IMAGE QUALITY Doesn't Matter...

[@Photography-Explained]

📷 Want to start taking photos that leave your friends and family speechless? Download our FREE cheat sheets: 👉 photographyexplained.com/cheatsheets/

[@washingtonradio]

I shot film back in the day and there was a mantra; "Get it right in the can". I think this is still very valid because a bad photo is a bad photo no matter how much image processing you do.

[@enigmabletchley6936]

I agree to a large extent but I nowadays I have almost entirely ignore settings apart from apareture (for depth of field). The reason is modern sensors often have so many stops of dynamic range you can rely on post processing to correct any issues with under or even over exposure (to a lesser extent). Composition is the thing that is important, imho.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely. You can't polish a turd :).

[@jaspercaelan4998]

I agree, most of my best images haven't needed much editing. If you have good light/conditions etc.. then you won't need to.

[@alansach8437]

​@@Photography-Explained"You can't polish a turd.." 😂 How would anyone know that?!

[@IncendiaHL]

​@@Photography-Explainedwell actually you can, but it's just gonna be a pretty turd.

[@ABC-sc2ip]

The obsession of image quality is not about quality but about options. Most photographers today are not photographers but digital image technicians. They "capture" information and then manipulate it to produce a pleasing image. With that approach, "image quality" matters because the technician is unsure of what the final image will be and what will be required to make it, so during the data capture phase, they want to make sure to have as much data as possible. A photographer, on the other hand, knows what they need in the moment, as they are shooting. They are able to create the image with a single click of the shutter. All that may be needed is minor adjustments to levels and color, a bit of dodging and burning, all of which are anticipated at the moment of taking the photograph (keeping highlights and shadows within the dynamic range of the capture medium, whether digital or film, in order to bring out the details in both with dodging and burning). As a side note, as a former professional photographer, most of us never used the latest and greatest. We couldn't afford to hand over the insane amount of cash demanded. We used what we could afford and what worked to get the pictures. Amateurs worry about gear, professionals worry about the picture.

[@benejpocock]

So true. I do my best to capture the image I want in camera, so I don't have to sod about with it later. That's the fun part for me and likely stems from my youth shooting film, where you had to pay someone to develop your shots and that was that - what you got was what you got. It also made you make an effort as there was nothing more disappointing than going to the developers and picking up 36 shots of crap. I read somebody the other day saying they just underexposed everything and sorted it out in post. That to me isn't photography, it's, as you say, being an image technician. Whilst I appreciate it can be fun tweaking shots in post, to purposefully not bother and just fix it later just has no appeal to me whatsoever. So many people would be better off learning the camera they have inside out rather than obsessing over the next megapixel or sensor design. My camera is far more capable than I am.

[@Photography-Explained]

That's a cool way of putting it. I've also heard it described as taking a reading off the sensor to use as your canvas. Then in post you can create what you like with it.

[@dudemanismadcool]

It was stressful when I first learnt to edit. I was using (and still am) the free silkypix included with Panasonic cameras and was fiddling with all these tone graphs and whatnot thinking I had a long way to go to get the images I want. Then I realized, outside of some minor cropping occasionally, all I really needed for most of my photographs was exposure and either HDR/Dodge-colourburn adjustmnet depending on the scenario. Enable highlight warnings and I'm golden, I just love editing raws and getting the final product out in a crispy tif.

[@wr_photo]

I agree with a lot of what you said. But, to play devils advocate, your definition of what a photographer is may not be what everyone’s definition of a photographer is. I’m a professional photographer, I am not a purist, but I do believe there is too much digital manipulation in most photography nowadays. But who am I to draw the line? On a related note, I use a 60 mp camera for the ability to crop, but I also do my best to get the composition and exposure right in camera based on how I was trained. Am I a photographer or a digital image technician, and does it matter?

[@m3photo726]

@@ABC-sc2ip Fair enough but that last sentence, although sounding good is a fallacy. Ask any carpenter if all he uses is a hammer and carving chisel or rather the best equipment he can buy, not only to do the best job he can but save time in the process …

[@CatMeowMeow]

One person I saw who really was inspiring to me was taking paid professional (paid!) product photos on an old 8mp Olympus camera. He explained 8mp is more then enough for large prints as he just gets the shot right the first time and doesn't ever need to crop. His results where excellent. You wouldn't look at it and say it looked like an old camera. I forgot what model he used, but I remember seeing used ones going for under $100

[@petermach8635]

I earned my living for a quarter-century mostly taking architectural pictures for editorial use. I used a 5x4 view camera, not for the film quality but for the movements and the ability to compose the picture as perfectly as possible in the camera, but even with the best lenses money could buy the pictures weren't digital "perfect". On large prints what matttered was composition, the bigger the print the further folk stood away from it. I don't remember anyone ever getting in close, having a good squint and commenting on the film grain, lack of details in the shadows or a bit of vignetting from shifting a lens out of its comfort zone ...... all that hoo-ha is a very recent thing, it's the picture that matters, we used to make allowances for necessaty technical imperfections.

[@Photography-Explained]

That makes total sense. It's awesome to have a real pro giving feedback. I appreciate it mate.

[@TimSeraphiel]

I love it... there are a lot of photographers who need to follow this advice. People get so caught up in image perfection they lose sight of the simple joy that photography should bring. Perfection be damned... get out and have fun with your camera.

[@Photography-Explained]

I think most hobby photographers take it all too seriously. When you're starting out, more time shooting will lead to more keepers for sure.

[@PatrickHuynh-c2x]

Image quality is the number one goal and the photographer must always have the newest and most expensive gear.

[@dameanvil]

0:01 📸 Question: Does camera image quality really matter? 0:35 🔍 Image quality defined: Sharpness, clarity, and detail. 1:01 📱 Common misconception: Needing the latest gear for stunning photos. 1:26 📷 Different photography types have varying image quality needs. 1:38 🏙️ Street photography: Preference for grittier, noisier look. 2:04 🌄 Nature photography: Importance of sharp, detailed images. 3:00 🗻 Famous examples: Ansel Adams' technical perfection vs. Galen Rowell's simplicity. 4:00 📊 Best camera: The one you have on hand. 4:31 📐 Camera settings: Crucial for final image quality. 5:00 ⚙️ Simple settings: Focus on composition over perfect settings. 6:16 🚫 Common mistake: Slightly wrong settings affect image quality. 7:01 🚀 Technological advancements: High megapixels, low light performance. 7:55 🌟 Modern convenience: Easier to take high-quality photos. 8:25 📈 Advice: Don't get caught up in numbers; find a camera that inspires you. 9:35 🎨 Image quality is subjective; it's about finding a balance. 10:13 🎯 Compromise: Sacrificing technical perfection for practicality.

[@Photography-Explained]

This is so awesome. Thank you so much for taking the time!

[@vzshadow1]

My main camera is a Z8 from Nikon. It's an amazing piece of machinery. But within the last year, I got interested in the challenge of shooting with older cameras. So I picked up a D90, D700 and D800 all from Nikon. Why, someone in my photography club asked what camera she should buy and she was on a very limited budget. Release dates; D800, 2012; D90 and D700 both in 2008. 1. these old cameras do have some limitations in terms of low-light and autofocus technology, but they will produce amazing images in the right hands. 2. You can buy the for a pittance. 3.Get it right in camera, don't crop too much. 4. I got a 28-80mm, plastic lens to use with them for $45 (US). I can get amazing, sharp images with it. 5. I shoot B&W film on a 50 year old Olympus OM-1 MD. I love it. Conclusion. You actually don't need the latest, greatest and most expensive gear, but it's nice to have! Ha!

[@Photography-Explained]

Nice to have is probably the best way to sum up photography gear!

[@BarrettBaker_photos]

I’ve never had a new camera. I shoot with a Fuji xT10, a Nikon D300s and a Ricoh grd1. I love my gear and I love photography. That’s all I feel I need. As for using manual settings, always start off darker and more in focus. Maybe a f8, iso 450, shutter speed 500 and see what that does to your picture. Then adjust from there.

[@Photography-Explained]

Just checked out your channel. How come you stopped posting?

[@brianmckeever5280]

My current gear choice is OM Systems OM-1. Most landscape and nature photographers would scoff at MFT. I love the handling and the [relatively] tiny high-quality lenses. Any modern camera takes images Ansel Adams would probably drool over. So yeah, grab any camera and get outside. Good luck on the channel. The production quality is great.

[@Photography-Explained]

I don't think landscape photographers scoff at the OM-1. It very specifically has features like the live ND's that are perfect for us :).

[@paulatterby7507]

Not true about Adams quality. I also use Olympus M43 and the quality is good. I also use Large format film which the Olympus is nowhere near. My Sony A7r4 isnt as “good” as my large format so Im sorry but technically large format film is the best.

[@paulmilovich2982]

Thank You for this video! That is so well said, people are always trying to keep up with the "latest and greatest" gear, but as you said, "the best camera that you have, is the one that you have in your hand"!!

[@StuartLowPhotography]

There is no measure of quality and that what gets lost on most people. But for arguments sake and use "quality", I can absolutely confirm that there is no difference in "quality" when it comes to the end result in prints on an exhibition wall of screen when viewed at normal viewing ranges. I have printed all the SLPOTY exhibitions for the past 10 years (I'm the founder) and we have had everything imaginable. We exhibited images from 12mp iphones printed at A1 & A0, next images captured on a £60k 80MP Phase One and absolutely no one could tell the difference between the prints. When we carry out the judging on laptops and large 60 inch screens, we've seen around 70,000 images in 10 years and absolutely none of the judges could tell you what camera captured what image accurately. You can pixel peep but that is pointless. I've also shot film for 40 years (still do) and where prints are concerned, there is absolutely a marked difference in quality. Prints from film at every exhibition are always commented on by the general public as having more depth, better tonality and just generally better. Ian Cameron and Craig Aitchison were both overall winners and their images stood out head and shoulders above all the digital prints at the exhibitions This is from comments by thousands of visitors. Prints from Digital cameras are exceptional quality but always look flatter or more brittle. Lastly, I was a semiconductor engineer and worked on manufacturing the silicon that goes into sensors. Production was geared up for marketing, because the whole camera megapixel race is driven by marketing professionals. That's a fact. The reality as far as camera goes is that there absolutely no need for any camera to have more than 12mp for 95% of photography uses. It's exactly the same with motorcycles - off the shelf, they're capable of 0-60 in 2 secs, leaning at 60 degrees and 180mph. Sadly, we live in a world where people will still go and buy something they will never really need.

[@Photography-Explained]

Hey Stuart! What a treat to have you comment on my video. I've got most of the SLPOTY books and really enjoy them. I really appreciate the feedback on image quality and I'll likely quote your post in future videos.

Image quality does matter. As an amateur landscape photographer I struggled with unrecoverable highlights in sunset or sunrise images with the Sony A7II. After switching to the A7III this problem disappeared and my image improved massively. You just need the right gear to do the job and yes, it doesn't need to be the most expensive.

[@energieinfo21]

I am trying to relearn photography using a 35mm sensor camera and a lens of the 24-105mm f/4 type. This camera has all bells and whistles with a boring 24 MPix sensor and ... three wheels to set the exposure what I really enjoy. Trying to understand the moment, using the zoom of "set of lenses" with 24-35-50-70-85-105mm" which is adjusted *before* the shot. And I like what you said about composition vs. technical IQ: I sometimes choose the technically imperfect shot because it has much better composition or the light/background whatever was dramatically better. And it is a lot of fun with a modern camera and zoom: quick control of your results and no longer changing primes.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yeah I just bought the Tamron 28-200 to hopefully change lenses less when I'm in the mountains. Going for my first trip with it this week to test.

[@Macro-photographer]

A very well know landscape photographer told me once, photographic images are not like good whisky, it doesn’t get any better the longer you keep it, be ruthless and delete anything not perfect!

[@MichaelHedegaardJensen]

Great video.. and great channel Just followed I shoot with an older Canon EOS 1100D with canon 18-55 mm kitlens with IS and canon 75-300 without IS and I still think I get good photos. If you cant get good photos out of a entry level camera, you will never get good photos out of a pro level camera. :) Greetings from Denmark

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the kind words and follow Michael. I think you're spot on! A great photographer with a shitty camera will easily outperform an amateur like myself with all the best gear.

[@MichaelHedegaardJensen]

@@Photography-Explained im just an amteur myself and see no need to upgrade yet, as my old preowned canon 1100d works just fine... And living after that Word, Its wise to wait with upgrade until one can get great photos every time.

[@sherab2078]

Well... I would say that by using good processing software one can always 'downgrade' the quality of the photo if the subject demands it. But we can only improve so little above what we already have. So going from poor quality to good quality is way more challenging. Said this, I don't mean every one of us amateurs needs the newest, top-spec cameras and lenses. I still use my Nikon D90 and I'm happy with it in many applications. But I would argue that we need good enough quality for our needs. For example, while I'm happy with my D90, the kit lens I bought it with limits me in low light conditions (the largest aperture is f/3.5 at 18 mm) and tends to produce way lower resolution on the edges than in the centre. Those are clearly visible differences. Quality does matter! Sure, if we take pictures only for ourselves, for digital use only (displaying on the screen) we may not need as high quality as a professional who would be printing his or her photos. But we still want high enough. The problem is, that 'enough' is totally personal.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yep that makes total sense. I don't think it's usually the gear limiting the photographer.

[@panicsoundsystem]

My main genres are portrait, macro and street/architecture. I started with a Canon 800D Aps-C, had a Canon RP (Fullformat) for half a year and then switched to a Canon R5 (45 Megapixel resolution Fullformat) because I got it as a present. Every picture before my first Canon was a Olympus Pen and a iPhone. The biggest change in Quality was my first Canon 800D and buying a Tamron 35 mm 1.8 prime. The second biggest change was switching to fullformat. It wasn’t its low light performance, but the colors here off this planet, which is obviously because of more photons hitting the sensor and therefore giving more or better colors. The decision to get a Canon R5 was for its 45 Megapixel Sensor because I often make huge crops, especially when I shoot macro. I only have a 1:1 Sigma 105 mm Macro. And unless I get a better magnifying lens, I’m left with cropping my images. So what I get from this experience of shooting for 4 years, is to get a current fullformat and a prime and you cannot excuse Bad pictures and blame the camera. I’m not a complete beginner though, I’m a graphic designer. I made for years storyboards for our company’s photographer. I know image processing and retouch and did it professionally for years.

[@David_Quinn1995]

Photography is art and art is subjective, some of my my favorite photos come from people who have older cameras that they have used for a decade or more.

[@Photography-Explained]

Same David. Some of my favourite photo books are pre digital too.

[@KurtisPape]

In my opinion, as technical as landscape photography is, it can be easy to get premium image quality with cheaper gear because your often shooting at F11 which can sharpen up a soft lens, using longer shutter speeds / low ISOs and hardly cropping. I photograph wildlife and I'm always battling image quality because I always need fast shutter speeds and I crop 99% of my photos, so upgrading to the Sony A1 has greatly reduced the noise in my raw images, a lot of the time I don't need noise reduction anymore which is great. Other option would have been to get a F4 lens, not an option if you know the price...

[@Photography-Explained]

You're right. I've "downgraded" from sharp 2.8 lenses recently to the Tamron 28-200. It seems good enough so far but the lighter weight is enabling me to be out longer and so the chances of getting the shot are higher. F4 long lenses are a different game altogether. I'd love to rent one just to have a play with it.

[@TS84NO]

Great video! :) I started out using film (I was 11-12 at the time, so I could only afford cheap point and shoot style cameras tho), but I think that taught me to always try getting the best photo you could, straight out of camera, and without having to take 100s of shots. Admittedly, changing to digital helped me improve a lot, as I COULD take more than just one shot of a scene, and I could try out different settings and angles that I wouldn't when shooting film. But, I still keep a little bit of that "film mindset", even when using digital. As for the cameras I use.. Well, I have a few, as I like to collect them :P But, the ones I use regularly, are a Nikon D3200 (from 2012), a Sony RX100 (the original, also from 2012), a cheap bridge/superzoom Panasonic FZ82 (from 2017), and a Sony DSC-W50 (a compact point and shoot, from 2006) And, of those 4 cameras, the Nikon DSLR is actually the one I've been using the least lately, as I find the challange of getting a good photo a lot more fun, if the camera doesn't "do most of the job for you" :)

[@5000Helme]

I have a strong opinion on this topic. The RAW file is a raw material that is fed into image development. The purer this raw material is, the greater the number of options for processing. If the raw material is very pure, I can change each individual pixel as I like. I can lower the quality, I can add blur and noise, but I retain the option to extract a very clean photo and use it for a large print. The first step is about opening up the widest possible range of options for later processing. It is not a matter of either-or when it comes to clean craftsmanship in the context of image composition. This must coincide with the best possible RAW quality. Only then do I have all possible options in image development. This idea fits very well with the approach of DXO Pure Raw, which aims to elevate the raw material to an even purer level before its actual processing.

[@Photography-Explained]

That makes sense. I had a pro tell me that his focus is on taking a RAW image that becomes the canvas for the rest of his work.

[@gustavohartel5159]

As on every industry, the marketing and the media makes the definition...always looking at the profit, and people follow without knowledge, without purpose. They are taking out the happiness of photography

[@Photography-Explained]

Maybe. I honestly think some people do genuinely enjoy looking at camera reviews more than actually taking photographs. That's not me but with the amount of traffic that camera review videos can get it must be the case for some people.

[@dennismccowan5375]

Great discussion. Cameras are like stereo equipment: audiophiles claim they can hear the difference with their super expensive systems...can they really? In my mind it is all about the subject, the emotion, the story conveyed, not the technology. If one wants to try and sell photos, I think the general public is satisfied with decent clarity but responds much more to the subject than the technology.

[@Photography-Explained]

I've a mate who is into audio. I've spent many evenings with him A/Bing cables knowing that 99% of the difference we hear is down to placebo effect and how much beer we've drunk :D.

[@WillN2Go1]

Unless I'm mistaken Galen Rowell used a quality Nikon 20mm lens. I have the same lens, with a nick in the front element. One of the few lenses I have that made the transition to digital. (The other two are my Nikkor micros 55mm 60mm 105mm) . When you talk about 'quality, ' you only partially defined the terms and then you were off in various judgements. Quality absolutely matters. Another definition might be 'minimal defect' which gives the photographer the maximum range of options. You can make a sharp image soft, you can lower details but you can make a soft image sharp or add details. Also when you show Rowell's 35mm slide images next to Ansel Adam's 8x 10 images you're doing both a disservice. Rowell's images are excellent, but in terms of detail, sharpness, lower grain -- they aren't. Someone pointed out to me once that almost all Adam's images were made within a couple hundred feet of a road. The photo of the boulders near Manzinar in Owens Valley was shot from a platform on top of his car. Many of Rowell's images were taken far off any road, up a mountain, some hanging on a rope. They did what they could do. I worked with the man who printed Adam's books and calendars: Dave Gardener. When Unsharp Masking was figured out (called Offchart Masking at that time, process was different but the results are the same) he used it on some of Adam's images. The edge contrast increased a bit showing sharper edge detail. He said he was nervous when he showed them to Adams, but "Ansel loved them, insisted I use it on all his images. Said he wishes he could do it in the darkroom." (Actually you can I did it a couple of times.) If Galen Rowell had a 6x7 camera with as wide angle a lens as the Nikon 20mm and weighed the same as the Nikon body, I'm sure he'd have used it. (Rowell also said in an interview in American Photographer magazine that if he could only have one lens -- it would be the 20mm. For compositional reasons.) And yes, As simple as possible -- but no simpler. What will it take to take the photos you want to take? In 1999 I carried a 4x5 field camera and a DIY PVC bracket I made so I could hand hold it on the deck of a ferry boat struggling up through the rapids of the Yangtze Three Gorges. They were about to be buried under the lake made by the Sandouping Dam. It was the best I could do at the time, and I was shooting a lot of 4x5 and 8x10 at the time. I only remember one image that printed well. Probably should look at my negatives. The next big photo expedition I carried a Pentax 6x7. Easier to use, great negatives. I'd love it if there was a 6x7 digital that had the electronics and sensor quality of my Nikon D850. Sure they make large format digital, but they don't do what the Nikon does as easy as the Nikon does it. I always remember Popular Photography magazine. They'd have some clever photo of a squirrel and an article how you could take that photo if you only had the Tomakinazippo.... 800mm. No matter what, any photographer 25 or under would then want that lens. This is always a silly trap. The same side of this "I want it...." nonsense are all the young people insisting that they 'have to shoot film.' Sure try it out, but it's now a dead end. Probably the best thing any young photographer could do if they shoot landscapes and slow stuff, is get a tripod, a remote release and slow down, don't shake the camera. Then really work on post processing the images -- but stay away from the 'filters' like on your phone or Instagram. And get a carbon fiber tripod so you'll actually carry it, but learn how to weigh it down with your gear, or a bag to hold a few rocks or water to stabilize it. Slow down, compose your shots. Think with the camera. Chase down all those clichéd images until you work them out of your system. And Rowell would be best served if his slides were rescanned to capture the greater depth, detail and color range in his original slides, then processed for making prints and digital display. If twenty years ago in Los Angeles you ever saw a guy in the photography section of Barnes and Nobles rapidly flipping through the pages of several large photo books -- that would've been me. I had seen so much four color printing and original slides, I was absolutely bored with the limited color range of four color printing. You could after years of photography absorb how the photos turned out that quickly. The same way in this video Rowell and Adams look like they have similar levels of detail-- they don't, and those trees in Adams? They aren't that sharp, he wished they could be a lot sharper, but all he could do was to get them as sharp as they needed to be to make that image work. With regards to color we used to say, 'You can never photograph a painting, but you can get close.' Now digitally you can actually capture every color in a painting.

[@Photography-Explained]

Wow, what a comment. I really appreciate the time you took to write all that out. I've only been doing photography for around 11 months and this channel is for beginners but I absolutely learnt a tonne from your post. Please keep commenting on future videos and sharing your insights.

[@oneeyedphotographer]

My current ambition is to make bad photos. You would make my front yard look terrible, it's overgrown with weeds, there's rosemary that hasn't been trimmed in years... I dispensed with those rules about focus, level horizons, keeping the camera still etc. I'm not the only person who thinks it looks pretty good.

[@Photography-Explained]

Sounds awesome!

[@Stan_the_Belgian]

Its not a popular stance, but gear matters to some point. Still love my 5d classic but in lower light, it really struggles. I have to manually focus and lots of grain at high iso. Same for my canon g7x ii, great camera, but the iso handling isnt great so capturing action in low light is hard. Happy to have a r6 ii now and in 10 years I might upgrade again

[@Photography-Explained]

Do you feel like our output took a big leap forward with the R6 ii?

[@anta40]

I wonder if painting makes a good analogy. Sometimes: it can be technically highly realistic, that can be easily mistaken as photograph. Sometimes, it may look mundane/crappy on quick glance... like Rothko's paintings (I'm a fan, btw). I like to think that good photographs are *anything* that tickles my imagination and can be enjoyed on long time. Yes, proper focus, accurate color rendition, microcontrast etc etc may contribute (and this is widely understood as "good"), but it's not the entire equation. Sometimes a little bit of blur or vignette may spice things up.

[@Photography-Explained]

My photography coach says that a good photograph is one that you want to spend time looking at. I think that's similar to what you're saying in your comment.

[@Macro-photographer]

Just discovered your channel and I really like your presentation style… instant sub!

[@JerryHazard]

I think image quality needs to be defined. For a long time, digital played catch up to film (some may still feel it is). But at a certain point, the ability to resolve at a certain measurable quantity became what image quality is all about. What was the image quality debate like with film? I think at this point, IQ is definitely on personal preference. I suppose if you're photographing cars, models or product - the debate may be different. Personally, I find super high end cameras to be too clean and smooth. I'm not suggesting they don't look good or are not impressive. But, do they really portray or reflect "reality"? Should they? I'm an old man basically, and most of the time, I prefer images with some tooth. Grain, atmosphere, depth. Sometimes digital provides this, sometimes I just prefer film. In the grand scheme, IQ, as it's marketed, is moot, far as I'm concerned. It's much more about the content. If it meets a basic level of sharpness or rendition, IQ is pretty meaningless. Great video 👍

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the feedback Jerry. Always great to have someone with experience share their insights. I've a lot to learn.

[@WaechterDerNacht]

Just recently read somewhere a comment on the new Z6III saying it will not be used by pros due to it's low resolution... I just thought about all those press photographers etc. That don't want more than 24MP due to newspapers often don't want bigger files since the print doesn't give more resolution anyways.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yeah I don’t think non-pros are the best to make judgements on what the pros want :).

[@ScottymanPhoto]

Excellent job! You hit many important and useful points is a very short and well packaged video! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@Photography-Explained]

Glad you enjoyed the video Scotty. Just watched your video on choosing only one lens for landscape and I totally agree!

[@ScottymanPhoto]

@@Photography-ExplainedGlad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching!

[@alansach8437]

Image quality certainly isn't as important as subject matter, but it's important. If someone is obsessing over the noise in your photo, chances are it's not a very compelling subject. Any camera or lens built in the past 20 years is more than capable of taking a photo worthy of a place in a gallery.

[@Photography-Explained]

I think you're spot on. The only people that have ever questioned the "quality" of my images (they're shit...) are other photographers. Everyone else seems to enjoy them for what they are.

[@brugj03]

Off course it does. You capture the moment, in a strife for perfections. If you are really good and have the stuff to match, it might even be better than the actuality. Then you`re getting somewhere.

[@Photography-Explained]

I don't think I can say any of my work is better than reality :(.

[@Yaw_Niel]

You’re really on it and I love your energy. You’re gonna be big. Just a genuine question. Are you using green screen for your background?

[@Photography-Explained]

Hey Yaw. Thank you for the kind words :D! I'd love nothing more than for this channel to make it so I can go full time. Yep the background is a green screen. It's just some green screen material pinned onto a wall in a spare bedroom.

[@Yaw_Niel]

@@Photography-Explained full time is the dream 💭. Growing mine too. Hopefully go full time too. Lovely to meet you. The blend is so well. You’ve a really good setup and I love your energy. Great to see you

[@Photography-Explained]

Cheers man. Just checked your channel too. Keep up the portrait work. Some of the shots on your website are epic!

[@fiddleandfart]

@@Photography-Explained Astonishingly effective! I was really admiring the background in your very tasteful home!

[@johnwinter6061]

Yep. A great shot is a great shot. Pixel peepers are obsessed with primes v zooms. I've used zooms for 40 years. No-one has EVER said "oh, pity you used a zoom." Either they like the shot or they don't. Nothing to do with IQ. So long as it's good, that's all that matters.

[@PhilippeDHooghe]

Totally agree! Most lenses optically fall apart once you get to 40 Mpix FF equivalent pixel density. That is why the Canon R5 is right on the money. The 24 Mpix camera's are all great - I have the R8 - not making the lenses fall apart but being more sensitive or having less ISO noise, they are great for street, family, portrait, sports. My R7 has 80Mpix FF eq. density, it does not only make the lenses fall apart, the pixels are so small it can't focus in low light and produces horrendous amounts of noise: indeed POINTLESS. I have ONE lens that really works on the R7: the RF 28mm f/2.8 pancake. It resolves more than 80Mpix FF... bonkers value. The ideal landscape thing.

[@Photography-Explained]

It's an ideal landscape lens other than I need a zoom :). Can't always zoom with your feet on a cliff face.

[@carlosmcse]

Image Quality is extremely important. Where it breaks apart is when we try to define it as bad or good. The image quality of a camera and lens combination is what is it. It isn’t good or bad. Then you have to decide whether that is the image quality you’re going for.

[@Photography-Explained]

That's a good way of looking at it.

[@stevek.456]

The camera handling, just how if feels in the hand, can make an average camera feel great to use.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely. I think Canon feels best in the hand. Thanks for the comment.

[@pleclere]

Partly correct. But, when people know their camera and what they like to shoot, they can program certain buttons on their camera and lenses to quickly change settings without the need to fiddle with settings. Eg, they can quickly change settings from landscape to bird-flying-past mode, and thus use their camera and lenses for both sceneries

[@Photography-Explained]

For sure.

[@rogermuggleton8127]

Today's improvements are often around autofocus tracking moving subjects. Other recent improvements include sensor readout speeds which help with fast bursts and picture distortion using electronic shatters. Whether these are worthwhile depends on the photos you are taking. But with any camera, the shutter opens for a period, and light is projected on a sensor or film. With a sensor, there is a bit of mathematical trickery to decide what colour/brightness each pixel holds, and then more maths to produce the image. If your camera has film simulations or LUTs, then it can deviate from the expected values to hopefully make the pictures look better. Hopefully you set the right simulation/LUT. I can look at my photos on my nice big monitor, but most people look at them on their phone. And may even look for less time that my original exposure. What's the point?

[@Photography-Explained]

Exactly!

[@mistergiovanni7183]

I liked the way you dealt with the topic. In general it is very good and I have no criticisms to make, on the contrary, it is a very good summary. I would just like to add a few things.There are digital cameras that are more than 10 or even 15 years old that are still very good and professional even though they have been technically surpassed. Social media in general sucks, it's not the best place to see photos or look for inspiration. You have to be very selective about them so looking for inspiration in classic photographs is safer. Returning to the topic of gear and quality, in addition to the camera body the key is in the lens you put in front. I didn't find what your name is but it may be that I haven't searched enough. Congratulations. Greetings.

[@Photography-Explained]

My name is Will. I've only published a few videos and so I'm not very searchable at the moment. One of the first things my photography mentor told me was to buy photobooks rather than look at work online.

[@mistergiovanni7183]

@@Photography-Explained A pleasure Will, and I loved what your mentor told you.

[@matthewjeffres1289]

👍Great take on photography and Gear 👍 It is the photographer's inner vision that matters most. The camera and lens are a tool to capture the image and the darkroom is where you bring it to life. I have been shooting for nearly 50 years now and the art of photography has not changed, just the tools we capture it with. Give me a 12-meg full frame camera and a 50mm lens (or equivalent) and I can constantly give you amazing 20x30 prints of my work. Better gear does not make you a better photographer! Only time and experience do.

[@Photography-Explained]

Cheers Matthew. Glad you enjoyed the video mate! I appreciate the insights from someone so seasoned in the game.

[@nevvanclarke9225]

I think you make some really great points in this video and in certain situations image quality does matter and then other situations it doesn't if I'm doing a large print for a customer well obviously that matters because that's dollars for my photography business. However if I'm just posting on social media which many photographers do and they are quite happy with that they probably don't need the high-end gear that they are chasing often. I think sometimes there's a certain status level attached to certain camera brands and that's okay it's trendy. Unless you get further down the line with Photography and you maybe start selling a few images or getting some paid gigs you will probably shift in that view a little bit and you might want to be a little bit more precise with your image quality and that's okay too but let that shift come naturally I got good at Photography not overnight. It took me quite a long time and I let it flow naturally almost organically. It just grew peace by piece day by day. You're not going to become a really good photographer overnight and then when the time comes up your image quality. You can do that with better lenses or better techniques and I've agreed with a lot of what people have said on the comments. Just let it flow enjoy and the more you enjoy the better photos you take anyway.

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks for the comment. It's always great to get feedback from someone who is making money from photography.

[@Michael-fw5ef]

I think composition matters MUCH MORE than image quality. Many pictures over the last 100 years are considered masterpieces, but obviously image quality from a camera produced in the 1950s, 60s, 70s can't match cameras manufacturered today.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely. A sharp photo of something boring is still a crappy photo. Thanks for the comment :).

[@alpinewonders]

totally agree. Galen Rowell got his rainbow over Potala Palace shot because he was willing to sprint several hundred meters to get into place whereas those he was with didn't. I shoot a lot of night time lapse in the Alps. Lighting the foreground with lamps adds far more to the end result than buying a better lens (eg Sigma 14mm f1.4) ever could. So I stick with what I've got

[@Photography-Explained]

The time lapses on your channel are amazing. Congrats on the awesome work!

[@martinohesse]

A Mexican photographer had just won a Leica award and all her iconic images have been made with a fuji x100 launched in 2011.

[@Photography-Explained]

Doesn't surprise me. The X100 is still an awesome camera. Ironic they won a Lecia award with it though!

[@RandomUser-tj3mg]

A Fuji x100 is not a bad camera tho. Now when someone does it with a 2mp phone camera from 2000's then tell me

[@martinohesse]

@@Photography-Explained yes, ironic but the price was a Leica camera and lens. I followed her work long time ago and I was surprised that fuji didn't hired her as embassador.

[@martinohesse]

@@RandomUser-tj3mg her first photos (amazing as well) are shot on a cheap smartphone and they're more expressive than most youtube photographers. Now, in the contest there were too many photographers using latest models of Leica, Sony, etc. That's the point, I guess, about that the "quality" of image technically speaking is not as important as the concept of the photos.

[@rongrantga]

As a hobbyist I can't afford new Fuji or Sony. I shoot older Nikon full frame dslr cameras with vintage Nikkor lenses. They don't have the newest bells and whistles but I can get acceptable quality photos anyway. I've seen remarkable images shot with cell phones. Great video. Fun accent! I can understand most of what you're saying!

[@Photography-Explained]

Haha glad you enjoyed the video. My accent is a little all over the place as I've lived all over the UK :).

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

Gear matters more, the more extreme your situation gets. If you have to shoot in low light, or you need fast autofocus and fast lenses etc , then your need for the level of gear to go up. But most don’t.

[@enigmabletchley6936]

To an extent I agree. It's like a normal distribution, there are specialist requirements at either end of the tail, e.g. low light or fast action. However for many people starting out who might approaching photography in a general way, good 'eye' and compositional skills are more important, imho

[@Photography-Explained]

Make sense. As a landscape photographer all my gear wants are met with essentially any camera as long as I use a tripod.

[@Thirsty_Fox]

Exactly, it's about edge cases. Of course you can produce beautiful images with humble gear, but if you need to produce results and have little control over the conditions or how long, you may well need gear to ensure you can deliver. Sports and wedding photography comes to mind as places where gear can give you a much higher hit rate in time-sensitive conditions.

[@shanwen88]

I having been using auto iso and apeture priority since my first fuji camera in 2013....

[@Photography-Explained]

Nice one! What camera was it?

[@Bleutimes]

Keep up the good work man ! love it

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks mate. Working on the next video right now and so I appreciate the encouragement.

[@enigmabletchley6936]

Content Is King. It is so hard for beginners the get this when the camera marketing machine is promoting megapixels and so-called 'image quality'. Even sensor size is immaterial when printing. Viewer distance is far more important - hence the poster sized images on the tube from smartphones that look so good.

[@Photography-Explained]

I'm not even sue you can 100% blame the camera companies and their marketing practices. Some people are just lazy. They'd rather dream about doing good work and have the gear to do so rather than get off their ass and make it happen.

[@richardwalker4518]

Manufacturers are always out to sell you more capability than you need. It is probably one thing if you are a working pro with fussy clients who want big enlargements, get what is needed and write off against tax etc. A couple of points to add. AI processing software, I'm finding it matters less than ever to have sharp lenses, as the AI software can add detail back into the raw files (although it doesn't yet get it right with all subjects, watch out for sand and grassy fields, sometimes gets mistaken for noise and smoothed). I've been getting good results off a 40 year old Canon FD 300mm f5.6 lens, which is only a 5 element design, suffers horribly from chromatic aberration on specular highlights from backlit subjects, but so long as that is avoided, the images sharpen up very nicely with minimal artefacts and have that 3 dimensional look you can only get from low element count lenses. Re digital vs film. The issue with digital is that it can only work with three colour channels [R, G, B] whereas with film it is supposedly more nuanced, so it is not really possible to simulate film exactly. Perhaps this is why film still has its following. I've never really joined the megapixel race and don't intend to, it sucks you into upgrading your entire processing pipeline and often just makes images that look too clinical. Again, if you are a pro, need it and can justify the expense, another story.

[@Photography-Explained]

That makes sense Richard. I use a 60mp Sony as I'm too crap to get framing perfectly right in the field and usually have to crop :).

[@markusbolliger1527]

I agree that the technical aspects of photography are overvaluated. Especially by amateurs who worry all the time about their gear instead of trying to improve their skills as a photographer. Image quality is important - but not the most important aspect in photography. What matters more is talent, practice, the eye for content, composition and light. And to be there when it happens, when all these factors come together.

[@Photography-Explained]

My photography mentor always tells me that a sharp image of a shitty subject is still a shitty photos. Gear isn't going to help with that.

[@Jparkss]

I feel like image quality truly matters if you are getting paid for the photos like in weddings, etc. overall I don’t think you need expensive gear that takes super sharp and clear photos if it’s a hobby. Like you said it depends on the scenario, I take street photos mainly so I’m fine with how it comes out straight from jpeg

[@Photography-Explained]

That makes total sense!

[@robertwaffel8248]

Food for thought: Have you ever opened a National Geographic from the early 2000s and thought "These images have not enough resolution"? No? Exactly! Many of these were shot with 12mp DSLRs (such as a Nikon D700 or Canon 5D). My advice: Buy an old professional DSLR and work on your composition and framing. Then you don't need to crop. By the way I deliberately also went back to film and nowerdays I shoot 90% analog (35mm and medium format). It just motivates more to pick up the camera and go out. THIS is what gear one should be looking for.

[@Photography-Explained]

To play devils advocate, I do think that there is more grain in images from the 200's and it's a slightly different look to the high mp cameras of today for landscape photography. Not that it's better or worse, but for printed images I think there is a difference.

[@fiddleandfart]

National Geographic pictures have been a golden standard for decades - long before digital. Nikon film cameras (and others, of course) really delivered!

[@dalvinderbasi3495]

Don't say image quality doesn't matter, it matters very much. If you say does everyone need a 60mp or mp sensor, no not every one doesn't needs that many megapixels. But high megixels don't necessarily make good image quality. Other factors are just as important if not more important. But does image quality matter? Yes, especially if you are printing.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yeah that's fair. I tried to define what I mean by "image quality" at the top of the video but it is nuanced.

[@dalvinderbasi3495]

​@@Photography-Explained Very true

[@neilo2323]

Just look at all of the wonderful photos taken 100 years ago on cameras that were 1,000 times more basic than the worst smartphone cameras. That’s the beginning and end of my argument.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely!

[@fiddleandfart]

Absolutely!!

[@raulal00]

Yes but, mostly quiet photos... I agree with on the basics. But nowadays we want to capture our toddler making bubbles while jumping and perfect focus on the eye, and of course 45 real mpx clarity, thats just mental for a consumer camera 😂 For taking and remember the moment any cam is correct

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

I do documentation photography. Quality is EVERYTHING!!!!

[@Photography-Explained]

I guess if you're documenting ancient artefacts then quality is important, right?

[@ancientegyptandthebible]

@@Photography-Explained Yes, it is. I wish it weren't so. It would make things so much easier.

[@hillscp]

I think another point is what you intend to do with the image. Print versus hiding images on a hard drive somewhere. In the film days everything was printed. Now not so much. Big Landscape prints need lots of image quality.

[@Photography-Explained]

For sure. I print my best landscape work but it's only going up in the house and so if it's a little soft it's still not the end of the world.

[@shrapmetal]

Agree that it doesnt have to be the best but if a landscape photo isn’t reasonably sharp, unless it was done that way delibaretely, it doesn’t really excite me.

[@Photography-Explained]

Agreed. But there's sharp enough for your display and then 60mp sharp that I still struggle with even when I focus on it and nobody else will ever see it when I share the photo in one of these videos lol.

[@gn2727]

First it was - Sensor size does not matter. Then - Image Quality does not matter. Finally - Photography does not matter.

[@Photography-Explained]

I think photography matters. Documenting the world is important. But the viewer really doesn't care what gear you used to create the image.

[@thomasreed49]

In wildlife despite what Olympus ambassadors will tell you image quality is everything. They put you down saying you’re not imaginative enough. When you’re looking for a hired car quality image most people are not looking to change their style of photography.

[@brugj03]

Olympus ambassadors will tell you everything only to promote olympus MFT. They are a frustrated bunch, and supporting a death format.

[@Photography-Explained]

Sure! For wildlife, like the landscape work I do, practicality is important too though. Not many folks are getting that full-frame f4 up a mountain but they might easily get a OM System set up to their location that has a similar reach.

[@Photography-Explained]

I'm not sure it's dead. But I'd love them to make some smaller, lighter camera bodies!

[@mtbboy1993]

it matters, that's why I have a proper camera now, not a smartphone. But buying obscenely expensive cameras and new lens new on release date doesn't make sense. I got my camera and lens used camera dealers.

[@pentagramyt417]

People think the greatest cameras are needed to win competition, while most of the winners average gear were released between 2004-2017.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yeah I notice that when looking through photo books. I think most pros realise that a new camera will cost the business money and so they stick with what works for them.

[@noenken]

Honestly, image quality on the camera side has not made big jumps in almost a decade. The A7RII had a large stabilized high resolution BSI CMOS sensor and to this day that is the type of sensor you want to shoot.

[@Photography-Explained]

For sure. I just bought a second A7R4 body rather than going with the 5.

[@TedHallII]

A technically perfect image is trash unless the composition talks to the viewer. I have some terrific glass and a LOT more great gear in my used collection. Over the last 50+ years a good but inexpensive camera with good glass has gotten great pictures that captured the message I wanted to tell. I've used cameras from the original 35mm Olympus Pen to my favorite film camera a Rolliflex f2.8 TLR. Which camera I was holding made little difference in the ressult.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely! I think most decent photographers don't really care about gear. It's the people who need to invest in their skills (myself included) who end up focusing on the tech rather than the composition.

[@TheBigBlueMarble]

It matters a lot if you plan on doing anything with your photos except store them away. It is not ALWAYS the most important thing, but it is always important. However, the camera and lens are not the most important factor for image quality. For better image quality, first improve your technique, then your lens, and your camera body...in that order.

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely. Not many amateurs have the focus to improve their skill though... it's easier to buy the flashy new toy :).

[@jjd139]

We have to keep in mind that we are not shooting for National Geographic, unless you are. Have fun with the gear you have, learn how to use it well, and enjoy pushing that shutter button.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yeah you're right. For me, getting on the hill to do the photography is the point. If I get a great image to remind myself of the trip out then even better.

[@ac1646]

Bloody hell; your photos are brilliant 😁😁🫶

[@Photography-Explained]

Hahahahaha I'm not sure about that... They're improving if nothing else :).

[@seanfryfitness]

I'm not sure even most photographers appreciate the difference between 35mm and large format. Comparing Galen Rowell's 35mm film hand held adventure shots with Ansel Adams' large format 8 x 10 film sheets isn't really a fair comparison. 8 x 10 film is 53 times larger than 35mm film. The difference is astounding and one you really appreciate only when seeing a massive 40 x 50 print in person. The detail you get from large format sheet film absolutely DWARFS 35mm film or digital. The clarity is incredible. There is no comparison. You simply can't enlarge 35mm shots big enough to make large scale prints without significantly losing resolution, digital or analog.

[@petermach8635]

We knew that though .... I shot 5x4 as a living but I shot 6x6 or 35mm for pleasure. My 5x4 images might be printed on A1 for exhibitions but I very rarely went up from A4 for my smaller format prints, you just looked at them from different distances. We worked around the technical imperfections of the medium and folk were interested in the picture rather than the "pixel count" .... one of my favourite exhibitions was at a small Chelsea dealers and the pictures were just 6x9 contact prints on slightly textured paper using silver salts ..... technically they were rubbish, visually they were sublime and I've aways regretted not buying one.

[@Photography-Explained]

Even I didn't appreciate the difference in size between the formats. That's crazy! Did 8x10 film lenses resolve that much detail?

[@petermach8635]

Lens quality @@Photography-Explained was very different in the past, it was as good as technology and the chemistry of glass production allowed, practical coated optics really only came into being after 1945. The wider the lens the worse the fall-off, with b+w that was compensated for in the darkroom, but one advantage of large format is that focussing is done with the camera, not the lens and the lenses are designed to work best at infinity

[@petermach8635]

An example @@Photography-Explained ..... back in 1951 someone challenged Bert Hardy, then a photographer for the weekly Picture Post to put aside his professional equipment, an early Leica, to take pictures with the sort of cameras "everyman" might be using. He took the challenge and produced one of the memorable pictures of the time, look up "Bert Hardy Blackpool Railings" taken with a fixed focus box camera .... so often it's not the equipment used, it's the photographers eye and imagination that matters most.

[@seanfryfitness]

@@Photography-Explained Yes, absolutely. Even Ansel himself wrote that he did his best work with Zeiss Protars that were 40 years old, and even a 70-year old Voigtlander 12-inch process lens. We also underestimate just how good older lenses were and still are. Most of the top-end large format lenses could preserve detail better than even film and paper can record. In a lot of ways, the camera industry as a whole has kind of duped us with all of these supposed revolutionary tech advances that keep us wanting to throw our money at the newest, fanciest sensors and megapixel counts. Try to find some large format photography blown up to very large sizes to see in person. The first time I saw some Rodney Lough Jr landscape prints at his old gallery I couldn't believe my eyes. He shoots quite a bit on 8 x 10 film.

[@RedLegPiper]

If all you do is social media, and all your photos stay on 4-12 inch device like 99% of photographers, then no. IQ doesn't matter as youtube, FB, and the rest compress the files heavily, and every photo is then edited anyway to where you couldn't even tell the difference between 12mp and 50mp. Now, once you print, that's where IQ matters.

[@Photography-Explained]

At what size print do you think it matters?

[@reynaldohernandez1425]

I would say that most photos taken will end up on social media where a camera with 12mp is more than enough.

[@Photography-Explained]

Yep, completely agree.

[@godsinbox]

everytime you increase ISO you are decreasing dynamic range. So, dont do what he says unless you know the trade off.

[@loboptlu]

Biggest type of crap i heard in my 45 years of photography (with professional license , need em here if you want to make it professionally) . 1st is always the quality , you can do any artistic work afterwards but if the quality isn’t there it looks like garbage, yes i said garbage ,call it artistic rendering or having soul or other bs , it wont change , luckily some people will believe it (after all lot of “art specialists” believed the scribblings of a chimpanzee was one of the greatest pieces of art , or the museum’s guard who hurriedly evacuated the coathanger when they wanted to give it a prize for best art piece 😂) and ohh around seeing it. And professionals don’t care because they have the expensive equipment who simply is superb and they don’t need to bother about it. And if you are a professional ,not artists whatever that means , your job is to make the client happy not yourself. Example : my brother wanted me to be full there on his wedding so he hired a “professional wedding photographer “ , result the pictures where not sharp ,it was impossible to see the extremely beautiful stitch pattern on it ,and also came with that entire bs aa said in this video ,result 2 he got fired after 40 min ( we wanted to see a photo for verification) i had to get back home to get my stuff and running around all evening , my brother was fuming and made sure the entire town new it. For those interested , the photographer got called in for a verification of his license and failed the test. Artists can do what they want and it’s only their opinion , a professional can’t, if the client asks for some dreamy out of focus pictures good , if not deliver always the best possible quality.

[@Photography-Explained]

Hopefully your photography is better than your grammar.

[@loboptlu]

@@Photography-Explained well sorry that im not good since english is only my 4th language , but im pretty sure its better than most americans.

[@youngmurphy7556]

Thought you were going to talk about relevance of MP count when printing, showing examples. Disappointed.

[@Photography-Explained]

Hey Murphy. Sorry the video didn't live up to your expectations mate.

[@Juventinos]

i print a lot. i do 28 by 40 inch or 70 by 100 cm prints mostly. Mp don't really matter that much. I have 4 cameras that i print. a nikon d4s that is 16mpx, a nikon z6ii that is 24mp a hasselblad h4d-50, 50mpx and a GFX 100S 100mpx. there is a diffrence if you look at them up close. even between the hassy and the GFX, resolution wise i mean. colors are different anyway. but at regular viewing distances, in a home or a gallery 16mpx is plenty. I would be fine with a Sony A7Siii 12mpx. no issues printing this big what so ever. it would look great.

[@kevinhaynes9091]

It's a little like the number of blades on a shaving razer. Even though two blades is probably more than enough, over the years, the manufacturers increased the number up until, I think, seven, each time convincing us that we were getting the perfect shave. It's the same with lots of products. Once grubby marketers are involved, the scam is on...

[@Photography-Explained]

I'm not sure if it's a scam if the quality is improving (even if it is in little increments). But I hear what you're saying. It's not a very sexy product pitch to say "The new camera is kinda like what you already have. You better buy it as otherwise we'll go bust and won't be able to support you with repairs".

[@kevinhaynes9091]

@@Photography-Explained Yes, it's a dilemma. If we want our favourite, actually any, companies to survive, then they need new customers and/or repeat business. My use of the word 'scam' was probably ill judged, but there are some shady practices involved, not least planned obsolescence. My 60 year old Pentax SV and Super Takumar lens are still going strong, as is my old, now regrettably sold, 40 year old Nikon FA. I doubt my D750 will survive a fraction of either. Yes, it is perhaps new, better technology, but at what cost. We're both old enough to remember when cars were scrapped because they were covered in rust. Now rust free cars are being scrapped because of the complex technology overloaded in them. And if our tech requires continual software updates, manufacturers can pull the plug at any time, as seen in the current legal disputes as to whether we own the things we buy, or whether we are simply licensed to use them, thanks to the ongoing benevolence of those we purchased them from...

[@bang1432]

Pixel peepers and photographers Care about quality and gear. Artists who use photography to express oneself dont and care more about the vision for the image.

[@jameshenderson5385]

Knowledge is the key to fantastic photo's not the gear! You can have the best camera snd lens in the world and still take crappy photo;s.

[@seifsalman]

Get the nikon z6 iii , one of the best hybrid camera

[@Photography-Explained]

I've never used Nikon cameras but they look great. Thanks for the comment.

[@GerhardBothaWFF]

People cannot possibly be so useless that they remain in the beginner class for more than a few hours of active photography- if they are willing to experiment. It is so easy now. The biggest challenge to a newcomer is just to come to terms with the basics of exposure and the details of their chosen camera’s AF system and setting up buttons etc for their style of shooting. Once that is under control you should be able to get a shot that is correctly exposed and in focus almost every shot. Then you can start working on the composition and intent. And post processing is part of photography. Just like it has always been even in film days. The idea that you are done in-camera is just plain wrong. Especially if you are an amateur- you can afford the extra time to really bring out the best in your images during post. And when you process your images you also learn what could have been done better. The only photographers who want good in-camera performance are event- and journalism photographers. They need ok images to send off quickly. KZbin has so many how-to clips. You can learn quickly. Be willing. And don’t be afraid to try stuff. It’s not film, for heaven’s sake- you aren’t wasting shots.

[@Photography-Explained]

Makes sense Gerhard. Thanks for taking the time to comment mate.

[@iamtesting3824]

yes it does matter because I'm a "real pro" ... joke aside some of my favourite images i shot were iphone images. so I agree overall and disagree with you to some extent. I guess image quality is a bit misleading from what I think. perhaps people's argument is resolution not quality. anyway good point thank you

[@Photography-Explained]

That makes sense.

[@Jerry10939]

You should try film photography at its purest, with a manual only camera. I think you may get a better understanding of photography by using film. I came from the film era and worked as an army photographer back in the late eighties early nineties. I have and love my Sony A77 DSLR. It takes great pictures. But it’s not same as using film. It’s a different kind of photography even though you use the same techniques. Also film doesn’t blowout highlights like digital. You can go several stops over before having any problem. But it can only go one, maybe two stops under. The opposite is true of digital. It can go a couple stops over and you blowout the highlights. But you can go several stops under with no problems. Why don’t you try it, because without any experience with film then you can’t really say anything about it now, can you ? Get yourself a good manual SLR like the Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM. Or similar camera. with at least a nifty fifty lens. Get some Black and White film like some Agfa APX 100 or Ilford FP4 125 and some HP5 400. I would say to do it right learn to develop it. Then you can talk.

[@Photography-Explained]

If I go down the film rabbit hole I'm nervous that I'll never see the other side... :D. I do shoot in manual mode all the time though. The next video is on the different autofocus modes and so I've been doing a lot of experimenting. I appreciate the comment Jerry.

[@PatrickHuynh-c2x]

Image always matter 1,000% to both professionals and hobbyists, but especially professional photographers.

[@Photography-Explained]

Maybe... :)

[@Juventinos]

moment matters way more than image quality, but you should have a camera that pleases you, and not a stat sheet or a youtuber. Also if you only do photos and not video hybrids are a waste of money. Also.. Image quality is way more than sharpness. For example shoot on a CCD sensor vs a CMOS with the same lens same mpx, you'll see a difference in everything but sharpness. i would get a camera that makes me stand out and makes me shoot more.

[@Photography-Explained]

Getting a camera that is a job to use is what lead me down the path of getting a Fuji system.

[@leonewb]

Ótimo vídeo! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks Leon! You're a legend!

[@errole]

If a client needs image quality you can’t go off of this. If you having fun ok, but for pros this is far from true.

[@Photography-Explained]

For sure. This content is for amateur photographers like myself.

[@bamsemh1]

Pros never see pictures. For real! Because they are only focused on what they would do better or change, and they are 110% living after the man made rules, that are only guidelines!

[@Photography-Explained]

What do you mean by "pros never see pictures"? Amateur photographer here trying to get better.

[@bamsemh1]

I already explained why, in the first comment. They only look at what is wrong with your picture. Therefore not seeing the actual picture. ​@@Photography-Explained

[@totaratree99]

Well put.

[@Photography-Explained]

Thanks mate. I appreciate the comment. Your tree climbing content is nuts!

[@totaratree99]

@@Photography-Explained Thanks and thanks for having a look. Have climbed a few trees for pro camera people over the years. Only an amateur myself so your way of explaining is helpful. Although back in the day I had a film SLR.

[@DB-zi9un]

perhaps change the pic hanging over your left shoulder? It doesn’t give a good vibe….to me anyway.

[@terrygoyan]

What! You’re calling a Nikon 24 f2.8 lens cheap and crappy?! Galen used that lens for lots of his photos! Lost me on that one……

[@Photography-Explained]

I recorded the video a while back but I'm not sure I called out a specific lens.

[@terrygoyan]

@@Photography-Explained It’s pretty well known that Galen Rowell used Nikon cameras and lenses. One of his favorites was the 24 f/2.8 lens. It’s disingenuous to imply he was using anything other than the right tools for the job at hand. True that by today’s standards, the cameras and lens he used are not top of the line but if you look at his photos they are brilliant. That’s what really matters!

[@Photography-Explained]

Unfortunately it wasn't well known to me. Hence, the video.

[@m3photo726]

Great advice. I’ll help you follow it: send me that overrated 61Mp Sony and I’ll gladly swap it for my 5Mp Canon s50. I’ll even include its amazing 32Mb Compact Flash card!

[@Photography-Explained]

Haha nice try :D.

[@marcusnz232]

A good comparison is golf balls. If you are not a competent golfer, the ball you’re playing with is utterly irrelevant. I’ve seen awesome images shot by talented photographers on cheap gear. I’ve seen many more poor images shot on expensive gear. “All the gear and no idea” is all too common. You don’t need a Zeiss Otus to photograph your cat….!

[@paulthew2]

Composition is all. sharp image + poor composition = crap/average photo. soft image + great composition = great photo. It's not difficult to get a sharp(ish) image these days, so composition is all.

[@Photography-Explained]

Totally agree. Thanks for the comment!

[@neilcole3406]

Just get a cheap camera or phone go out and enjoy the experience of photography, don’t get caught up in the …….must have bullshit….. You will be a far better photographer for it!

[@Photography-Explained]

Absolutely. I think hobbyist photographers equate gear to great photos and massivily underestmate their knowledge and skill set.

[@alwynsmit3546]

I have a D300s. It's old by today's standards, but still good enough for A0 prints

[@brugj03]

@@alwynsmit3546 It`s always good enough for A0 prints, just depends on the distance you look at it. Besides, this a well worn record, every body seems to parrot the same thing over again.

[@throughvf]

Modern cameras are all good enough. Including phones.

[@Photography-Explained]

I thought that until recently. Took a shot on my iPhone as I was shattered and really couldn't be bothered to get my camera out of my bag on the way down a mountain. The image on the phone looked great on the phone. But when I put it on the computer it's a mess. I really missed out on getting a great image through being lazy and thinking my phone would keep up.

[@puckhead1221]

Image quality doesn’t matter but AF does, you need to upgrade to the R5 asap 😂

[@Photography-Explained]

I don't think the landscapes I photograph are moving quick enough to trick the autofocus on my phone, never mind a mirrorless camera :).

[@puckhead1221]

@@Photography-Explained forget about AF, you need to upgrade for the improved IBIS- seriously 1/5 sec hand held low light blasts!!!!

[@hatzville]

Good stuff!

[@Photography-Explained]

Glad you enjoyed it mate!

[@antonvoloshin9833]

"don't chase for latest and greatest, but sure I choose latest Sony and Fuji models" :)))) No offense, man, just saying.

[@physiocrat7143]

I just use the mobile phone I have in my pocket. The Leicas never go anywhere these days.

[@Photography-Explained]

That's a shame!