole322]

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

[@jeroenschoondergang5923]

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.

[@uncle-ff7jq]

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!

[@arunca190]

It’s not the size of the sensor, it’s the motion of the IBIS.

[@tubularificationed]

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.

[@ScreenFiends]

​@@tubularificationedI think the joke may have gone over your head ...

[@shakerman55]

Made me laugh.🤣 Gotta watch that IBIS motion.

[@marc_likes_marketing]

LOL!

[@TaiJason37]

Oh yeah!

[@jwill9311]

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.

[@SneakyCaleb]

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.

[@gerardbonus5354]

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.

[@danielsinn8164]

I shoot a lot of film, and there seems to be a myth that it's really hard to get a good exposure on film. Even talked to a younger pro who was scared to try film because he was worried the whole roll would be unusable. Modern film is actually pretty forgiving, and there are plenty of more modern film cameras with great metering systems.

[@skyscraperfan]

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.

[@violetheadbicycle]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="69">1:09</a> More $$$ = better <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="236">3:56</a> Pros shoot M mode <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="369">6:09</a> The rule of thirds <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="545">9:05</a> Bigger sensors are better <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="729">12:09</a> More drama = better <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="850">14:10</a> We can fix that in editing

[@samgod]

1. Rules of thirds is only a guideline. 2. **ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL** bigger sensors are better. 3. Tony, with enough experience, it is totally humanly possible to quickly adjust exposure on the fly in response to quickly changing variables. It becomes muscle memory.

[@RetrieverTrainingAlone]

EXCELLENT! Huge difference between "that's nice" photo and a photo that tells a story.

[@jmp622]

Most help content on KZbin is not filled with annoying Ads like square space over and over but your content is extremely helpful and entertaining,

[@johnpollock6996]

Early in the video you said that "kit lenses are never super sharp." I shoot Sony FF. If I went looking for a used or new small prime, what info should I use to distinguish from a kit and non-kit lens in the entire Sony lineup?

[@Donmoyers71]

apologize if you've covered this before, but doesn't the MP and sensor size directly affect enlargements?

[@robinheider414]

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.

[@williamblackwell9558]

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]

Canon RP has less dynamic range (11.9 stops) than all of modern MFT sensors (even Lumix GH5 has 13 stops)

[@williamblackwell9558]

@@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.

[@TheDominicballard96]

As a guy who has used a lot of cameras, a big tip from me is, don't trust your camera's screen. So many time I've had a picture look perfectly exposed on the screen but when I got it on my computer it was underexposed. Learn the quirks of your camera.

[@emptyworld86]

Is mirror less camera better these days ?because i saw same ish result and quality photo or should i go for dslr camera?

[@mcm111able]

Depends. But generally yes. Because on DSLR for best quality you had to callibrate lenses to the body regularly.

[@shakerman55]

@@mcm111able That is why I went mirrorless. Every time I would buy a lens, I had to spend time trying to calibrate it. Now, I just shoot!

[@gregfeeler6910]

Could you give some examples of the lenses you had in mind when you said that FF had “more” lenses than MFT? Thanks.

[@fintonmainz7845]

I've actually never used any of the zoom kit lenses I have. Mostly because I prefer to use manual prime lenses but are kit zooms really THAT bad? Perhaps it make a good video?

[@calebhearn1526]

No, modern kit zooms are actually pretty good these days. 15 years ago they were a little dull, but they tend to be very good now. Most people won't upgrade their kit lenses, so manufacturers have learned that they need to bundle a decent kit lens otherwise people will think unsharp photos are the camera's fault.

[@Macrodoctor]

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.

[@crawford323]

I love how you both "challenge" each other.

[@LaveaFirmis]

Talking about the rule of thirds, bafflingly the grid overlay in the Z6 II is in quarters. I cant see any way to change it to thirds. Why?

[@nmelcam1]

How many full frames have you bought vs crop sensors? Be truthful without counting cell phones or tiny compact cameras.

[@rudigerwolf9626]

Tony, I agree, choose the lenses and then choose the format. Please do let me know when someone with full frame sensor makes a 300-800 Field of View f/4.5 lens, with a 1.25x built in teleconverter, or when the make a 600mm FOV equivalent f/4.0 lens the same size/weight as the Olympus 300 f/4.0.

[@WillHamptonIII]

Canon makes a 200-800 F6.3-9 lens that works flawlessly autofocusing with both their 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Sure, they have to use higher ISOs, but their full frame cameras produce much less noise at higher ISOs so it is a wash in the noise category. Depth of field will be the same at the long end though because the depth of field at f4.5 on m43 is the same as f9 on a full frame camera. That same Canon lens tops your Olympus 300 f/4 in that at 600 (up to 640) it is at f/8, so they would both produce the same picture, but you can then keep zooming in or even out. Sure it weighs 1lb more, but lets not act like 3.5 lbs is much less than 4.5 lbs. Also, the Canon costs $800-$1100 less. Let me know when someone with a m43 sensor makes a 1200mm full frame equivalent lens, or a 600mm equivalent lens that produces the same depth of field as the 600 f4 (i.e. a 300 f2.0), or even a 400 f2.8 or 300 f/2.8 equivalent. As of right now, there is no m43 lens that matches any of those.

[@ElMundoDuro]

@@WillHamptonIII Remember that the difference in DOF for MFT is based on the same framing. Usually you must take a few steps back with MFT to get the same framing, but with wildlife that is usually not the case. Those shooting full frame will usually have to crop because they couldn't get close enough. 600mm Full frame has the same DOF as 600mm MFT at the same distance.

[@ppiercejr]

@@ElMundoDuro yes it does, unfortunately there are no 600mm m43 lenses and if there were, they wouldn’t have the same depth of field unless they had the same aperture

[@ElMundoDuro]

@ppiercejr OM has a 150-600mm lens F5-6.3

[@ppiercejr]

@@ElMundoDuro i stand corrected, but it still didn’t match the numerous 800mm lenses Canon has. Also, have you ever tried keeping a moving subject in frame at 1200mm equivalent? It’s nearly impossible so having greater resolution and a full frame sensor to crop in a bit and get the same image is likely ideal for getting the shot you want more often. Hopefully m43 will be able to produce some quality cameras with more than 25mp in the near future. I know everyone says that you don’t need more, but for tight crops in wildlife and sports where one would use the 300mm to 1200mm lenses, it certainly is a hige asset to get the shot you want.

[@GlennSchultes]

Edge Patrol - always check the edges of your frame to see what it intruding.

[@AlecBuxton-w5r]

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

[@albertwessie9006]

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?

[@sharp_focus]

Chelsea, you have most photos on your website with the subject in the center and/or filling the frame. Actually, some photos have the horizon centered too. They're very good photos and they don't follow "the rule of third"

[@JohnJohnson-bo5sv]

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.

[@thomash3537]

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.

[@item9guy]

Some of my absolute best portrait photos with the best colors and bokeh have been from old crop sensor cameras

[@MasticinaAkicta]

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 ...

[@brandonpierce]

How do full frame sensors compare to cropped sensors for dynamic range?

[@careylymanjones]

Usually a bit better. If they are the same resolution, the full-frame will have larger photoreceptors, which tends to produce cleaner shadows. At the extreme, you have the Sony A7Siii, with just 12 MP on its full-frame sensor.

[@TimLucasdesign]

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

[@careylymanjones]

Indeed, what's the point of shooting on location, if you blur out the location?

[@mattstone8878]

​@@careylymanjonesI live in Hollywood. Gotta blur out the homeless people. 😅

[@George-c6e9g]

Chelsea of course. But it looks so lovely on camera, great chemistry

[@megaredkentadate9834]

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.

[@larrywhite8590]

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.

[@MikeLikesChannel]

I have my late dad’s 50R. It’s certainly not everything, but it can help.

[@sverreedin4229]

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.

[@MochtaqFawzi]

Dear Both I do have question… I am looking to buy camera 📷 for icon, Archeological artefacts as well as church photography what camera you advise me to get and what type of lens shall I use Many thanks

[@joanarling]

Well, I am not one of "Both", but perhaps you won't mind my input. Look for lenses with a large aperture: the inside of churches can be pretty dark, and using flash won't get you far (unless you come with a truckload of equipment, a lot of experience and a permission to use all that gear in situ). I don't think you'll be needing shallow DOF, therefore you have the option to go for smaller sensors, say M43... BUT. Consider how large your pictures are going to be when presented, and from how far away are they going to be looked at? I'll examine three categories: small (mobile phone or prints up to 5x8in), medium (poster size), large (billboard and larger). Small: Your pics won't probably be scrutinised with a loupe, get a small sensor. It will probably save money, it will certainly save weight. With ~24MP you can safely explore larger formats like poster -- I do so with 12 and 16MP and am satisfied with the results. Medium: I'd consider sensors no smaller than APSC, especially because people like me /will/ present a loupe (or use 200% on a monitor), mostly from curiosity. That, of course, need not be the standard you should aim for. It means more weight to carry in your bag and less money to carry in your wallet. Large: Take it easy. That kind of shot might well come from a small camera. Just go up close to a billboard, you'll see single pixels several mm large. On the other hand, really large photos of architecture use 8x10in film cameras, and since you are "looking to buy camera" that'll be outside your scope. One last thing: the inside of buildings can get pretty contrasty, especially when sunlight comes in through windows, so ask for camera bodies that can handle that and for lenses with a good coating (anti-reflex). Last but not least: spend your budget on lenses rather than cameras. HTH, and good luck!

[@Nissan350z33]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="919">15:19</a> 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..

[@robfj3414]

“ 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.

[@ppiercejr]

@@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

[@kevinharding9361]

@@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).

[@robfj3414]

⁠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.

[@briancarlisle2534]

Hey hey. Hi hope all is well. Your video is just awesome. I have a tremendous question to ask. So, a while back I traded my newer OM-1 and all Olympus lenses for the new Z6iii. I have to say, I miss the OM camera. I miss the inbody stacking and I miss the inbody ND filters. So I’m back on the fence again. I shoot landscape and I do shoot birds/wildlife with the occasional macro or astro. (I don’t do video) and well, what about picture print out size? I might print up to a 36x48. (It’s only been 24x32’s I believe) My biggest question here is image quality. In your most professional opinion, will I actually see a difference in image quality with a 20mp vs 24mp? Like; what will I be giving up on here. Obviously I won’t be able to crop in much with a m4/3, but I don’t really crop much anyway. This is what MPB is offering to me: What you're selling Condition Price Nikon Z6 III Like New $1,825.00 Nikon Nikkor Z 180-600mm F/5.6-6.3 VR Like New $1,300.00 Nikon Nikkor Z MC 105mm f/2.8 VR S Like New $550.00 Nikon Nikkor Z 24-120mm f/4 S Like New $740.00 What you're buying SKU Condition Price OM SYSTEM OM-1 Mark II 2616422 Like New $1,959.00 OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO II 2661449 Like New $624.00 OM SYSTEM M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4 PRO 2712396 Like New $549.00 Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN Contemporary - Micro Four Thirds Fit 2766717 Excellent $234.00 Total MPB pays you $1,049.00 Just looking for an honest answer and i am just having such a hard time deciding. The biggest thing is i don’t want to give up an image quality. What do you think?

[@stefanbeek6249]

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

[@rastersplatter]

Thanks - another great infotainment photography video. I really like you guys.

[@cameragod1]

Hey are you going to talk about the issues with Sony's latest Firmware update? The update to my FX30 basically broke AF on all my lenses, adapted don't work at all, the Sony 18-105 sometimes works but defaults to MF at random times, the Viltrox 1.4 primes have been the best but still are on MF at camera start up. Also my playback is doing weird stuff... I don't know how to explain it but is seems to do something different every time I use it... and I need it to LiveU to one client so thats just annoying af. Nobody seems to be talking about it.

[@NeilHadynNicholson]

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.

[@shaunod6745]

I'm looking at getting a lumix s5iix because I plan on using it for video. I keep hearing about sony overheating. Hopefully more and more lenses come out for L mount because I know sony have lots to choose from. I wish all of the sony cameras had active cooling like lumix.

[@jjd139]

In photography and golf. Learn the basics, then learn how to bend them so they work for you personally.

[@noctivagance_imagery]

Not enough discussion surrounding aspect ratio when discussing sensor sizing imo. FF is a professional standard with an inherent bias towards video due to the cinematic <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="182">3:2</a> aspect ratio. Framing isn't nearly as fun or natural as M43 or Medium format. I'd way rather be in M43 than APSC, or MF than FF for that reason. Image quality matters when pushing files but in ideal circumstances, they'll be largely similar(though I find the smaller the sensor, the more digital it looks)

[@houserhythm]

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.

[@kdj.imagery4317]

The best solution is that photography is like golf... go too the driving range and just swing it! You'll give the impression that you are a pro and people will think you know what you are doing.

[@dougberrett8094]

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.

[@jamesm_]

The problem in my opinion is not so much that these things are "myths". Instead, I believe they are manipulation tactics by "photographers" that are just sales men at the end of the day here on KZbin. I was once told, "the best camera is the one in your bag".

[@davidbarajas12]

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 !

[@robertleeimages]

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

[@blisteringbooks2428]

What is the difference between a Canon system and a Hasselblad one? A house! As a professional of 50 yrs, way back with film I would shoot weddings on roll film, motorsport on 35. I had 7 lenses for my 645, 35 to 300, but not only was the reach limited, the amount of film using 220 went through the roof. The main thing about progressing from film is I choose and compose each shot, I do not use H or H+ on my R5. If I wanted 30fps I would shoot 8K video. Oh, and you cannot compare P to M, even if you are using auto ISO you are still choosing your speed and f stop.

[@charlesworton4020]

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

[@CReadiusPro]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="870">14:30</a> 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.

[@davidmilisock5200]

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.

[@Government_Username]

What is the Sony A7RV good for?

[@peterjb49]

Thanks for your presentation! I gave up my Nikon D810 and lenses for a Mirrorless system, the Z6ii. As I compare my images from both cameras, the D810 wins out ! I concluded it was megapixels, what do you think?

[@shakerman55]

You would have to get the Z7ii to get the megapixels, and the same look. Added: I have an A9 now, and I like the look of my D800E better, because of more detail.

[@d3xmeister]

A sensor without PDAF on it, a sensor that can be super slow at readout with no penalty to you, no need for stack design or BSI. That’s why the D810 has a cleaner image.

[@peterjb49]

@@shakerman55 Thanks, I have been looking to sell the Z6ii to have the $$ to get the Z7ii, cannot seem to find a buyer? I am retired so $$ is short.

[@shakerman55]

@@peterjb49 I’m retired too, so I know how it is. Retirement puts a dent in GAS! Good luck!

[@4sapphireb]

If you take up night photography and use higher ISO and exposures above 5 seconds dull frame is better.

[@derrickdphoto]

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.

[@MO-hq4iz]

M mode is good with autoISO, so you can control the aperture and shutterspeed, this is why. But yes, unless with flash or tripod photography manual ISO makes little sense.

[@MrChip1217]

I use the rule of thirds but combine it with the French curve golden ratio. I think in terms of how does my eye move around the image.

[@andrewdavies6273]

Sometimes less is more....

[@MrDiburnett]

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.

[@markgoostree6334]

My dad suggested the "fill your frame" to me and I passed that to my son. He used that to get the position of photographer for the yearbook in high school. The teacher loved being able to see the people. Now, when I am shooting certain things, I do the "rule of thirds" .... some. I don't do well with rules. I am just doing photography and mostly its just for me, so I do it like I want. None of my pictures are seen ... nobody cares.

[@estraume]

I use A mode and auto ISO, but sometimes I adjust down the ISO to 6400 or lower when I trust the image stabilization more than the camera recommend. 😅

[@jacksponsler9341]

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.

[@scottw4336]

Right place...right time........that's better than sensor type 🤙😎🤙

[@MaxZappa1]

Agree

[@PavloGrytsenko]

Love you both! You’re great!

[@washingtonradio]

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'.

[@frankbafumi7025]

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 ✌🏻

[@Kev_N_1976]

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.

[@prophetkeyset2628]

enjoy you both so much!

[@bumblebee_ms]

Way before going pro, I had a kit lens and thought I was the worst photographer on earth. Lenses DO matter.

[@TimBrownTown]

Wouldn't it be helpful if all lenses were listed with full-frame (FF) equivalent specs? It would make things easier, especially when upgrading from APS-C to FF. A 15mm lens should give the same FOV regardless if its FF, APSC, Micro 4/3, etc (when used on the intended sensor size) The same goes for Aperture. Everyone knows an f/2.8 FF lens is more like an f/1.8 on APS-C. Smartphones are already doing this-iPhones list their cameras as 24mm (FF equivalent), but the actual focal length is 3.7mm. They also advertise the aperture as f/1.78 based on the physical characteristics to make it look better on paper, what you see in photos and videos (without fake bokeh) is more like its FF equivalent of F/11. If everything were listed in FF equivalents, it would be less confusing and more honest.

[@viktorpaulsen627]

It would be confusing (incorrect) for exposure. You can't cover both with one number.

[@TimBrownTown]

@@viktorpaulsen627 You could have two numbers, just use the FF equivalent for marketing materials. Have the APSC number in the spec sheet. Currently this is reversed.

[@viktorpaulsen627]

@@TimBrownTown Yes, provide both. Present the physical properties of the lens (focal length and aperture) and also the focal length and aperture of a different lens which on full frame would give images with certain equivalencies compared to the first setup. Those two should not be mixed; I mean don't take focal length from one lens and aperture from the other and present together. The a = f/n of the lens describes how fast the lens is. It is a number describing the lens. It has to be given. There is no way around that. The FF equivalent may also be given, but it is secondary, because it describes ANOTHER lens on ANOTHER camera (sensor size) which gives similar images. (I think this topic has been discussed before he-he in various fora, you can have the final word, if you like). Let's not forget how brilliantly Tony told everyone about the topic. Tony is the best.

[@TimBrownTown]

@@viktorpaulsen627 So the iPhone 16's main lens is 3.7mm. Makes sense.

[@lucianoag999]

I have and probably will always have APS-C, why should I care about FF? I don’t need the reference, since I know how a 50 mm “feels” in APS-C. The focal length is a property of the lens, not the sensor. Giving all equivalent focal lengths is a mess. You have FF, M4/3, 2 different types of APS-C and the undefined medium format. Some lenses and camera systems are inter compatible, so if you take the lens from one body to the other the FOV changes. This whole problem is solved by learning a little bit about photography. Not such a big issue. I think the equivalence is what generates issues, when, like already said, the companies equate the focal length but not the aperture.

[@TeddyCavachon]

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

[@Bladeclaw00100]

Bigger is also heavier, and larger to carry around. The lenses especially zoom lenses are much bigger than their APSC counterparts. That may not better for some. Also there is more to inage quality than lens and sensor quality. Some cameras like your phones use multiple lenses to create one photo buy merging the chomanance and luminance together. Some cameras jave different types of sensors such as xtrans sensor or bayer sensor. And some people frefer to use a light or nd filter which can control light.

[@lm205]

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)

[@thomastuorto9929]

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.

[@bingbong4848]

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.

[@wongjefx980]

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.

[@Bladeclaw00100]

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.

[@JR-ro5kv]

Crop factor == club head offset and bounce. 😂 I really enjoyed this video thanks for sharing