Starting a crowd funding drive to buy a light for Chelsea

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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”!

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.

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

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

The podcasts are really, really interesting. Love them.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

Deleting pictures besides the last one taken can potentially lead to fragmentation, which could make recovery of files added later more difficult if those are accidentally deleted. But that would be a pretty rare circumstance.

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!

3D pop...back when I was shooting Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film I would experience a 3D appearance when I viewed the image on a small slide viewer. I think it was the apparent brightness of the reds and blues in contrast to the duller background colors. It was pretty cool looking though.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Old canon 5D (classic) was one camera that I wouldnt recommend to delete photos in camera as when you press delete options: Delete photo, Delete all photos and Cancel come up.

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

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 😜

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

Thx for the vid! A couple follow-up questions... • Forgive my naivete, but then what good are UV filters on digital cameras these days (other than keeping sound off your lens)? • Using arbitrary numbers to help ask my question, if I have a 5-megapixel sensor outputting images at max resolution of 5 megapixels versus a 10-megapixel sensor (of similar general quality and other characteristics) but set to output only a 5 megapixel picture, will the quality of those images be anyting more than trivially different from each other, and if so, which is better? • When you answered the myth about compression, were you talking about some form of mythical light compression and not about digital processing compression? • On the JPG discussion, you didn't really explain why the myth is false; why it's fine to edit JPG images today where it wasn't in the "olden days" •When a camera with image stabilization (either body or lens stabilization) is on a tripod and the image stabilization feature is not turned off, what happens? What's the problem with it?

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

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

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

Manual focus is very useful for macro or small object product photography on a tripod. For most other situations, AF is fine and my go to, to use in my opinion, and AF with eye detect is great if your camera supports it.

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".

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.

28:10 I think sharpness, micro-contrast, and contrast talk about different parts of the point spread function: Main peak, skirt if any, and global floor. But I'd love to hear your research.

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)“

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.

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 👍

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

Really interesting episode! Learned a couple of things this week :)

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

Did you mean to say Ni-Cad instead of Nickel metal hydide? NiMH is still popular (I have a bunch in service now)

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.

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

Thanks, even for 30 minutes, this video is easy to digest... if you like photography.

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.

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!

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

I love these podcasts

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..

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

Nickle Metal Hydrides are still in prominent use. I think you meant to say Nickle-Cadmium.

*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.

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

I had 2 memory card failures on my Canon S5 IS many yrs back. Finally, I figured out it was related to my habit of deleting pictures. I stopped deleting pictures from camera and never had card failure for next 10 yrs on that camera. I now use full frame camera and continued the same practice of not deleting pictures.