Starting a crowd funding drive to buy a light for Chelsea

@mikefire_amsterdam

4 жыл бұрын

spot on! ....get it? spot. on.

@MillionHuesStudios

3 жыл бұрын

LOL

@mattiejane9628

3 жыл бұрын

If only we could get a crowdfund going to get you some original jokes...

@dinmavric5504

2 жыл бұрын

@@mattiejane9628 yOUR Mother

@sr-ey4xq

2 жыл бұрын

@@dinmavric5504that cracks me up

"Don't delete pictures in camera." I had never thought of this as being something done to avoid buggy software in cameras. This is rooted in the tiny poor quality displays on early digital cameras. I learned to not delete photos in camera because what appear to be bad photos not worth keeping may look better once viewed on a larger screen. Even photos that don't result in what was intended may be interesting once viewed on a better screen. This rule of thumb was about avoiding discarding images that might be valuable. If in doubt about whether a photo is trash or a keeper, don't delete in camera. Wait until the image can be viewed on a larger screen. As in-camera displays and user interfaces have improved, this rule has become less important to me, but I still consider whether I might see something making the photo worth keeping if I were to view it on a larger screen.

@Shreddelicious

4 жыл бұрын

this is so true and becomes more true as my eyes deteriorate over the years.

@PrimeMatt

3 жыл бұрын

This is very true, but some photos are clearly poor, subject blinking etc, so I find it quicker to get rid of those before going through the rest in more detail.

@alexpoling4755

3 жыл бұрын

This is what I had heard too!

@Voliere-infoNl

2 жыл бұрын

Even an A7 III still has a 640x480 pixel screen ;)

@tommynikon2283

2 жыл бұрын

I've always done it, and NEVER have had an issue doing so. Since 2005. HOWEVER, I have had a laptop, two external HDs, and a handful of USB sticks die on me during the same time period. Oh, and two camera digital shutters.

I think the key to busting the myths is knowing your capabilities and equipment. Being crippled by arbitrary "rules" will keep people from growing in photography. Photographers, especially amateurs, should just go out and push the limits of their equipment and learn what works and what doesn't work in conjunction with some cursory research. You guys do a great job of diluting so much of that information and making it easily searchable and consumable for those who need answers or even need to know where to start. The fact that you offer so much value and such a large portion of your content library for free is such a great contribution to the community and despite the nitpickers in the comments, the amount of attention and research you both apply to making your content is clearly evident. I enjoy your variety of content and look forward to hearing you weigh in on photography topics especially when it comes to the ever shifting paradigms in the technology we use.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, there's a bunch of rules that made sense at the time, but less so over time.

As a portrait and wedding photographer, I've always used f8 for depth of field, not as a lens sweet spot. F8 usually gives me enough depth of field to keep groups in focus front to back, while letting the background go out of focus enough to not compete with the subject.

@AdamJonesPhoto

2 жыл бұрын

Ah someone using it correctly not just for the sake of it. Well done Sir.

On the subject of "Sharpness vs microcontrast": The sharpness can be divided into "acutance" (=macrocontrast, but nobody uses that term) and "resolution" (=microcontrast). If you look at the MTF charts for lenses, the 10lp/mm would represent the acutance, and the 50lp/mm the resolution/microcontrast. Another way to look at it would be edges vs textures, the edge sharpness = acutance, the texture detail = microcontrast. Yet another way to look at it ... if a lens has a good acutance but bad microcontrast, it means you won't get more detail by using a higher resolution sensor, and it also means that if you want a lens to resolve a lot of MP, you want it to have a good microcontrast. If you want to visualize examples => take any image, and boost the sharpness in Lightroom, well, you're boosting the acutance, but not the microcontrast, because you're not getting more details.

@manphoto1972

4 жыл бұрын

Thank's !

@GaIvatr0n

4 жыл бұрын

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Thanks.

Great video Format!! You guys should cover "Myths" more often.

1:38 - Nickel Metal Hydride batteries aren't really obsolete tech (check your Eneloop batteries) and don't have much of a memory effect......the one you MAY be thinking about is Nickel Cadmium. I'll totally agree if you're saying NiCad batteries are obsolete junk.

@nollpa2696

4 жыл бұрын

I agree, I use Ni-MH in my flashes, triggers and and other devices I attach to my camera.

@MossgateJournals

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for mentioning that. I use Eneloops because of the memory issue.

@AllahBoinkedMe

4 жыл бұрын

@Creek Walker → 100%

@ironworkscrawley

4 жыл бұрын

lol Ni Cad batteries, i remember my uncle having a de charging rig for old nicads, a vey low wattage bulb with to wires soldered on, so you could contect to pwer terminal on battery and leave to discharge over night

I use an IV filter as protection for my lens glass. I know the difference between using one and not is minimal but a scratch on the lens glass can be expensive.

@christopherjc54

2 жыл бұрын

UV*

@arthurgphotography

Жыл бұрын

Nooooooo

@joeep46

2 ай бұрын

Since Tony showed how durable lens glass is, I stopped using UV filters.

if you shoot jpegs, you can't wear a t-shirt that says "I shoot raw".

@bog2k3

4 жыл бұрын

but I shoot raw JPEGs, then I cook them.

@philindeblanc

4 жыл бұрын

@@bog2k3 Made me think of a great T-Shirt Idea, and let it be public record here as copyright, and decleration of ownership....."I Cook Raw" , and "Always Cook your raw", and !! :-)

@bog2k3

4 жыл бұрын

@@philindeblanc haha, good one!

@bog2k3

4 жыл бұрын

@N. D. Crispy highlights are not all that bad

@philindeblanc

4 жыл бұрын

@@bog2k3 I like that ..Crispy Highlights... from Raw

The only reason I ever told my learners never to delete images in camera was purely because you can never see enough detail to make that decision based on the LCD which in early days was WAY too small

@LaurentBourrelly

4 жыл бұрын

I stopped deleting pictures in camera after 2 memory cards failures. After talking to a friend who works in the hard drive industry, I confirmed it's a really bad idea to delete your pictures in camera. It appears cameras are not so good at dealing with such operations as computers. Of course, It mostly works of course, but the risk still exists.

@jamespulver3890

4 жыл бұрын

@@LaurentBourrelly I think you were just coincidentally unlucky. That sort of delete breaking a card where adding (which does a lot more than a delete does) does not seem plausible. Tony explained this - a delete is literally removing a "table of contents" entry. This is why you can recover deleted files. So unless your cards were fully usable when they "failed" and you just didn't know to grab a free file recovery software to get back any "lost files" - the failure was unrelated to deletion. In fact, the only thing I can see about deleting a lot of files selectively is just that a computer has a better UI for this.

@jeriex

4 жыл бұрын

When you shoot e.g. birds in flight, you delete mostly not because of minute details but because you do not have the object in frame properly. So I definitely delete in camera.

@scotttovey

4 жыл бұрын

@@jamespulver3890 Both your's and Tony's presumption is wrong. Tony is correct in noting that the delete is simply marking out a line in the drives table of contents, but he is wrong in stating that it cannot cause whole drive data loss as it can. You must keep in mind that computers have drivers that have been tweaked and improved over a period of years to make them better. If a camera's firmware has a bug in it, and that bug is related to writing deletions to the card's table of contents, then; you have a good chance of loosing everything on the card when you delete files with the camera. And unlike the updates received with a computer operating system, the odds are that the firmware on a camera never gets updated. I have a Canon IIS 20sx I purchased back in 2010. It has never received a firmware update. I also have an off brand Camcorder that has had issues with connecting to the PC. There were many posts regarding this issue. It has never received a firmware update from the manufacturer and of course, the camera fails to connect to the PC. I think it may be a 32bit verses 64bit issue. I view tech from a programmers perspective and I know for a fact that if a program has a bug in it, that bug will remain until the programmer edits the code and removes that bug. So, while loosing the whole card of images is less likely with newer cameras, do not put that much trust in those older cameras that have a reputation of crashing the card when you delete a file in camera. The best way to remove files from the card and guard against loss is to first copy them to a computer or other non camera storage device, and then delete the files from the card. Memory cards have a certain number of read and writes and you are likely to reach the read limit before you reach the write limit. Thus, if you copy the data from your card to your computer, and you suddenly find that you no longer read the card with your computer, you have retrieved your data at the end of the card's life cycle and have not lost data. (You saved your data and Happy are you!) You will also know at that point, the card is useless.

@wapicke

4 жыл бұрын

I never rely on the LCD in making that decision. But that is a personal choice, not a hardware influenced choice.

I realised recently the reason I thought f8 was better than wide open was that a lot of my wide-open pictures weren't in focus. The ones that are look great - the only difference is that at f8 a lot more is in focus

One of your most informative podcasts ever. Having a science background, I really appreciate Tony’s way of looking at things. Feynman was right : “Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves”!

Thanks for this, I have two comments: - I'm an Architectural photographer and I noticed on one of my wide angle lenses that f5.6 was actually sharper than f8, however I often use f8 because when you take DOF into account, f8 turns out to be actually the sweet spot of both DOF and sharpness combined. - I still believe that cheap SD cards has a factor in increasing the risk of failure, thats mainly from my experience ofcourse.

@robertslapsevskis2388

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed on memory cards. In the past I had bought some crappy cards and usb sticks by likes of lexar and transcend and they just died so quickly or didn't work to begin with. I still have an old (must be more than 10 years now) SanDisk SDHC card that came with nikon d40 (still using it now!). I don't think I ever had a Sandisk memory failed on me. I have some kingston, samsung and toshiba cards/usn sticks which seem to be alright as well)

@nourelrefaiphotography

4 жыл бұрын

Roberts Lapsevskis I had A transcend card that failed too, all my Sandisk extreme pro never failed once so far! And I recently got the Sony Tough cards and they seem even more durable than sandisk

LOL. I remember editing jpegs years ago in PS and having them practically disappear from multiple compressions. They got smaller every time I hit save.

Thanks you guys for all the help. I got back into photography largely in part because of watching your videos. Especially with your review of Sony A600, which is what I ended up buying. I picked up the 18-135 lens for this camera and now love the size and capability that this combo gives me. Also, I like how you support each other as a couple--very rare these days--very honoring.

As for SD card failure; I'm an enthusiast photographer and used the same couple SD cards for 12 years without ever having any issues. Then I took your guys' good advice (and that's a sincere good, not a sarcastic one) to get extra cards to stash around for that "just in case" moment. I figured after so long I must be due for a failure of some kind. I picked up a 5-pack of 16GB SanDisk SDHC cards for $31 and now I am CONSTANTLY getting error messages of one kind or another. I'll turn it on and it won't see the card at all, or it won't be able to read an image I just took, or it won't allow me to zoom on an image it's currently showing me, or it will tell me it can't write to the card, or it will seem like it's writing but then nothing is there. If I shot a lot and it happened a lot, that would be one thing, but I shoot maybe a couple hundred images once a week and it happens at least once during each outing. Very disappointing. I suspect that the reason these "name brand" cards were so cheap was that they are either counterfeit or rejects that didn't pass QC but got sold anyway. Just goes to show that there is a difference between "cheap" and "crap". Buyer beware. I'll probably be retiring those cards for strictly emergency use and get another "inexpensive" card for my main shooting.

10, this one really depends. if you're trying to take a picture of something specific and your auto focus keeps trying to grab the wrong things to focus on, the auto focus is worthless. (even if you only use 1 focal point) at the same time if your vision isn't 20/20 and you don't have the right diopter settings, you're never gong to be able to focus for anything because you physically won't be able to see.

Thanks again. Like most long term photographers, it is hard to let go of beliefs that were true in the past but technology caught up and fixed...

You guys have brought the fun of photography back to me as I refresh and learn. Thanks ! I don't miss a podcast on youtube.

You two are awesome and I love this episode! You explained all those urban legends that are as rampant as ever 2 1/2 years after you made this video, and how they started and why. I especially appreciate, in all your episodes, your calm, rational, get to the point explanations! For 37 years I've used nothing but Nikon and their lenses and this video justified what the engineer in me was thinking! Thanks guys!!

Tony, when Chelsea said she was a horrible cook, you should have jumped in and disagreed with her. Don't ask me how I know these things.

@brois841

4 жыл бұрын

Disagreeing with your wife? Not good. Don't ask me how I know these things. You can't win ;)

@Film_Fog

4 жыл бұрын

How do you know these things?

@chelseanorthrup8787

4 жыл бұрын

Haha! You’re sweet, but I don’t really try to cook so it’s fine.

@JeffandLeslie

4 жыл бұрын

:)

@franzbodmer7666

4 жыл бұрын

@@chelseanorthrup8787 So there is another reason Tony is so thin. Thought I had it all figured out :-)

I shoot raw+JPEG. Raw for obtaining the best from my shots after edition. JPEG to send them immediately as test shots. Raw is no use (and JPEG are ok) if you don't deeply edit your photos. Raw is mandatory if you always want the best from your photos after editing (shadows/highlights/noise). An other pro of shooting raw: I have been able to edit again some old raw files taken with a D200 with an up to date editing software and so, with better image quality.

RAW is objectively better than JPEG. 12, 14 or even 16 bit is massively better than 8 bit (16 times, 64 times and 256 times respectively). That allows much more modification to the brightness and colour of the image (including WB).The best analogy to shooting JPEG is like shooting film, having it printed amd them scanning in the print!

@stanspb763

4 жыл бұрын

You are right. JPG depends on the purpose of the image of course but RAW is the only way to have a file that retains its data-depth. JPG is both a de-mosaic-rendering and deep compression engine so every time any change is made it is compressed again and each time into the future until little remains. It is a poor archive format for this reason, resized transfers drop a lot of data each pass.

@borderlands6606

4 жыл бұрын

The only criterion is what your eyes can see. Preferably on a print.

@markkasick

4 жыл бұрын

You totally missed the point.

@dazzlingdeb8427

4 жыл бұрын

Stan SPb Exactly. Which is why I work in Photoshop. I can work all I want with a PSD file and the quality doesn’t deteriorate. I only save the image as a JPEG when it’s required and only when I’m done editing.

@davidbierbaum4881

4 жыл бұрын

@@borderlands6606 I respectfully disagree with that. That is the final criterion, but not the ONLY criterion. Shooting RAW with more bit depth and no lossy compression will allow you more avenues to arrive at the final criterion than the jpeg image will. The advantage of RAW is... wriggle-room, so that when you don't perfectly nail the correct exposure, or the dynamic range of the image is a bit extreme, you can still pull an image out of it that will meet that final criterion.

Regarding the DXO mark ISO score. There are two ways you can look at it. "Per pixel vs scaled" distinguished by "screen vs print" respectively. If you used "print" it assumes you matched the picture resolution say 2MP vs 2MP and thus the D850 and A7S are very close. If you used "screen" it looks at it per pixel which obviously the a7S is bigger per pixel and would require huge improvements before a D850's high resolution sensor matched that. DXO's data is correct, but they don't tell people how to navigate or interpret the data

27:01 Chelsea: "... I mess up a lot of things in life." Tony: "Yes." *savage*

@dosnieslaw2165

4 жыл бұрын

The follow up to this that was cut for time. Tony: "..... I'm sleeping on the couch tonight aren't I?" Chelsea: "Yes."

@venom5809

4 жыл бұрын

Tony slept in the pool house that night. LOL

@dazzlingdeb8427

4 жыл бұрын

Angel Angelov I caught that too. 😂

@QLFProductions

4 жыл бұрын

That was most likely for her calling him a fake photographer lol

If you have ever tried to seriously change white balance after shooting JPGs, like for example correcting a tungsten-balanced room that was shot with a Daylight WB mode in-camera, it will be clear how much less color data is contained in JPG files vs. RAW. Yes, of course you can and sometimes should edit JPGs, but for certain edits you do lose image quality compared to editing RAW.

@jotabe1984

4 жыл бұрын

not only that but correcting exposure and light... The matter is that JPEG is a decent end format but it is a limited format on intermediate files who still need to be polished

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

Also, if you're blowing anything up to close to the 100% level, JPG will have these weird patterns where there should be smooth tones due to the way that the compression format arranges everything into a grid and averages them out. Admittedly, with modern camera resolutions being so high, that's not as likely as it was decades ago. That being said, I do think that most of the time the JPG that comes out of the camera is perfectly sensible, I just think that it's foolish to not shoot RAW. You can usually set the camera to also store a JPG immediately if you like, but don't always know when you're going to need to do some substantial tweaks that a JPG just does not have the necessary information to allow for.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

@@jotabe1984 It's regrettable that we still use JPG, there are far better options for images these days, It's kind of a shame that JPG2000 never caught on.

About the noise. The A7s have the best possible noise ratio for a video camera. The most advanced sensors are also those with the highest resolution, consequently, they are also those with a better resolution/noise ratio (because are the last projected). However, the sampling that a photodiode 1/5 of another can do is necessarily more approximate, having less signal (light) to analyze, but you can take some of them, to have a more accurate sampling (the S3 have clusters of 4 photodiodes instead of one only, probably to use the actual technology instead make it in a totally different machinery). To see which machine has the best noise ratio, you need to interpolate all the images to the resolution of the machine with the lowest resolution in the comparison. I have an A7s and A7r2 here, the basic S produces cleaner images and makes some incredible videos, but if I take a 42Mpx image of the R2 then I reduce it to 12Mpx, the noise of the R2 becomes lesser than the 7S. However, this cannot be done with videos, which is why the 7S has such a low resolution, to have excellent noise, even without having to interpolate (which you can't in videos, as already said). This means that the concept of low resolution = less noise is only valid for videos.

Very interesting and informative. Great break down and I do hear some of the myths a lot, usually from people who talk and don't shoot, so thank you for clarifying them and breaking them down.

Thanks guys, I really enjoyed this video it’s amazing all of these urban legends and old wives tales! So sharpness is subjective!

@jamilgotcher5456

4 жыл бұрын

I get that old wives tales is a saying but in photography it was most likely "old husbands tales" being that men dominated the field for most of the history of photography.

F8 sweet spot? - Don't know and don't care, I bought an F1.4 to use wide open!

@Taykorjg

4 жыл бұрын

CaptainAwasome there’s a time and place to shoot all out

@stephenarling1667

4 жыл бұрын

Stanley Kubrick shot a movie at f:0.7

@captainawasome8985

4 жыл бұрын

@@stephenarling1667 There is a F0.85 lens compatible with the Sony crop sensor. Kipon Ibelux or Handevision Ibelux - but it's hard to get them and they're pricey. Not that great bokeh though at that premium price.

@masterrickknight

4 жыл бұрын

CaptainAwasome.... I love your comment. So funny. I don't own a camera so everything is always in focus.

@nordic5490

4 жыл бұрын

CaptainAwasome amateur. My 85mm F1.2 has crazy tight dof and is pretty much unusable for portraits @ F1.2.

you guys are doing great work. you are miles ahead of any body else and i always find answers of the burning questions. The camera processed JPEGs , Stabilization on tripod and how to charge batteries where the questions bothering me. Everything else covered was also equally useful. keep up the great work guys.

Fantastic Podcast @Tony @Chelsea !!! Love how you broke all these myths down; gonna have to listen to this one twice!

Even if the higher-resolution has "more noise", I would be happy to trade that for the higher resolution of the photo which gives you more freedom to "work" the photo.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

It's complicated. Size of the sensor, size of the micro lenses, insulation between photosites and the like do have an impact. But, a higher resolution camera also allows you to do things like reduce the size to get an average of the pixels. For example, if you decrease the size to 1/4 (1/2 in both directions) now you've got 4 pixels being averaged into one pixel, which can significantly reduce the noise in the final image.

The podcasts are really, really interesting. Love them.

Agree with most of these except for the color science issue. There’s a reason why people are selling presets for Sony to try to match the look of Canons files. I shoot Canon and shot Sony for a week and everyone on my timeline mentioned that the images looked flat and “different” even when I used my canon glass on the Sony. There is a difference in the look of the files.

I take wildlife photos (birds mostly) and it is amazing how many empty tree branches I wind up with. I always try to delete these in camera because I hate wasting time downloading them and then deleting them on my PC. I have deleted literally thousands of photos in camera from the same memory card and it has not affected the performance of my cards yet.

Back in the 80s and 90s I would have been a purist about manual focus, but as I get older and my eye sight isn't what it used to be I'm all about auto-focus.

@fixitrod4969

4 жыл бұрын

Manual focus used to be much easier with half circles in the lens in that would line up when in focus. We've lost that. Knowing when it's in focus is tough now especially with these high megapixel cameras that show everything.

@jonrolfson1686

4 жыл бұрын

Those little half-circle (ground-glass?) focus tools were great in 1970. when my eyes were only 18 years old. Very nearly fifty years since, and after cataract surgery, effective auto-focus is the sine qua non, the development that allows me to keep using the camera.

@edwinparker6732

4 жыл бұрын

My manual focus lenses are really crap when set to autofocus 😢

@kevindiaz3459

4 жыл бұрын

@@fixitrod4969 There's focus peaking now. Not in all cameras, but I think it will be someday not too far in the future. It's pretty awesome.

@MiaHessMusic

4 жыл бұрын

I have a vision impairment I love autofocus

I never thought the deleting in camera would be an issue, until I read an article from Jeff Cable who worked at Lexar, who advised against it. He strongly seems to think it's an issue, but given I've never worked with camera O/S on that level I have no idea.

@edwinparker6732

4 жыл бұрын

I remember deleting files in camera and then having issues that weren't solved until I formatted the memory card, but it's so long ago I don't remember the camera or type of card. No digital data storage is entirely glitch free and a card which suddenly can't be read by the camera can usually be read by a PC using data retrieval software if necessary - always take spare cards 🙂

@okaro6595

4 жыл бұрын

The problem in deleting in camera is that there is not waste basket so if you delete something you should not have you need to put the card in the side and use another and then try to recover with a computer. If you do not have a second card you are in trouble.

3D-pop: Barrel distortion. Vignetting? Can also mean lighting and composition. Some people even say 3d-pop is saturation. Basically "I like this picture!" Micro-contrast: Texture? sharpness? transmission? Ive even had people describe it as grayscale gradients! meaningless term IMHO. Usually it comes up when empirical tests show a lens is sharper than the other, but then the micro-contrast! Which conveniently can't be measured and means whatever I say. The problem when discussing lenses and their properties is that most people cannot distinguish lens performance from the RAW > JPG engine, to really see a lens performance you have to disable just about everything and apply a flat tone curve to it. I used to get super geeky into this stuff and compare MTF charts and waste hours taking test shots... the truth is we are blessed with such amazing gear now it really doesn't matter. Lenses are razor sharp and software is flat out wizard level stuff at the push of a button. Most people are still going to look at your photo on a sub 5" screen.

I think the theory behind higher noise of higher megapixel cameras is pretty sound - the smaller pixel size means each pixel receives less light, and this in turn should produce more noise. But what I think people are forgetting is that this is just per pixel, and it means that the noise in a 100% crop would be higher in the higher megapixel count camera, everything else being equal. But if you resize the higher megapixel image to the same pixel count as the lower megapixel image, you'll also be shrinking and reducing the noise, and again, all else equal, they should be about the same. Because the sensors are the same size and they're receiving the exact same amount of light and random noise from the outside. So that part really shouldn't matter so much. The main reason for improvements in ISO quality is rather things like BSI sensors, better readout technology, shorter and faster circuitry, and so on.

@doctorkdsify

4 жыл бұрын

Danni Efraim, Your explanation is correct. The key item in why the Sony camera image was noisier than the Nikon D810 has to do with your statement everything else held constant. Samsung used to have 16 Megapixel sensors on their Galaxy cellphones. They dropped their sensors to 12 Megapixel to get lower noise in low light scenes.

Tony: Ever heard of people say the 3D POP? Chelsea: I don't talk to people who say that 😂😂😂

@brahmabeharrysingh5287

4 жыл бұрын

Actually, I get "3D Pop". I only really observed it when I started looking at my work on a 4k monitor or small HD tablet screens (where the pixel density is high). And I only get it from certain lenses (primes and Nano coated it seems so far).

@JetBen555

4 жыл бұрын

@@brahmabeharrysingh5287 shhhhh

@philindeblanc

4 жыл бұрын

@@brahmabeharrysingh5287 try a sensor without AA filter, it will happen more often. Then you can go to the lens for the reason.

@brahmabeharrysingh5287

4 жыл бұрын

@@philindeblanc I know this already. I only buy cameras without the AA filter. With good glass I get the Pop like 99% of the time. I'm guessing it's only a few of us who know these things.

@officialtiimo

4 жыл бұрын

Same though

Greetings, I'm from Puerto Rico and I don't miss your programs. Interesting topic of photographic myths, even I thought some of them were true. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the help you gave us, when Hurricane Maria damaged us. Truly thank you, God bless you always.

Another reason to delete pictures in-camera: if you shot RAW+JPEG, you only have to perform one delete operation. Once they're on the computer, they're considered two separate files, and (at least natively in Windows File Explorer) deleting them will involve two delete operations. In some cases deleting both files involves four steps, since there can be an "are you sure?" dialog to deal with. Deleting in-camera is best, at least for obvious missed-focus or junk lighting shots.

The card failure issue really is valid, SD cards were never designed or intended for critical application and DO fail more than modern storage tech. That format was designed to be cheap to manufacture for low-cost consumer products. Fragile shells, dumb bus with no error tolerance(same bus used on 5.25in floppy disks from 1984) exposed contacts, but hey, small ones are cheap. he best way to assure losses is using the very large capacity cards since they have no mapping function to bypass defective cells. The XQD was designed by Sandisk, Nikon, and Sony to address these problems to create the only pro-oriented storage system. Sony MTBF figures indicated they are orders of magnitude more reliable. XQD and the 3 planform standard CFExpress and multithreaded, and was made to use the PCIe+ modern bus used in reliable network SSD drives that have a degree of fault tolerance and self-mapping of defective cells, error detection and correction. The testing for the standard shows 1 XQD card being more reliable than 2 or more mirrored SD cards by a significant amount. That is why Panasonic, Nikon and Sony pro video ENG uses them and a single card.. The only reason to use SD by manufacturers is a very low cost of the socket. High capacity fast SD are just as expensive as the more reliable XQD and first releases of the CFExpress.

I still buy UV filters for all my lenses, for the sole purpose of protecting the lens. I’d rather scratch a $60 piece of glass than a $1.5K or more lens

@DJVARAO

4 жыл бұрын

but you remove the filter before each shooting, right?

@thisisnuts0022

4 жыл бұрын

Dr B bet you can’t tell the differences, with a good quality filter on and one off.

@thisisnuts0022

4 жыл бұрын

Nathan Crabtree what about cleaning over and over better to do that to a filter hehe

@thisisnuts0022

4 жыл бұрын

Nathan Crabtree what about cleaning over and over better to do that to a filter hehe

@DJVARAO

4 жыл бұрын

@Nathan Crabtree Yup, most of the time you don´t need filters.

On the subject on manual focus, there is on important factor with modern cameras - the focusing screen. Back in the dark ages (well 40 years ago) when I started photography and auto focus was all but non-existent; SLR cameras would have focusing aids incorporated. This would be in the form of a Fresnel Screen or split view focusing. These made manual focus much more accurate than the plain ground glass in modern DSLR cameras. I'm not sure where that fits in with these new fangled EVF things 😜

@sekrasoft

4 жыл бұрын

EVFs provide focus peaking and magnification. FP behaves differently depending on lenses and scenes (a portrait lens and a face vs a wide angle lens and some sharp edges, the latter triggers FP better), magnification works well all the time but one have to give up framing.

@DaveHaynie

4 жыл бұрын

If only modern DSLRs employed a flat ground glass! The problem with modern DSLRs is different. The ground glass -- a very good diffuser -- functions to decouple the camera's optical system from your eye's optical system. But consider the modern DSLR. First, you have to deal with a large part of your business being in APS-C cameras, so there's less light and more optics needed in the viewfinder to deliver an image, which is going to be really dark compared to our 35mm SLRs from the 1970s. And next in line, your camera has to streal around 25% if that light to feed your DSLR's autofocus sensor. So in order to fix this, most modern DSLRs don't have a ground glass focusing screen. They have a partical condenser, a lens that optically spreads the light. It's way less lossy than a ground glass, but here's the problem: it does not fully decouple the camera's optical system from the eye's optical system. So it's extra-difficult for you to judge correct focus on a manual lens. Not just your imagination. Mirrorless do achieve this complete decoupling... pretty obviously, given that your view through the EVF is directly off the image sensor you'll use to take the photo.

In general, higher MP cameras are actually noisier than lower MP cameras, BUT that's when you view at 100%. When you downsize the larger image to match the smaller (like that DXO mark graph shows), then the noise is very similar. And like you said, the big thing is, you can apply more NR to the high MP image because it has a lot more detail.

I've been watching your videos for years and I've learned a ton. I don't think I've ever actually given you props. Thanks!

The production quality of your podcasts are AWESOME! Top shelf!

@mendopix

4 жыл бұрын

Except for the failure to light Chelsea adequately.

Agreed on the UV filters, the only thing to really be aware of is that many lenses (some Canon L models for sure, not sure about others) require a front filter to be weather sealed. At least older ones, they might have changed it on modern lenses.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

The reason to buy one is as a method of lessening the risk of damaging the lens coatings. But, if you're careful, you don't really need it, it serves no purpose at this point.

Nice video! Thanks! When discussing autofocus vs manual focus you mention that AF anyways won in your test. Did you have some sort of manual focus screen on your camera to assist during these tests?

I know this is older; I'm going back and watching back catalog. Just want to say the audio in this is gorgeous.

DXO score for noise is actually for single pixel. It did not counts that you have 5 or 10 pixels to average vs. one big slighty better pixel. It measures how much every pixels differentiate from a "correct" values it should capture. That's why.

Many photographers mistake compression for shallow depth of field. They often use the term to describe a blurred background, which is incorrect.

Excellent video and lots of great info.. I use clear filters on all my lenses, simply to protect them from scratches not for better picture quality. Having said that I use a lens hood on all of them too for extra protection as well as to stop glare, especially with the long zooms. As for jpeg or raw, I only use jpeg. I usually do very little editing and prefer to perfect my photography skills rather than my editing skills. In my opinion you only need to shoot in raw if you have to do some serious editing for important occasions such as weddings where perfection is expected, or simply you enjoy it. I do a lot of landscape and wildlife photography but still only ever use jpeg. Modern day cameras take extremely good photos in jpeg and software like Photoshop or lighthouse will still allow more than enough editing for most people. For me I only keep the photos that are worth keeping and do some light editing as I see fit. If I have some photos that are so crappy and require a lot of editing I just bin them anyway. Unless you are doing something like wedding photography where perfection in the photo is mostly a must jpeg is fine. They take up less space on your card and is much easier on your computer too. As for the f8 sweet spot, it is both true and false depending on your lenses. My two kit lenses that I used to use f8 were certainly the sharpest when used at the long end of the zoom, but not at the wide end. I have a 10-20mm Nikon which is fine anywhere between f8-14. Can not notice any difference in sharpness. The Sigma 17-70mm I have is sharpest at f5 when using it with spot metering and taking closeups. But for landscapes using it at the wide end then f8-16 gives better results. And the Sigma 150-600 is sharpest at f7.1 when using with spot metering and using it to take birds, etc. When using with matrix and trying to get a larger field of view for landscape then F11-13 gives best results. So one sweet spot on any lense is not necessarily true across the whole focal range where you are using a variable lens. Your camera settings as well as what you are trying to focus on as well as distance will all affect which f stop will give the best results at least with variable aperture lenses anyway.

WOW! This was an eye-opener. I am still relatively new to the channel, but would be great if you have an episode / can do an episode around Long Exposure photography (covering not only cameras with BULB mode, but also those with 30 secs hard limit on slow-end of the shutter speed, like Bridge Superzooms from Sony/Panasonic/Nikon/Canon) with some help on usage of related accessories like ND filters and Intervalometers/remote shutter controls.

The "myth" about MPix vs noise. You don't think there is more to it than that? With newer sensors you get newer technology and probably lower power usage.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

It's complicated, but it's a belief that turned out to underestimate the ability of the engineers to come up with new ways of reducing noise. With additional heat, power, closer photosites and increased sensitivity, noise should increase; but along with that there were new advancements in technology to fight the noise. The increase in noise doesn't seem to have kept pace with the rate at which new pixels were added to the arrays.

Don't let Jared Polin hear you say that about JPGs.

@AmishGramish

4 жыл бұрын

Afro Knows Aphrotos?

@MtRevDr

2 жыл бұрын

Perhaps Jared likes to play with post production more and he has the time to do that.

I really enjoyed this as my 1st ever podcast and will now subscribe ! I feel like you covered the topics well and accurately and without bias... And because of the no nonsense way she described SQUARESPACE, I am about to start my free trial and can't wait ! I am by no means a pro but take my hobby very seriously and feel you both do as well ! thanks

I love your podcast so much. Maybe you could do something like a series of „what you need to know when shooting on a... (canon, sony, nikon, fuji, panasonic)“

Still, don't delete photographs in camera; wait until you see them on a proper screen to make a decision.

@roadrunner76b

4 жыл бұрын

Sergio Pulgarín one of my best pictures was one I was about to delete in camera because the highlights were way high, then I remembered hearing someone say to wait until you pull it up in an editor. Glad I listened, I've actually been asked for prints of it

@DingoRunner

4 жыл бұрын

@@roadrunner76b Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I do sometimes delete in camera, for example way out of focus images.

@j.perrymanphotography9223

4 жыл бұрын

I tell my second shooters not to delete on camera so I can see what happened maybe on a missed shot also in case they accidentally delete something that was important by accident just because there is no going back at that point ....

i like this ! thank you ! I don't care about sweet spot :) Aperture is a creative and technical parameter to control exposure and depth of field.

My reason not to delete pictures in camera is sometimes there are weird hidden abstract gems in there you can't really see and appreciate on the wee screen at the back of the camera. But I'm shooting for art and elements not assignment. Auto-focus isn't more accurate when it won't lock on.

@fixitrod4969

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. It's amazing how many times I find a great picture from a picture I thought was bad by cropping.

If you think critically about sensor noise, lower resolution sensors compared high resolution sensors at the same sensor size have bigger pixels. With this in mind, even though lower resolution sensors have less noise, each noise pixel is substantially larger than noise in high resolution sensors. This noise either accentuate the noise or brings the noise to the forefront or looks a lot more noticeable when looking at the whole picture. A group of noise in high resolution sensors are substantially smaller that they blend more naturally with the other pixels, so when you look at the whole picture the noise actually shows up as pattern within the picture. This is assuming both sensors are using the same lenses able to resolve both sensor resolutions and same sensor size. Higher resolution sensor are similar theory, but lenses able to resolve the resolutions get substantially factored in more into iso performance.

I don't delete in-camera because I once deleted a prize shot because I chose based on a detail I missed in the back LCD! Bad Marty!!!

Tony: "How's the 3D Pop?" Me: Great and the chips aren't bad either! 😂 Great episode guys!

great video guys....i especially like the info on batteries....very helpful! one thing, however - tony: regarding lens sweet-spot, i always thought the sweet-spot was somewhere near the middle of the f-stop range, and in my limited testing, that seems to be where i have found the sharpest image in and around the focal plane. your claim that f/4 or f/5.6 is usually the sweet-spot on a lens is probably a good rule of thumb on bright primes where maximum aperture is 1.2 or 1.4. in these cases, f/4 or f/5.6 are right in the middle of the range on those lenses. on many telephoto zooms, there is no f/4, and f/8 or f/11 tend to be right in the middle of the range on those lenses.

Tony & Chelsea, thank you for all of the information you two provide. I'm an aspiring photographer (got my Canon 90D last November). I've heard at least a couple of the points you brought up. And it's nice to know that if I *do* decide to put my Tamron 150-600mm G2 on a tripod, I need to turn off IS. Thank you, again!

People seem to forget or they don't even know, that lenses also contribute to an image's color "science." Some lenses have more contrast and saturation than other's do. For example the Nikon 85mm 1.4G has much more saturation and contrast than the Nikon 85mm 1.8G does. So some lenses effect the overall color look of an image, by increasing the saturation and or contrast.

@RealRaynedance

4 жыл бұрын

Which is also why some people love some vintage lenses so much and why _sometimes_ having fewer elements can make a picture look "better."

@nordic5490

4 жыл бұрын

Azenturi vintage lenses are snapped up by film makes as it is far more difficult to achieve this look in oost in video, and also for the lens flare.

Hope Jared Polin didn’t get triggered by the title of this video. Watch out Tony!😂

@ecmjr

4 жыл бұрын

@dennytenny LOL!!!

@stuartschaffner9744

4 жыл бұрын

As a fan of both the Northrups and the Fro, I would suggest that Jared is pleased by the controversy but unconvinced by the argument.

@scallen3841

4 жыл бұрын

Don't forget the cult of raw

Super useful information. Thank you for this video! I learned a lot.

I have taken over 450,000 images with 8 different cameras without a single card error. Don't know why. Love your updates. watch them all the time. Thank you for helping all of us learn new techniques, learn about new hardware, and all the stuff you teach us. Sincerely, John Chambers jrcDigitalMemoryImaging.

Raises Pitchfork and chants "We Want More Myths ! We Want More Myths !!"

Just a quick message to reiterate my appreciation for succinct, accurate, and well articulated dissemination of knowledge. :D

Hi Chelsea and Tony, I only discovered your videos a month ago and have become a bit of an addict. This was an extremely interesting one and I was fascinated with your experience of noise in the Sony A7s. With respect to memory card failure, my experience is that it happens frequently with cards bought from Ebay - too many counterfeits or poor quality ones around. Only buy from a trusted supplier, I've never had a problem with a store bought card yet. Not all cameras delete photos (by deleting the pointer to the photo on the card), some actually erase photos as is the case in my trusty Nikon P7000 and P7700 compacts (they over-write the entire photo). I recollect one day erasing some individual pictures in my Nikon P7000 which had an A-Data SD card. Mysteriously, the camera suddenly erased an entire folder of pictures which contained all the shots I'd taken that day in Porec, Croatia. And the folder was indeed erased in it. None of my three or four programs could undelete and recover the erased photos. We had to go back a few days later and retrace our steps in Porec, and reshoot everything - which was the only way I could recover the shots. And I've never touched an Ebay card since. Interesting your test about colour in photos, and people's preference for pictures shot by Sony. I'm one who started off with the old Konica Minolta DSLRs, and way back then, as seen at the Konica Minolta DPreview forum, everyone was complaining that they couldn't get the same good colours out of the later Sony DSLRs, that they used to get from the Konica Minolta ones. Talking of colour and processing, I don't bother shooting RAW and I don't even try adjusting colour at all when editing Jpegs, as the camera is actually my crutch. Being one of the 8% of men with the handicap of red-green colour blindness, I have to rely on the camera to get the colours right, because any colour adjustment I make that looks good to me evokes laughter from my wife if she walks by, telling me it's all wrong. Luckily, this is mainly a problem when I shoot indoors without flash - such as inside a church, where the white-balance is off. Moral of the story - one in 12 men had better have a female around if they attempt RAW processing or colour and white-balance Jpeg correction. Regards.

I have a question about image stabilization on a tripod. I'm using a sigma 150-600mm Contemporary and the manual clearly states that IS should be off on a tripod. I very rarely use my actual tripod but if I put my camera on a tree stump for instance, it comes to the same, right? I actually often rest the elbow of the arm holding my lens on a knee for increased stability (which I clearly don't count as a stable tripod), and anything in between, like setting the lens of the camera on my palm on a stable surface. At what point of stability you would consider that the camera is on a tripod? I guess that if I notice more shakes in the view finder with the IS than without I should turn it of but that not always clear cut. I'm particularly interested to know if there is a risk of damage for Sigma lenses or I might just lose image quality (and use a bit more power) because of the vibrations induced by the image stabilization ?

I always thought sharpness is when objects don’t smear themselves outside their own boundaries. Micro contrast is when you have sharpness among objects of near identical shades and colors.

@AK-km2kd

4 жыл бұрын

You mean take a picture of 50 shades of grey and then to be able to identify each shade?

Great video! Thanks so much for making it. One big myth you didn't address was telephoto compression. But you did speak about medium format compression, which is similar. Folks need to understand that there is no such thing as telephoto compression. A scene does not look more compressed because a long telephoto lens is used. Rather, the more compressed look is due to the photographer's perspective being from further away. It is a matter of point of view, not a matter of focal length or optics.

I always enjoy your perspective on photography in general. I would like your opinion on the term Bokeh, which didn’t exist until the 1990’s. Often used improperly when referring to depth of field, I fail to find a acceptable difference between the two. When I began shooting in the 60’s, we only had DOF but the effect of blur still occurred.

Love your channel! I enjoyed this podcast. Thank you!

Re: "You Can't edit JPEGs": You can edit JPEGs but large color corrections or exposure recovery will always work better on your 14-bit-per-channel raw files than on your 8-bit-per-channel JPEG files. Yes you can turn your JPEGs into 16bpp files in Photoshop, but you can't recover data that's been compressed out of the file by the 14-8 conversion. It's not that you CAN'T, it's just that if you intend to, you should always shoot RAW.

@joeltunnah

4 жыл бұрын

“Large corrections” is the key differentiator there. Some of us make only minor or even no corrections. I also hate sitting at a desktop playing with Lightroom/Photoshop more than anything.

@stuartschaffner9744

4 жыл бұрын

@@joeltunnah , right on. As the JPEG algorithms get smarter, the JPEG images should require less and less correction. Just understand that as this happens, what comes out of the camera is less a reflection of your creative vision than it is of some software engineer's creative vision. You can still be creative in that case, but no longer so much about color and light.

@joeltunnah

4 жыл бұрын

Stuart Schaffner, what a ridiculous comment. So according to you Ernst Haas’ photos only show Kodak’s “creative vision” because he used Kodachrome? The camera and film/sensor/jpeg engine are only tools, the photo is made by the photographer. Thinking you’re more “creative” as a photographer because you diddle with photoshop is total nonsense.

@stuartschaffner9744

4 жыл бұрын

Joel Tunnah sorry you found my comments ridiculous. I am having trouble understanding your statement to mean anything other than that you consider all post-processing to be uncreative and inartistic. Was Ansel Adams being uncreative or inartistic when he used dodging and burning? What about color toning? Just because you personally hate to do post-processing doesn’t mean it is invalid for all artists.

@joeltunnah

4 жыл бұрын

Stuart Schaffner, you’re the one who said what comes out of the camera is a software engineer’s creative vision, not mine! Yes, that’s a ridiculous statement. I never said anything about other people doing post processing, only that I don’t like to do it. PP doesn’t make someone more or less creative, and neither does straight out of the camera. You get it now?

I think manual focus needs a caveat: its inferior most of the time. In many niches, like astro and macro photography, I find manual focus is a must. in fact, in the latter im using a focusing rail, and moving the camera millimeters to focus.

@davidjames4915

4 жыл бұрын

Ya, autofocus in astrophotography is a recipe for fuzzballs for stars. I took a series of photographs of nighttime lightning with autofocus and I was lucky to get a single good shot out of the lot.

@SmallSpoonBrigade

2 жыл бұрын

It greatly depends on the focusing screen technology and how careful you are. In most cases a modern autofocus will do a better job than manual. That being said, there are definitely times when that's not the case. Especially if there's a bunch of stuff that confounds the AF system. But yes, in general, selecting the AF point and using that is usually the right way to go.

Sharpness, micro-contrast, "gradation resolution" (see my other comment). An important aspect here, that I did not mention in the other comment, is "flare". No not ONLY the apparent one that you see when shooting towards the light source (e.g. sun), but the type between the surfaces of the elements in a lens. When a lens design does not suffer from this - the minimal flare is absent - photos look crystal clear. Even when sharpness is suboptimal, or the main subject in the shot is out of focus.

A lot of great information in this video. Thanks always for helping me improve my work.

Tony, Chelsea (ending with EA - the true way to spell it), you forgot to mention the greatest photography myths of all time: "Expensive gear doesn't make you a good photographer".

Apple should redo Siri's voice using Chelsea's. So should Google and all the voice response software.

@JoeMaranophotography

4 жыл бұрын

Imagine if they did Tony's! Everytime you say Micro Four Thirds he would finish with "is dead!" 😂

@mrsusan893

4 жыл бұрын

Nah I'm good.

@rockyrails

4 жыл бұрын

Lol - then everyone would get square space plugs thrown in at random

@Cotictimmy

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah, but imagine they made a clerical error and used Tony's voice instead...…..I just don't think it's worth taking the risk!!!

@yaza.2153

4 жыл бұрын

Instructions Unclear: Jared Polin is now the voice of Siri

Not that it matters, but y'all are the prettiest vlogger couple on KZread. What actually matters is that you two put out a crazy amount of good and informative content. Compelling stuff you two beautiful creatures!

I agree no sense to avoid deleting images in-camera, but from the NAND flash (this is a type of non-volatile memory element used in memory cards today) behavior perspective, deleting images is much complex process. It will cause changing the NAND behavior from just writing sequentially to extra so-called program-erase cycles (cutting the NAND life time) then random write to fill trimmed memory blocks, etc. I still think you can delete because we never reach the flash endurance limits in real life and so extra program-erase cycles will not impact much. Just wanted to say it's not the same as just writing a new file. In reality it can be even much more complex. - and yet, I really love your episodes and podcasts - great job, guys!

I edited lots of jpgs. The only difference is that you cant push them hard.

@TimLucasdesign

4 жыл бұрын

That's what she said.

@scallen3841

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

@dazzlingdeb8427

4 жыл бұрын

This is Dre Shoot in RAW and JPEG. Edit a RAW file and edit a JPEG. Huge difference in quality and file size. And each time you save a JPEG, your file is getting more compressed. I only shoot RAW now. I’m gonna start with the best quality image that I can.

Try shooting a 10 second exposure with IS on and see how far you get Tony... IS float is the gyro floating ie moving the IS element over the period of the exposure. Short exposure fine leave your IS on but please if your busting myths at least be right and any long exposure will suffer from severe to complete image reduction by using IS on multi second exposures. Nice work on myth busting but this one ie long exposure and IS float aint no myth..

@kevindahlen

4 жыл бұрын

How about NOT during long exposures? I would think that is probably closer to the myth he was talking about. Also, I need to try long exposures more. Thanks for the reminder!

@Innovate-pq9ci

4 жыл бұрын

Second that. Most of the video is wrong actually :(

@darphotos55

4 жыл бұрын

I regularly shoot up to 4 minute exposures with a Canon 300mm f/2.8 II with the IS turned on. No problems seen.

@Innovate-pq9ci

4 жыл бұрын

darphotos55 maybe it's "intelligently" turned off by the camera.

@MtRevDr

2 жыл бұрын

@@darphotos55 - The problem is seen and magnified when the anti-shake does not correspond to the focal length of the lens used. That is why Canon claimed that IS is better placed in the lens than in the camera body. In that case the manufacturer can tune the IS closely to the focal length of that particular lens. But many photographers have thin and light tripod that shakes anyway. For long exposure, their thin tripods do not actually give them the sharpness their lenses can offer.

This was GREAT! Things beyond the basics that I've wondered about, including some niggling things. I must admit though I DO use the term "3D pop" when describing to people what background blur can do for a foreground subject - but it's nothing more than that. I must have heard the term from somewhere back in the day but not sure where. Seems like a more fun term than "shallow depth of field" or "shallow focus" or "selective focus" or "focus-based subject isolation" or "background blur based bamboozlement" or what have you.

Good episode! I understand 3d pop as how the edges in focus sharply contrast with the soft oof areas, but am not sure if lenses can affect that in any significant way

Don't understand half of what you are saying... but I just love the way you both go full blast nerdy... and the... Sometimes Violent Nerd reaction that follows 🤣... 🤓🤓🤓... Great job you both 👍

Being a bit of a battery guru.. Ni-MH doesn't have a memory it's Ni-CD ones that do. So you can fully discharge them without a problem Li-ion and Ni-MH can be charged at any level. Camera batteries have a protection circuit so you can't over discharge them, or over charge them. But it is true you get more cycles by not fully discharging it.

@okaro6595

4 жыл бұрын

Ni MH at least traditionally had memory but it was not as severe. It was enough if you fully discharged them maybe once a month. Some, however, advertise that they have no memory.

@MrBazReviews

4 жыл бұрын

@@okaro6595 When people say "memory" what they mean is lower voltage/capacity. This can happen on Ni-CD cells if they are repeatedly not discharged (say half empty and charged). It's not essential to do this every time, but if you do many cycles with Ni-CD it will over time show a lower capacity/voltage thus not last as long. Hence it's usually a good idea to discharge them before charging. Ni-MH has pretty much eliminated this, at least in modern good quality cells. I've yet to see any cells that show any notable reduction in capacity/voltage with "top up" charging. It's not impossible, but from a practical point it's a non issue

Thanks Chelsea and Tony. These vids are fab and I just love them. Greetings from Dublin, Ireland. Thank you for all the vids.

Dear Tony, DXO Mark didn't do mistake in testing the A7s. The whole issue is about cleaning the noise before cocking the RAW file which Sony has been doing for long time to cheat results which impact in lower image sharpness which DXO mark don't include in their equation when measuring low light quality. Example of cheating is when DXO measured low light for RED Helium they gave it ISO score of 4210 (Super 35 Sensor-not even a full frame) and they admitted in their review that RED are clearing noise before writing the RAW Files. Another evidence that Sony clear noise before writing the RAW file is the weird artifacts that show from now where in some of the images at high ISO. In addition, degradation in sharpness in Sony camera is faster than other cameras due to the processing pre RAW file production. Please take your time in examining these facts and produce a nerdy episode about it

i really wanna see a video on micro contrast and 3d pop. whenever i hear photo bros going off about lead glass in vintage lenses giving better "presence" i wonder if its just a bunch of snobbish hooey!?

@Innovate-pq9ci

4 жыл бұрын

just facts. 1- micro-contrast (bad word) means lens distorts the signal less, so it's likely more true-to-life. The more elements, the most likely your signal will be distorted. 2- 3d pop is a lens design choice when the depth of field is not even across the lens image projection. Say f1.4 in the centre but f2.8 in the corners. This gives a 3d look to it. This is purposefully chosen by designers in some lenses, for example, Fujifilm XF 35mm f1.4, as per Fuji's design notes.

*The f/8 sweet spot* - Older zooms were often bad at the extremes of the lens and the "middle" f stops looked better. So, the rumour started and ALL lenses were supposedly like this. Way back, there was a remarkable difference between primes and zoom image quality. I had lenses like this and it hindered me back in the film days. Now, even my kit lens gives acceptable pictures at almost any f stop.

This is one classy channel. Full of very useful information. Thanks for sharing

Wow, I learned a lot on this one, especially F8 "not" being the sweet spot on OEM lenses. Thanks, as usual !