Commonly Misunderstood Camera & Photo Facts

[@kevinchen8266]

Macro vs telephoto is the same comparison as microscope and telescope, you would never use a telescope to magnify a tiny bug

[@robinwong]

That is brilliant! I wish I have thought of that!

[@didgeriond8047]

Except a microscope cannot be a telescope and vise-versa but a macro-lens can be a telephoto-lens and vise-versa. Macro and Telephoto just describes the lens capabilities. Macro means a lens can deliver 1:1 magnification, Telephoto means it has a long focal length. A lens can be macro and telephoto at the same time.

[@extremelydave]

There are 2 rules of thirds..... First: ISO, shutter speed, aperture Second: Robin, Rob and Peter are THE guys to go to for anything photo related.

[@robinwong]

You are too kind Dave! If only we can tag them directly into this comment, it would be awesome.

[@joseluisrojas220]

Totally agree about Robin. If you're talking about Rob TreK :D, I agree too! I don't know who Peter is though...

[@martaschiavon4612]

@@joseluisrojas220 my guess would be Peter Forsgård :)

[@BrendanPatterson]

This is very good indeed Robin. The thinking man's alternative to the dreaded Northrups. Coffees will be yours.

[@robinwong]

Thanks for the coffees, appreciate much. I don't compare myself to others, but I'd take that as a compliment.

[@Centauri27]

Lol, you mean the "folks, you just can't have it both ways!" dreaded Northrups? ;-D

[@lifesbeautiful3024]

Great job, Robin! I shoot Canon, but you and your fellow Olympus Visionary, Joe Edelman, are my two favorite photogs on KZbin

[@bobb.9917]

Good basic photography and modern camera information. Helpful to many!

[@69horatioh]

Great. Thanks for the ISO 200 info👍 3 coffees for you!

[@robinwong]

Wow, that is very generous, thanks!

[@robfj3414]

Thanks for clarifying the concept of native ISO, Robin. Back in the days of film photography, the rule was that the lower the ISO (or ASA. Yes. I'm that old!) the more detail you would have in your print. Only when I started working in camera and film sales did I discover that the base ISO of Kodak films, even when labelled "ASA 100" was actually ASA 200. Mind you an ASA 64 film was a true 64. This is just another way I have to stop thinking like a film photographer and start thinking digitally.

[@robinwong]

My pleasure to share what I can. The base ISO is a tricky thing, and some photographers need to get the best out of the camera, hence staying at ISO200 is important (say a studio environment). Digital works so differently now!

[@robfj3414]

@William White Very true about negative film in my experience as well. I'm fascinated by your comment on Fuji Velvia as I remember selling it but never got around to trying it myself. Thanks for sharing your experience.

[@snowwalker9999]

After watching all the videos about the newly released cameras, what they offer and their cost, I find myself coming back to your videos and to all the other Olympus ambassadors and faithful users.

[@RobShootPhotos]

Great video. I learned what people don't understand so I'm not as surprised when I hear it. 😀

[@robinwong]

I think there have been many misinformation happening, or many facts about the camera that are not made easily known.

[@HughesyTech]

Thank you for this video Robin, great work. AF point always gets me (I'm still learning), as I put all AF yet even with high shutter speed (1/1000) with a subject running towards me, I couldn't nail focus. Yet had eye and face priority on as well. I've nailed it in the past though. Consider me well confused. Would love a video dedicated to just running thru focus modes and how they work.

[@ianbower6434]

seconded this would be a most usefull video imho

[@hs-nq1zz]

Base ISO explained .... only if my school teacher knew Rob's way of explanation.

[@robinwong]

You have a photography teacher in school? I wish I had one

[@pablopastorrubindecelis1724]

1:44 are you using the lens hood? ha, ha!

[@julianrohloff2811]

Hi Robin! Could you give an updated opinion to the upcoming 8-25mm F4? Since I couldn't find any helpful information online it'd be a pleasure to hear some from you!

[@gelulache]

Thank you.

[@robinwong]

Cheers

[@Centauri27]

I agree with all your tips, Robin. But about the macro: I've often used my 40-150 to take "macro-like" shots of flowers that are further away. And my 60mm macro also doubles as a very nice portrait lens. (I was surprised to see the loss of DR from ISO 200 --> 100 was enough to cause banding in this sky?)

[@Caspar0809]

Great video Robin, I have both my olympus om-d 1m11 and Nikon D850. Had a issue on my photos on olympus a couple of days ago and I forgot my iso was on automatic and the pics would of been better if I had it on iso 200. Took them again another day and bam sharp as a tack

[@RobShootPhotos]

I wonder if it is because you want to use a longer lens for better working distance and people forget that it is still referring to a macro type lens and not a telephoto lens. If I remember right, when I was using extension tubes, the 40-150 kit lens still gave you better minimum focus than the 75-300. You can't guarantee hooking an extension tube to the longest lens that it will give you better magnification and minimum focus distance.

[@robinwong]

Yeah, the focal length reach and magnification power are two very different things. In fact, 30mm macro lens from Olympus achieves higher magnification power than 60mm macro!

[@RobShootPhotos]

@@robinwong yeah, that surprised me when I was thinking about getting my macro lens. I had the 35mm from 43rds but I found I struggled with the working distance being too close that I just needed to get the 60mm. Now I love macro photography.

[@thomasli2561]

Thank you. Very clear

[@robinwong]

Cheers

[@richerich8007]

Another excellent video Robin!

[@robinwong]

Thanks!

[@thorburnparker3199]

Robin, I learned a lot about ISO you can teach an old film dog new tricks, thanks.

[@robinwong]

Glad I could help!

[@Mrandreasuriano]

Another series of coffees Bro! You and your video are always the best for me. Great 👍 I am not a professional photographer but a great enthusiast. I sold all my nikon gear (D850, D4s and the best optics) to upgrade to Olympus. Thanks to your exciting videos I found the courage to do it and I will always be grateful to you. 👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@robinwong]

Thanks for the coffees, and welcome to the Micro Four Thirds world! Glad you found the videos useful!

[@leonelignaciomontesmolina5771]

Great video as always!!, little typo in the focal distance of the macro, there is an extra 0 (it´s 0,19 not 0,019m), thank for your work!!

[@kevinhugo]

Something that's been puzzling me - what's the difference between using the extended iso 64/100 and the built in Nd filters in the em1 mk3 and em1x? Don't they do the same thing? (I only have the em1 mk2 so I've never had the chance to play with them.)

[@robinwong]

Please watch my video on Live ND. I explain everything there.

[@Lordvader330]

Robin Question. If you pick auto ISO will the camera (E-M1 Mark II) try to pick ISO 200 if it can? I love these actual photography tips videos.

[@robinwong]

No, the Auto ISO will select the corresponding ISO based on the current shutter speed and aperture values, to produce a properly exposed image. It won't be ISO200, unless you fix it there.

[@Lordvader330]

Robin Wong thanks Robin

[@mitch1958no1]

Telephoto vs. macro lens - one or the other? In my case both - I have a 180mm f 3.5 canon macro lens which due to focal length is a 'telephoto lens'. Technically speaking, I believe that in order to be a macro lens it has to have a minimum 1:1 magnification but the focal length can be wide or telephoto (~50mm on 35mm sensor/film is considered neutral).

[@rudolfabelin383]

Very good as usual Robin!

[@robinwong]

Cheers

[@terjebrattelid7574]

I am a canon shooter maybe that's why I love you Mr. Wong :-)

[@robinwong]

It is nice to be loved

[@ajsthercz1667]

I am a night photographer. Is it OK for me to buy a new OM D EM1X?

[@robinwong]

What do you shoot particularly at night?

[@Rebla01]

Thanks Robin😬 coffees en-route ☺️. Oh & Shame about Nikon ☹️

[@robinwong]

Thanks Andy. What about Nikon? Anything I should know about?

[@Rebla01]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bKKpkoyJnalmgrc

[@WT.Mean1539]

Another characteristics of macro lens is at least 1:1 magnification. Oh. Wow finally i got some explain about bands in sky on high ISO shots

[@cornishblue58]

Good video Robin

[@robinwong]

Cheers

[@cornishblue58]

Robin Wong I have just got the OM-D E1 Mk 111, and am very impressed. Your videos have been very helpful thank you 👍

[@DeMorcan]

ISO 200 is the best all round ISO. Still, 100 and 64 have their uses. I feel like it was working for slide film to use the faster ISOs. I like them for landscape and with an ND filter when I do not need the full dynamic range. What I am waiting for is the the dual gain sensor so I have a normal ISO and a low light ISO. Still using an EM1 until they come out with s that which will improve the photos I take. Although a mkiii is tempting.

[@ruuddirks5565]

The information about the base iso should get much more attention from the manufactures and salespeople. I bet even experienced photographers don't understand it completely.

[@pwx8460]

@William White Yes! And right there in the camera itself as well. Says "Recommend" right on the display.

[@eddieslam]

Terima kasih bos 👍👍👍

[@kennynvake4hve584]

If you should not use the base ISO then why are they there...If there is a reason what is it.?

[@gunn_maew]

To get lower shutter speed, and to get better detail (olympus called it detail priority)but i think you lose some dynamic range if you use low iso. Btw, i never tried this feature because i still using em1 mk1

[@PinnaclePete]

@@gunn_maew The original E-M1 has LOW (extended) ISO which acts like ISO 100.

[@PinnaclePete]

@William White I'm pointing out that that the first Olympus OM-D E-M1 (2013) HAS extended ISO, not recommending its use. And the camera treats that LOW ISO setting as ISO 100 for proper exposure.

[@PinnaclePete]

@William White William you obviously don't understand my reply which wasn't directed at you but I think your explanation made my point. 😁 Have a good day.

[@RTFM70]

William White, please don’t use profanity in your replies. Thank you.

[@betruly7894]

Number 3 : This one is for those who never used any camera not even the first film or the first smartphone. please thanks to Robin for bringing those noobs from stone age.🤣

[@sashaneemoht8764]

Duh! People can be so stupid!....Oops, I thought that!... Oh! is he talking to me?... he is talking to me! .... Duh! I can be so stupid! I'm so glad I'm listening to Robin Wong now. Be well!

[@robinwong]

No one is stupid, or at least by choice, but there are many things about the camera that is not made known, or too many misinformation happening over the internet!

[@sashaneemoht8764]

@@robinwong lucky me then. I watch you. I buy you a coffee. I learn correct things. Yes, lucky me!

[@ralphlouzon]

I understand both sides argumentation about the low ISO topic, but... how can you read this DXO graph about the EM1MII? : www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements On this graph it is clear that the best DR is achieved at ISO 64. And same results for several cameras I checked (M43 and FF).

[@ralphlouzon]

I answer to myself with a test from 64 to 400 ISO of the same view. Shot with an EM1M2 and 12-100mm. All the RAW files are opened in Capture One. www.dropbox.com/sh/wx0l49wy91ifwps/AADTyYeIK_OOjmCaBbJQAlPJa?dl=0 I first manage to get the same aspect of these 4 pictures, as all the shots were in A priority they don't look exactly the same while opened. For this purpose I used only the Highlights ans Shadows sliders. Screenshots : 64 to 400 : global view after matching the pictures. No HL clipping (at 250) very few Shadows clipping at 5. 64 settings etc. : how the sliders were set. 400% zoom : we can clearly observe that the 64 ISO photo is noise free, the regular slight grainy 200 ISO and 100 and 400 at their logical noise level. 100% zoom : in these strong highlights we can also verify that the details are lost in the 64 and the 100 ISO shots, see above the chimney in the sky. My conclusion is that for me there are some advantages to use 64 ISO (better than 100 which is a non relevant compromise). I realize some studio portraits this week with flash, the 64 ISO shots are way better than the 200 ISO in terms of sharpness and noise. BUT... if recovering Highlights is critical, avoiding these low ISO settings is wise indeed. Hope it can help.

[@richardbierman9856]

A 105mm macro is both a macro and a telephoto..

[@didgeriond8047]

Macro lenses are the lenses that can deliver 1:1 magnification or better. Telephoto lenses are the lenses whose focal length are longer than 85mm in full frame format (according to Wikipedia). That being said Zuiko 60mm macro is a telephoto lens too since it is 120mm in full frame format.

[@robinwong]

That's why people get confused. Since 60mm is a macro lens and a tele lens, or why any other long lens which may be much longer than 60mm cannot do macro? It may sound very easy to explain with the magnification ratio but for someone who can't even understand the concept of focal length, adding another difficult concept is probably not a good idea. Hence I tried to simplify my explanations. I wish I have thought of the pinned comment's microscope vs telescope analogy! That would been much easier for me to explain. Oh well

[@didgeriond8047]

@@robinwong after further research Zuiko 60mm might not be a telephoto lens after all. As​ @William White mentioned in one of the comments a telephoto lens is having the focal length longer than the lens itself achieved using a special telephoto lens group. Zuiko 60mm macro lens has 82mm length that means it doesn't need the special telephoto lens group. Yeah Macro/Telephoto is confusing for a lot of people, good thing you clarified it in your video in a simple way.

[@otraguardia]

How do you deal with the 4:3 aspect ratio of your Olympus? The default aspect ratio should be 3:2 as in 35 mm film.

[@robinwong]

What's wrong with 4:3 aspect ratio? I love it. Works better for portrait oriented shots too.

[@fairgreemusic1]

There is no "should." They're different, but why would one be superior? Because 35mm represents perfection? That is just one sensor/film size. And normal print sizes don't correspond to these ratios anyway.

[@otraguardia]

@@robinwong, it looks amateurish. One of the easiest ways to tell smartphone pictures and images from professional cameras apart is the aspect ratio.

[@robinwong]

I have shot professionally with 4:3 aspect ratio and delivered to clients for years and never have anyone told me my photos look amateurish. If the photos look amateurish it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio, there's something else happening.

[@ronmalvert2387]

@@otraguardia There are many people shooting 16:9 with their smartphones, so?

[@automaticimprovements6957]

Sorry Robin I don't agree. ISO 64 gives noticeably lower noise in the sky compared to ISO 200. ISO 64 is so much better than ISO 200 for landscapes, night shots and high resolution shots, both handheld and tripod. It gives a lot less noise in the sky and when you lift the shadows it's less noisy. You should try ISO 64, believe me it has a lot of advantages over ISO 200. I think Olympus engineers knew about it if they included it in the camera.

[@robinwong]

I don't even see a grain of noise at ISO200. If you cannot accept the fact that: 1) ISO100 and ISO64 are overexposed from ISO200 by one stop or more 2) That you lose that 1 or more stop of dynamic range in the highlights 3) You get artifacts and banding issues especially in the sky 4) You lose tonality/color fidelity since the image you get is an overexposed image You are just avoiding the truth. Fact is fact. Look at your Olympus camera. ISO200, did it not say "RECOMMEND"? Look at ISO Low 100 and 64, did it not say "EXTENSION"? What did Olympus RECOMMEND? And ask further, WHY? I don't see how "noise" is any issue at low ISO shooting. Why would anyone worry about noise at ISO200, and shoot ISO100 just to LOSE dynamic range? That is beyond me

[@automaticimprovements6957]

@@robinwong With ISO 64 you can go with slower shutter speeds so you collect more light. At ISO 64 for the same exposure as an ISO 200 photo, the ISO 64 photo has a larger amount of total light collected. That's why it has less noise. Sure you lose in dynamic range, but the photo is cleaner. And trust me at ISO 200 you get noise in the sky. Take a RAW photo of the blue bright sky at ISO 200, and look at it at 100%, 200% and 400% on a computer screen. You will definitely see "color noise" like purple and red spicules in the blue bright sky. But with ISO 64 it's so much better, a lot less noise. And with handheld high resolution shot at ISO 64 you get the equivalent of ISO 5. Very good to get rid of noise. Believe me you should try it, and you will never use ISO 200 ever again.

[@robinwong]

Are you serious to think that I've never tried ISO64 before I made my claim? Man, I've even spoken to the engineers myself! There is a reason why Olympus recommends ISO200. Noise is not important to me. You can easily fix noise in post processing, but an overblown highlight is non recoverable. Micro four Thirds is not known to have much dynamic range to begin with, why lose more just to have that little bit less noise? And overblowing highlight is a lot more visible that noise in the sky that you need to pixel peep at 400%

[@robinwong]

Also, for your information, the complains/emails/feedback that I get from dozens of people actually mostly shot landscape at ISO Low (100 or 64) and they had artifacts, color shifts, and banding problems especially in the sky. When I asked them to try ISO200, ALL PROBLEMS disappeared. Go figure.

[@RTFM70]

Spot on Robin. I have never seen any improvement in picture quality by using ISO lower than 200 on any of my Olympus EM1 bodies.