I assume you're shooting Fuji?

When you are out shooting and someone comes up and asks you a question...how do you tell the difference between an amateur or a professional? The amateur always asks "what camera brand are you using". Yes, you are correct I am using Fuji (X Pro 2 and X-T 2), but I have used Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Leica digital (most of my film cameras are Leica) and no magazine editor or creative director has ever turned away my work because of the gear I use. Too many camera manufacturer Marking Departments push the 'full frame is better than APSC and it is better than micro four thirds", next they will be pushing medium formal is better than full frame. In the old film days people were saying that 35mm was too small and you needed 6x6 or 6x9. You are the photographer not the camera, you take the photo and camera just captures your intention. Focus on your abilities, you will not become a better photographer with 'better' gear.

Yeah, I remember this. It is very interesting to hear people speak of "full frame" these days. In the past I remember the film and lens being the determination of your image quality along with 4x5 (medium format) then the larger formats that STARTED at 8x10 cameras heheh 35mm and smaller were what we graduated FROM but it doesn't matter. I had sooo much fun in the dark room and printing. That is actually where the fun outside of the images capture was.

35mm is always a Small Format. It was the puny tiny compared to Medium Format and Large Format. Where does the "Full Frame" come from? It is not digital 35mm sensor. It did bring it back, that is a fact. But, the term "Full Frame" was coined by a Olympus. Yes, you read it correctly. It was Olympus that created "Half-Frame" system by inventing the PEN camera. Olympus noticed that there is a big market for tiny cameras. And most common by far, photography printing size is 10x15, so 3:2 ratio. As that was 36x24mm film frame. The 135 film cartridges were most available and cheapest there was across world. Next one was 120 medium format rolls in special dealers. But you got 135 rolls everywhere, from kiosks to grocery stores. Kodak had 110 format as well, for tiny pocket cameras. Easy loading, plastic cartridges. Medium Format use same 120/220 roll for all different formats. Doesn't matter is it 6x4,5, 6x6, 6x9 or 6x11 etc. Common Mamya 67 camera was the thing. Olympus thoughts was to do same for 135 cartridges. As you are not limited to 36x24mm frame, only to 24mm width of the film. So what Olympus did was create PEN camera that use same 135 film cartridges, but exposes 18x24mm vertical frames. HALF of the 36x24mm frame. These are called Half-Frame cameras, and it was compared to traditional cameras that were called as "Full-Frame". This way Olympus invented the devil, that would destroy its camera division 50 years later, not once but twice (4/3 system, and then m4/3 system). When Kodak needed to digitalize their film technology for families, as mother's were most common buyers of 135 film, they created a APS format. It is easy plastic cartridge, can be rewinded in body to swap cartridge midway of shooting and resume etc. The APS was expensive and died as digital cameras got in. But APS was transformed to digital sensors as it was possible produce so big sensors at the time. APS system allowed camera to let user choose a image size for exposure. H as High C as Classic P as Panorama Canon produced their first true DSLR as APS-H sensor. Nikon did their own with APS-C sensor. Bodies were compatible with their at the time mounts, and people were shocked that their lenses were not as wide for some reason as on SLR. So major education problem was that "your 50mm is like a 75mm really, and your 100mm is like 150mm". Many were annoyed as their 24mm and 28mm lenses were not like 35mm and 40mm lenses, and they didn't have anymore wide angle lenses as they wanted for family, events and landscape. But wildlife and nature photographers and portrait photographers didn't care so much as they adjusted and now they got more reach. So when Canon was first one to produce a 36x24 mm digital sensor, they totally used opportunity to call it "Full Frame", because as you can guess, APS-C that had become most common sensor size, was about same as Olympus created 24x18mm HALF frame. Canon sold how you can now use your old lenses and their FULL image circle... You get FULL sharpness and FULL experience for your money. The APS-C is not called as "Half Frame" as should, as you can even today by the same mount bodies and lenses, R, Z or E mounts, and buy a APS-C sensor image circle lens or "Full Frame" image circle lens. And so on people have buyed to Canon marketing, that Olympus created without realizing that their amazing PEN innovation is their doom... Funny, as 4/3" sensor is identical with 110 format. Olympus chose that with Kodak for smallest sensor you can use to create a high quality digital images that are level of 120mm Medium Format rolls. And allow you to create prints that are in 8x10" unseparated from large format and even at 24x18" par with Medium Format. AND what is a required Debth Of Field for portraits and such, that was found to be f/5.6-11 on 35mm cameras. Olympus and Kodak created the 4/3" CCD sensor, based to real world print quality requirements that what most photographers require without Large Format cameras. This with knowledge that 5 Mpix is capable for that, and in future the sensor technology supports 10-12Mpix and more, that will even further improve the quality possibilities for cropping. This real world sampling and knowledge from Olympus and Kodak, that both very well knew what are most used camera settings, demands and quality requirements, allowed them to create that perfect digital system that is smallest possible, lightest possible, and most creative system, as you will have camera with you more likely. This all without sacrificing image quality OR narrow depth of field.. This is as well why Olympus created the f/1.8 lenses, as for most cases f/2.8 was shallow enough and f/4-5.6 prefredded for portraits. So faster shutter speed = less motion blur. Deep enough DOF = Less out of focus subjects and more details on face and body. Tiny size = With you. Olympus just didn't count to two things: 1) Smartphones 2) Fad to water thin DOF where only eye lashes are in focus. Even when you try to show people that people prefer 35mm system photos that are taken at f/5.6-11 range, they reject their own opinion on that table while watching the photos. You can't win the marketing of "Full Frame" and everything that it stands for...

Funny that I never thought about it that way but you’re right. A camera you are willing to carry all of the time is worth far more than the perfect camera you leave at home.

S Tra, I am retired and I can do what I want now! But, for what it’s worth a crop sensor camera is the right tool for many assignments. Your comment is just ignorant - weight of equipment has nothing to do with composition.

You and I have a different view of what being a photographer is. I’m retired and enjoy photography as much as I did when I was a kid learning and experimenting. I now spend all of my time creating and no time on marketing, managing a business or working for people I really don’t like. I guess I’m not a photographer, I’m just an artist who doesn’t care if anyone else likes what I’m doing. Most of it is abstract so it’s not a big market anyway. Best of luck with your career, there certainly is a time in our lives where we have to make money so that we can do what we want later in life.

@S Tra dude youre a photography snob, the worst kind of photographer in my book. Why do you care what he calls himself? You're hung up on labels. He's a photographer if he says he is. If you want to get hung up on semantics, then I'll go with commercial photographer vs photographer. Who cares really. His comment didn't even apply to you. Yours applies because it's the typical insulting crap that comes out of the mouths of people whose ego speaks louder than their talent. I don't know how old you are and frankly don't care if you're one of the most sought after photographers in the world (my guess is youre not), but have some respect for people who did this for a living for years, probably more than a few of them film.

@S Tra by the way, how Doug responded to you versus how you respond to him speaks volumes.

Not buying it. Yah , if you are a beginner. If you are a beginner that is true but nobody says that anymore. They just say "just shoot"...bull shit! If you are a real pro you need a pro camera. If your an amateur (witch is all this is really about) who the fuck cares, just use your cell phone! Anything in-between is just about getting people to spend money on nothing!!

this is the ONLY statement on the subject that means anything. I'm with you, Mr. Dennis

‘Cave Beast Demon' Good Lord...where are you wackos coming from? Photography is a widely pursued hobby by people across the world! YES, it is a pretty expensive hobby and many amateurs have to battle what they WANT to buy against what they can AFFORD to buy! But how is the expense for our hobby any different than those who spend tons of money on skiing, golf, flying, boating, auto restoration, or many other expensive hobbies that passionate people care to engage in? If shooting with your cell phone all the time is good enough for you, that’s fine FOR YOU! But many of us want more than that from our photography! And for those of us in that category, there is nothing wrong with our choice FOR US! Don’t generalize and think that you can speak for all people based on your choices and experiences. I don’t find any pleasure in riding a motorcycle...but I am not going to say that someone who loves Harleys is wasting their money when they drop a huge chunk on a new bike! My wife doesn’t quite understand me buying a $3,000 camera body...but I don’t quite understand her buying a $1,000 set of cookware! However I understand that cooking brings her joy and she understands that photography brings me joy! Enjoy your life and let others enjoy their lives!

@Randall Huleva Everybody thinks they are a fucking photographer! Guess what? They’re NOT! Good Satan...! Where do "amateur professionals" come from? (Amateurs that think they are professionals). They undercut/outsell people like me who are actually trained and provide quality work. 💩 They have convinced people that their "candid" / "photojournalistic" photography is better than real photography. It is NOT! It is snapshots taken with an expensive camera. I could take the same shots they do using $3000 camera with my cell phone. They suck but they get work that I could have gotten. That is why I tell everybody who can't take a decent shot to sell their camera. Are there good amateurs? Yes but not many! So who really cares? Next time think before you post a stupid comment!

‘Cave Beast Demon' Sounds to me like YOU are the “professional whose work sucks! A good professional photographer has an awesome individual style and makes images that are generally far superior to the work of amateurs and enthusiasts. The GOOD professional has no problem selling their work even with all of the amateurs who are out there. What we have today is a LOT of so-called “professionals” who have big egos and think that all it takes to be a pro is charging money for their average quality work. I have seen this firsthand in my own two weddings. In my first wedding we hired a photographer who had a stunning portfolio of his work, he did an amazing job and we happily paid over $10 K for albums, wall art and other sizes of photographs...plus all of the orders he got from other guests at the wedding as well as a few other bookings! In my second wedding we hired a photographer at a bridal expo several months before our wedding after looking at a portfolio of work that was very good the she allegedly had shot. However on our wedding day, both she and her second shooter show up shooting EVERYTHING in full auto with on camera flash that was both disruptive as well as created ridiculously harsh light and shadows. There were only a couple of images out of over 700 that were even half way decent. Not only did we not order anything from her, I was going to sue her except she went out of business shortly after our wedding! Both were “professionals”...they both charged money for their work. Only one of them made quality imagery and had a thriving business while the other one is out of business! The truly good professional is not at all intimidated by amateur and hobbyists. They actually welcome them because it gives them plenty of images readily available to contrast their work with. If a client can’t see a difference in your work (or ENOUGH of a difference) and their Uncle Bob’s work, don’t be surprised when they decide to save their cash and ask their Uncle to do them the favor! If you are losing sales to amateurs and hobbyists, that is evidence to me that you just aren’t good enough to differentiate your work from theirs...and clients won’t pay for average work! If you want to stay in business you need to improve and differentiate your work so people are impressed enough to pay for it AND change your bitter and foul attitude and language. If you want to make MONEY in this field, you need to shoot and work well with people! Clients do not want to work with someone who has an angry chip on their shoulder! If you don’t have good people skills and business sense, the best images in the world are not going to keep you in business very long! This is a VERY tough gig to be successful at! That is why I personally never chose to go into business. I ENJOY photography and shooting what and when I want! I did not want to turn that into something that becomes a daily grind trying to please clients all the time! There is a lot more to being a “pro” that buying a D850 or 5D Mk IV and a bunch of f/2.8 glass and start clicking away! Then the only thing you end up with is some very EXPENSIVE snapshots!

I’ll see your wife’s sowing machine and raise you a horse. 😛

At least both are hobbies that can get you paid. Keep at it, hobbies are passion, and passion brings success.

I’ve heard horses are expensive to keep.

@@keithgoreham1463 Sowing machine? That would be industrial farming machinery.

At least model railroading and train collecting aren't one of your hobbies. That requires not only money but lots of space, unless you can work in N or Z scale.

The myth is that many photographers have been told they need 7000px wide images to be taken seriously, and pay for the equipment to get there, but rarely publish anything near that size.

Cause physics is an interesting thing, and so are myths. In human terms, two grains of sand look pretty much the same, but science will probably tell you that's not true. Look at them under a microscope, and you're bound to like one more than the other...

Its about photography in general, not about sensor size

Christopher Wheeler great analogy.

Hold on there, mav: maybe there's more to the picture than physics. Brother of myopic pic, watch your blotch, retain your stain, and give these ideas due chance to advance. Cheers to you,

I love the GX85!

My Holga 120N might disagree 😀

@@abstractbybrian There are "exceptions to every rule" I suppose. I have a miniature Leica M3 (I forget the manufacturer, etc) that is nominally a 5 MP camera, but it takes absolutely rubbish photos!

You have summed this up so well. Yes you can get get very good images from a smartphone if you take your time. However a camera does give you a different feeling

I think they were talking about dumbing down of the human race and not the advancement.

I couldn’t agree with you more Michael. I’ve been saying for awhile now, the smartphone camera is the modern day equivalent of the instamatic camera for the masses from the the 60’s through the 90’s. Could you have gotten creative to an extent with cameras for the mass population back then? Sure, just like you can with cellphone cameras today. As smartphone cameras begin to age and people begin to see them as the go anywhere, snapshot camera that they are, serious cameras for serious creators will thrive as they always have.

Feel the same way. Well said.

Wouldn't better content increase the chance of an accident?

The 7D Mk2 is an awesome camera.

I had those two cameras for a long time. One primarily for Bird Photographer and one for Events. Got good results. Sold the 7D II and bought the R5 and longer lenses. Best of both worlds. I highly recommend the R5. I swore I would never sell my 7D II but the R5 is more versatile and Amazing!

They're too busy making giant telephoto lenses for their outdoor market. I also agree that OM could really clean up in the smaller, hipster style camera market, too.

Adam Allen but they’re not because they want to sell cameras through FOMO.

You probably won't see a big difference. Low light photos you will. To me FF choice just gets you the most advanced features. The best autofocus, etc. FYI, I have the X-H2S.

20 min is and still nothing.

It is a clickbait title. This video is barely anything about Full Frame but rather a video about "Do I really need that (more expensive) camera?"

Are there actually myths about full frame?

@@josephtan4663 No, not really. Generally speaking, the larger the sensor (or film) area, the better the quality of the image. Whether a smaller sensor (like APS-C or less) is good enough for you, or whether you care enough to want a bigger sensor , is down to you. You can take great pictures with almost anything ... but there's nothing wrong with exploring all the gear options. I own a Nikon FF digital, a bunch of film cameras of different types, and want a medium format film camera (soon!). They all do something DIFFERENT. That's part of the joy of photography...

@@zx7-rr486 The myth is that sensor size does not necessarily make the quality of an image better. There are many factors in that, mostly revolving around the user of the camera.

@Michael Jin Thanks for your input.

Cameras aren't THAT complex... some just take more time in the manuals to _"understand them"_ than others. But after that hump, it's all *just* f-stops, shutter speeds, and ISOs.

They didn't because there is no myth. Click bait title.

D600 is an amazing camera. Did a magazine photoshoot with it 2 months ago and I am pleased with the results.

Agreed. I bought a D600 a few months ago and a used 85mm prime and 28mm manual prime. Pics are gorgeous. I’m a newbie coming from a Nikon D3200 and feel like the D600 will serve me well for years to come.

I'm a Canon guy but our publishing company has at least two D600s and they are perfect for our needs.

Which 40 seconds?

"a camera is just a box to collect light"...no, it is not that simple

@@billmoyer3254 So tell me then, what else does the camera do? The lens focuses light from a scene and projects an image of that scene onto the film or sensor of the camera. All the camera does is collect that image. Sure, if you're not shooting full manual the camera will decide some of the settings used to capture that image, and some of those settings can impact your final image, but the three primary things it can control are aperture, shutter speed, and gain/ISO. One is just a setting on the lens, and the other two determine how the camera collects the light the lens is casting on it. Hence, a camera is just a box for collecting light. It's a photographer's palette, a lens is their brush.

Good points. Another example is macro - the smaller sensor camera will often have the advantage, because a FF (say) will be stopped way down, to maximise DoF, which is a waste of size & weight. ISO may well have to be set higher than that of the smaller system, which increases it's noise to a level closer or even matching the smaller sensor. (HUGE h/t to Tony Northrup for explaining this crucial aspect of "equivalency")

Can you define what you mean by low light? Seems to be a non-issue since so far no one has been able to explain what they mean by low-light. Also, I'm a professional who sometimes shoots bands in bars using Olympus cameras, using that EVF you're deriding, and really don't have any issues. Maybe it's best to not speak for others if you don't have first hand professional experience?

I used to watch him quite a bit, early days. It does get a bit tiresome - seems the shift has gone from doing tutorials and reviews (ie useful content) to click bait type drama that gets people worked up/annoyed..ie get views = ad revenue! Or tech talk stuff that gets people excited about xyz new model. I know I do my own channel, more views more income!

The GX85 used is too cheap to pass as a serious second camera....

Mr Baz Reviews him as in Mr.N?

@@39zack Yeah that's right. And I would add most of the other big "guns" also seem to have lost appeal for me. There are some good channels out there - if you dig around a bit. I'm also using a dead system A mount, and you can add Pentax users to the list as well as Micro 4/3. And those hipsters shooting MF 35mm film bodies, they are also using "dead" systems and mounts ;-D. The level of click bait on YT is pretty high!

noorur - you are right, I’m getting a G9 soon for my more serious photography pursuits. G85 was just what got me started, I purchased only as a personal travel camera- but the results are exceptional/ paired with Olympus lenses.

Theoria Apophasis almost every review, for years? Nikon, Fuji, Sony, Even about Canon (though he doesn't own so doesn't review them)?

Yes

Zack Ok. Yes there are a lot of clickbait videos over there. Clickbait titles are one of my pet peeves...especially when the news has titles like that.

Yes. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/p9CIhtF_ssCUgIk.html

Yes I believe they are referring to the Northrups. (I think they are absolutely OUTSTANDING)

If I was into wildlife, m4/3 would be my go to. 2 times the reach!! ROTFL.

LaBestiaNeraPhotography Well as far as the FF thing goes, I get absolutely spectacular images with my APC-C Nikon D500. I have all these photography “friends” telling me I should have gotten a D850. Why? “Because it’s full frame and higher resolution”! Funny thing is that all of the people I know who are constantly complaining about how “slow Lightroom is” are shooting bodies that are producing these massive file size images. Gee, I wonder why Lightroom might be slow? Your whole darn computer is being pushed to its limits when you are processing those enormous files all the time. If you have some special needs case for a camera like that, fine - go for it. But just to say “I have the best” is pretty stupid. Th one thing I will agree with is that a huge file gives you more latitude in cropping, however even that is a kin of lame argument. You should be able to get pretty close to your final composition in camera. If you have to crop that much to produce your final composition, you probably need to really work on that area of your work. Certain exceptions obviously noted. Clearly there are times when circumstances require an image is captured from a longer distance than we would like. Cropping the composition we would like and enlarging it can provide good quality, usable images in that scenario. But far too many photographers lean on cropping as a crutch rather than doing the work to get a great image in camera.

@@randallhuleva1924 Well said. It really depends on your needs. I shoot real estate from a tripod at about f7.1 and set on infinite focus. A M4/3 20MP camera is actually more camera than I need. But I recognize that there are plenty photographers who work where things like lighting, distance from subject, and motion are not usually within their control and big sensors can really help them get better shots.

I believe it does. Their conversation is about how the hype of ff correlates to people needing to have the latest and greatest tech. I don't believe it was meant to be a technical discussion of how the full frame sensor compares to others. With certain youtube influencers touting "m43 is dead" and ff is the only way to go if you want your photos to look "professional". The myth of full frame is you need it to be a good photographer.

Randall Huleva I also have a D500 and it works like a dream. Sure, the D850 has the same megapixels in dx crop mode and will produce ultra sharp landscape pictures with the higher pixelcount in normal FX mode. But only if you have the best of the best lenses on it, because lesser lenses will not do justice to it. I am fortunate enough to have the 70-200 FL and it is so sharp on the D500. I would need a superb 12-24 and 24-70 when upgrading to the D850, which makes the transition hugely expensive. And since I don't make money with my photography, I am not that stupid. 😉