yes, he is an excellent teacher, and a wonderful content creator, his effort in production is unbeatable.

Thanks Dennis

Yes - great tip!

I just learned another thing…thank you!

Obviously shutter speed is the most miss-used setting, especially nowadays with very high MP sensors/cameras with 45-100mp...shutter speed is more important than ever, and too many people are shooting too slow of shutter speed's for their cameras. If you have a 36mp or higher sensor, I'd recommend doubling your normal or what you think you need, and then get a sharp shot, and then if you can, slowly work way down and see if you can Go lower. I see so many people shooting birds in flight at 1000th of a second or somewhere around there, when really you should be more at 3200th of a second or higher, unless it's a big slow moving bird...you could away with 1250th, but anyway great video. Aperture is probably the 2nd biggest issue that I see, but motion blur is a close 3rd. Anyways I would only add, take a few shots. Most cameras nowadays do 10fps or better and you don't need to spray and pray, but I recommend bursts if you are pushing the limits of the exposure triangle. Taking 2-5 shots in a row helps insure you'll get one or two sharp, even at lower than normal shutter speeds for your given situation. Obviously IBIS or in-body VR or lens based IS/VR really helps, I actually prefer fast glass and the Nikon D6 and D850, D500. I shoot so much in low light that I mostly use two D6's or a D6 and D5, but sometimes I prefer to have a D6 and D850 or D810. I just got a like new in box D810 with only 2,094 total shutter count, and it's a 2014-2015 era camera? For only $850 USD with 6-month warranty and it's a USA copy so can always get NPS service if I need or before they announce they have stopped servicing them? Anyhow, great video, I didn't learn much, (but I'm a 20 year veteran photojournalist), so I didn't expect to learn much this time, but I definitely have learned from you in the past. I'm not a landscape photographer, but I obviously still shoot landscapes and I enjoy it, but I hate tripods and therefor I need really steady hands, fast glass and or great VR. Although I had a $1,800 USD tripod setup, I ended up selling it for half of what I paid for it. Just can't stand tripods these days, they just slow me down and make it more difficult for me. Thankfully I do own use my $900 Pro Media Gear monopod and RRS MH-01 monopod setup for instances where I'll be standing in one spot or shooting for a few hours! Like say at a sporting event...I'll use my 500mm f/4E VR FL or 180-400mm FL on my monopod. Those are both barely hand-holdable lenses at 3.2 kilos and 3.8 kilo?... and the 500mm FL is actually quite a bit lighter than the zoom! Plus it is sharper and brighter and it's easier to hold for longer. However, I obviously don't want to handhold these beasts always, but I did shoot an Airshow for 5 hours with my D6 and 500mm f/4...handheld the entire time. Big mistake, lol. It was much easier to track the fast fighter jets while hand-held, especially if they were high or right above us, it got tiring fast. However my back was out for days and it still gets reinsured at times, so I do regret all of the heavy weight I have to light constantly. My main bag with two bodies and three lenses is nearly 50 pounds. Many of my colleagues have switched to mirrorless, but very few of them have saved any weight or at least not enough for me to care or switch. I'm jealous of you landscape photographers who get to hike and see such beauty and only carry half or less of the weight, I need to carry, lol. All of the big brands, Nikon/Canon/Sony now make much lighter weight super-tele's, but few of them are any lighter than my 500FL and the Z9 is not much lighter than the D6 or D5/1Dx series. Image quality hasn't really improved any with mirrorless and although some features are game-changers, like 30fps RAW or 120fps JPEG in 11mp mode? So why don't I switch to mirrorless? Too expensive for the very little if any gains I'd see, and I've used the Z9 and although it was early on, it had much worse noise than my D6's. Nikon has obviously abandoned the flagship DSLR world behind, but thankfully the D6 is by far the best camera I've ever used, period. The D850 or Z8 would probably be my vote for second best cameras ever made, but that's just because I don't count Sony. I know people love their A1's and A7RIV's, and they do have amazing IQ and specs, but they are just so different from I am used to and or enjoy using. The Sony A9 II made my hand hurt and it was really uncomfortable to use for long periods of time. No offense, but it felt like a toy camera compared to the D5/D6. Anyways, long tangents there, but I do appreciate the channel and I think a lot of people will learn some important knowledge from this video, well done!

Awesome 👍

Move along, folks, nothing to see here. I was a pro for something over 50years. Sure, when I was young and inexperienced I was onsessing

... and don't hang bags from the tripod, they also move in the wind!

@@a.keithclarke7975 Or DO hang weights from the tripod because it keeps it steady, which is why a lot of them have hooks on the bottom of the centre column.

What is mirror lockup, never heard of that before

@@DenisMcCaul Read the manual!

@@DenisMcCaul The camera lifts the mirror up, like when you normally take a shot, but waits a while before taking the shot (or you have to trigger the shot yourself, preferably using a remote). This allows the vibrations from the mirror's movement to die down so that the shot is sharper. Of course, if you're using a mirrorless camera, this doesn't apply.

also shooting in Live View helps ......

There are two things that increase noise: Under exposed shadows will show increased noise. The higher the ISO the more noise. I'm confused how you can keep shutter/aperture the same, increase ISO and still have a correctly exposed image.

@@brianjones5535 OK. Maybe I see your point, but I’d say so (trying to be brief): underexposed shadows show “relatively” increased noise; actually, their noise is lower, because they bring less photon noise and the readout noise of the camera is the same (at fixed ISO). BUT also the “good” signal photons are less (and they decrease with a steeper trend), thus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is lower and that’s why those regions look noisier. Being less brief… For the aspect of correct exposition, let me depict a scenario. Imagine you have a certain range of light levels you want to be acquired as well as possible, let’s say 3 stops from the darkest to the lightest thing you’re interested in. Then it’ll depend on your priorities for the shot, but let’s put you want a fixed aperture and let’s say that without any adjustments your highlights are slightly below the middle of your available dynamic range. Then, I think that you can do either of two things to seize the entire range, you double either the exposure time or your ISO. In the first case the “ISO” noise will stay the same, your photon signal will be almost twice as much, your photon noise will be at least square root of 2 times as much (I say “at least” because in reality, especially in dark scenes, there could be significant contributions by light pollution and by the dark current of each pixel, which is proportional to exposure time). So, yes, if you’re not in extreme conditions, your SNR will be slightly higher (i.e. better), probably by a factor slight lower than square root of 2. BUT if for instance you can’t increase the shutter time (typically because of the relative speed of your subject), I argue that you’d better increase the ISO. That not only won’t increase noise, but it will reduce it, instead. And that’s particularly true if you have a less ISO-invariant sensor (like most of Canon cameras have). With higher ISO, readout noise will be lower, while all other noise sources will be the same, thus also in this case your SNR will be higher. Anyway, the decreasing trend of noise vs ISO is a scientifically known fact; if you don’t believe me you can take a look at photnstophots.net. And what do you think of the above, is it so wrong? (sorry for my bad English)

That's nonsense. They are probably losing their eyesight. You make a sharp image a little less sharp in software. Much better than trying to make a blurry image sharp. You didn't see the old greats using their huge view cameras going outdoors to take blurry photos, did you?

What are CDs? 🤔😂

Do agree on that. From what I can tell, the biggest difference was when stepping up from my old cam and lens (5D MkII - from 2008) to new gear (R6). New cameras with their AF and stabilisation certainly make a change. However, my old lenses on my new body also look way less sharp. Looks like lens tech has gone further! New glass really is worth it.

@@dabozzcrg Yes, I agree. The 800 I mentioned is the nikon Z mount 800 F6.3 PF. Definitely sharper than the older F mount 200-500.

Actually, it's a characteristic of digital cameras but dof as a function of aperture, focal length and distance to the object are independent of camera type. The remaining points derives from the fact "being in focus" is not mathematically described without uncertain since it depends upon the human judgment

@@raphaelcoelho1557 it’s a bit more scientific than that, but you do need to make a determination about human visual acuity, viewing distance, and image size. You can also choose to put constraints on viewing distance based on human peripheral range. The limitation for all of this, however, is the resolution and sensor size. I use a high resolution camera because I typically (and a lot of viewers) inspect large images hanging on the wall at close distances.

The sensor has absolutely no determination of depth of field. As Raphael states, aperture, focal length and camera to object distance. Nothing whatsoever effects DoF.

@@brianjones5535 you are correct only if you assume images from a 6 MP sensor and a 60 MP sensor will be viewed at the same distance (and that distance will be far enough that human visual acuity won’t make a difference in the sharpness between images). I submit that a 2 meter, 60 MP image will support a closer viewing distance than a 2 meter 6 MP image, therefore it will support a smaller CoC. A smaller CoC, by definition, results in a shallower Depth of Field. Without trying to explain the calculations here, you can just go into the Advanced section of the PhotoPills DOF tool and adjust parameters to prove this to yourself. I use a high resolution sensor and premium glass so that my large images can be viewed at close distances. This, sometimes, requires focus stacking to take full advantage of the higher sensor resolution and compensate for the shallower DOF - more often than would be necessary to take full advantage of a lower resolution sensor.

@@davidligon6088 I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that if you make prints 2 metres in size the print from the 6MP will have a different DoF from the 60MP print? That is incorrect. Because the 6MP sensor has recorded less data the print might appear overall softer/less defined than the 60MP print but the actual DoF is identical. The interaction of Aperture/focal length/distance to object are the ONLY criteria that effect DoF. No Matter what focal length lens you use, if the subject is the same size on the sensor, ie you change camera to object distance to acheive this, the DoF will remain the same.

Question. Vr off when using back button focusing on a tripod? Surely then it makes no difference because the lens won't seek after locking on? I've heard this question before and often wondered..

The whole point of a tripod is to stop any camera movement. If your tripod is moving in the wind, throw it alway and get a more sturdy one!

@@brianjones5535 the wider the base the more secure if any movement, it maybe the lens subject to vibration. The longer the lens the more the torque with the lens. The tripod becomes more of an immovable object.