*00:13** The ISO/DR battles, Realities, Actual Practical Issues **03:57** Color Test (do you see the difference over there?) **05:00** Sound test **05:32** Courtney Victoria **06:20** Comment on the NIK collection **06:32** A new Film Color print (possible) explanation **08:42** Color Contrast at "Auto 0" WB setting **10:06** Got to go back minimalist... **10:42** Umbrella*

Voice was absolutely fine.

The flowers on those trees have flowers for a week or until a strong wind passes, whichever comes first…if you're lucky. Then it's time to clean your yard. We had two, also in Cook county (La Grange IL). We moved to Georgia 5 years ago but just visited there this week. Your voice is actually getting easier to appreciate. I must admit that the first video I watched of yours, it did get taxing, but I'm enjoying more now.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

Ok, thank you for the voice info. Flowers, by the way, were plenty in Michigan (and an excellent botanic Garden there), I never fully appreciated them.

Great voice! I listen to your videos if I have a problem sleeping 💤 💤🛌😵‍💫

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

I even have an old video with "Insomnia cure" in the title, I'm not kidding.

Microphone volume and quality is excellent, very clear! Video quality is excellent at 4k! For sRGB vs Adobe RGB, the Adobe SRB flower is more saturated overall (looks nicer) but also the areas you mentioned are more detailed. In the sRGB version the flower has areas where the red looks blown out, like when you blow highlights. Just solid red color. Also, 11:42 it looks like an Alpaca after having a haircut. They are nice animals :)

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

Thank you very much for your input.

It's indeed a very pretty camera. In my system, I always use Solution 2. The differences in the flower are very clear. Displaying portrait pictures horizontally is a little bit annoying.

On my monitor the Adobe RGB version had more gradations in the red petals. And I agree the other photo didn't seem to show any differences. I like your audio. Discovered you from Camera Conspiracies, btw.

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

Thank you, this is very helpful.

@ 05:01 I chuckled. I took a picture of the exact same angle for a B&W photography class back in the day. It is even mounted.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

The shoes???

@poppiestuff

23 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique yes. The Shoes.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

@@poppiestuff All these things happening behind my back lately... :-)

Voice is fine when you asked. Being very picky there is some mild static/sensitivity picking up wind or background noise. For casual listening like on a phone or tablet, it's not bad at all . Audiofiles who are listening on headphones or in a theater situation, I imagine (this is speculation) would find it distracting or possibly worse. Later in the video, where you were saying "before and after", your mic had a bad echo - but it was really short. I enjoy your channel a lot, so I'm providing this commentary because 1. you asked nicely 2. I like your work 3. You are no nonsense, you pay a lot of attention to detail and talk about it, very little emotion involved. That's great to learn from. So hopefully this is useful to you.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

Thank you, this is all very useful.

The first picture you asked for feedback on Adobe vs sRGB (red flowers): I'm watching on my phone and the red colour in the areas you specified is more vibrant in adobe RGB. I believe you demonstrated this in a previous video (many cameras have trouble with red?)

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

More vibrant! That's good to know. Thank you! I actually expected the opposite in phones. As far as digital cameras and red, that's a well-known issue (only 1 photosite/pixel is red) and practical solutions of course is to fill the frame as much as possible, use lenses with minimal or no chromatic aberrations, good focus, and don't print red too large (don't "spread them out even more").

Adobe is a warmer red watching on HD TV, possibly slight difference right bottom pink hues next picture. Sound is fine, don’t make it louder but do keep same distance to mic

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

Thank you!

I enjoyed the part where you spoke openly about oregano.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

I am Greek, proud of olive oil and oregano.

Hi, i don't have a 4k screen ( macbook 2011 with broken gpu, brightness in middle position) the stream is ok on 4k, i see the differences between the flower on the right; color is like it has a filter on it, it's a bit dull, the one on left is little bit brighter, with details easier to see in the areas mentioned , the second picture i have to look at few more times, as i could not spot things in regards of color, but the same thing, one on the left is a bit brighter with more shadow detail. Voice is ok, sometimes a little soft, but it's fine no worries.

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

Oh boy... the other viewer told me the Adobe image was better. But thank you for your input!

@davin2002

21 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique Adobe Image looks a tad brighter, better i am not sure, depends on your taste

I do have a GFX. I bought the original 50s years after it was discontinued for about what a new Fuji APS-C body would cost me. New old stock. I couldn't pass that up. I still have my original X-T1. I still very much like that camera and I love using the Mitakon 35 f/0.95 on it.

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

I was tempted myself...

@sebastiang7183

22 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique Honestly, I don't think you will benefit from a GFX. The largest gain is in landscape photography under difficult conditions like the harsh sun of the southwest. Here you either need to do HDR with the downsides that it brings or have a sensor like the GFX that can pull up shadows much higher without things falling apart. It isn't just about noise but losing color accuracy. The MF sensors can do about ISO 4500 until they fall apart. The FF sensors depending on generation can do 2500-3000 with the newest and best almost being able to do 3500. This gives you extra room for scenes with dark shadows in canyons under a blazing full sun. This comes at the downside of a flash sync speed of 1/125 and slow auto focus for moving subjects. Low frames per second. Also, longer blackout times when you hit the shutter. All the big boy lenses in the GFX system cost as much as a nice high end refrigerator: $2000+. With some exceptions like the 35-70 being sold on sale for $500 or the 50mm f/3.5, but those are all slow lenses.

@sebastiang7183

22 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique Just adding to what I wrote before. I primary keep the GFX as a landscape setup. I have the 35-70 which is a small, cheap lens but as good as anything made for that system at f/8-f/11. It collapses and makes the GFX easy to carry. I had to pay the big money for the 20-35 f/4. There is no viable alternative. I don't shoot telephoto that often, but I have found my old Jupiter 37a 135mm covers the sensor corner to corner at f/8-f/11 if I need something longer. For portraits I have a wide range of old FF lenses that adapt and cover good enough for that purpose. I even have a old 58 f/1.8 lens that is sharp corner to corner without vignetting on the larger sensor at f/8-f/11. Although, I really only use it at the wider apertures for people pictures where corners don't matter. Any landscape work in that range will be done with the 35-70. I just like knowing that if I only brought FF 58 f/1.8 I could use it with good coverage.

@CameraMystique

20 күн бұрын

I did my tests in 2017 (D850/GFX50 rental/7Rii rental). The GFX had better files, and the compact version released later was very tempting, but mute for my purposes. The D850 with a good lens and ISO 32 is 99% there for up to 24x36 (how many of those will I ever print anyway... maybe 2 or 3 only). And I wanted the full flash system too, so...

@sebastiang7183

20 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique It depends on your lenses. My friend got pixel envy and bought a Nikon D800. Not exactly a D850. However, with the 28mm lens he was using it wasn't even close. The corner performance was noticeably worse and lots of chromatic aberrations and this was compared only to the budget 35-70 GFX at $500. It really shines in the harsh southwest, but personally I believe the best for the southwest is 4x5 film. Although I have no intention of dragging around a 4x5 film camera. He then bought a better 28 but we have yet to retest.

The sound is not okay. It needs to be much louder. Maybe MY kodak gold 200 pictures (or they way they're developed) look just off, hah.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

Ok, I will adjust. Not easy to make a USB mic louder in Windows...

@gamebuster800

23 күн бұрын

@@CameraMystique If it isn't already at 100% (it can be randomly changed by some applications), most recording software allows you to boost the audio even further.

@CameraMystique

23 күн бұрын

@@gamebuster800 I tried but the mic turns terrible (tunneling) with further amplification. Is the music loud enough?

@gamebuster800

22 күн бұрын

​@@CameraMystique I might have over-reacted a bit, the sound wasn't that far off. The music was, what I consider, normal volume. But for YT videos, I generally prefer voices to be louder than the music, even when you're not talking over the music. The voice volume might need a boost of 3-6db. Especially people hard of hearing will turn their volume op to hear what you're saying. I do wonder what mic you're using. There's a lot of good, affordable mics out there. Take a look at a Behringer U-Phoria UMC22. It has physical volume control and you can plug in any cheap XLR mic. It will sound excellent.

@CameraMystique

22 күн бұрын

@@gamebuster800 In the older videos I had a $10 microphone (those "rods"), now I have a $25 mic. This channel insists on being purposefully demonetized and low-production value. But I ask my viewers so I can do the best I can with what I have... I'll try pumping up the mic and reduce background noise.