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

LOL

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

@@mattiejane9628 yOUR Mother

@@dinmavric5504that cracks me up

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

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.

This is what I had heard too!

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

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.

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

UV*

Nooooooo

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

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

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.

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).

@@brahmabeharrysingh5287 shhhhh

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

@@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.

Same though

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

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

@Creek Walker → 100%

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

but I shoot raw JPEGs, then I cook them.

@@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 !! :-)

@@philindeblanc haha, good one!

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

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

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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

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

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

Stanley Kubrick shot a movie at f:0.7

@@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.

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

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

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.

Thank's !

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Thanks.

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.

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.

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

@@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.

I have a vision impairment I love autofocus

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

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.

@@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.

Afro Knows Aphrotos?

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

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 🙂

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.

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

How do you know these things?

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

:)

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

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 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.

@dennytenny LOL!!!

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.

Don't forget the cult of raw

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)

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

That's what she said.

Lol

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.

but you remove the filter before each shooting, right?

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

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

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

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

Except for the failure to light Chelsea adequately.

Thanks, Hector!

@UCtf1TrQ29UnQrehvtjSBm6A oh I see, that's good info in that and makes a lot of sense, thanks!

so the video is definitely different, because less pixels on the same size sensor, means physically larger pixels, which in theory means more light is being let in and thus the camera does better in lower light because more of that light is hitting each pixel (from what i understand at least lol)

Sensor Readout speed si much faster less heat generated and les jello efect in video. Some of the advantages of less mp

Yeah video can be a very different story because most high-res sensors don't read every pixel (at least for 4k video).

@@TonyAndChelsea ahh I see, makes sense now, thanks my dude!!

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

Nah I'm good.

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

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!!!

Instructions Unclear: Jared Polin is now the voice of Siri

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

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

Tony slept in the pool house that night. LOL

Angel Angelov I caught that too. 😂

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

😅doesn't matter...this is for a podcast

Nobody puts Chelsea in the corner!

Time to come out.

Now this is all I can see. Thanks!

@@marvinbeatz6266 it is a podcast that has 65k views. So I mean...

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.

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.

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.

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

You totally missed the point.

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.

@@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.

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!

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

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

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

@@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.

Linda Farneth yes/yes/no

Richard Graham They still have a memory effect though...

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.

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.

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

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.

Suppose you had a scene with large contrast between areas that should be recorded on adjacent pixels on the sensor. A good real example would be feathers on a bird, where the fibers of the feathers were of contrasting color. Or, perhaps, a middle-aged person's salt-and-pepper hair. If the camera sensor grid accurately recorded the scene, you would have a lot of dark pixels right next to light pixels. Two things can disturb this: flare and blur. Flare is the most insidious and the hardest to measure. Virtually all of the light that enters the front element of a lens stays within the camera. The light that isn't destined to hit the sensor has to hit something eventually, like the mechanical parts of the lens or the surface of another lens element. Most surfaces, even those of coated lens elements, are a bit "shiny" and reflect part of the light that hits them. Some of this stray light, bouncing around like balls in a pinball machine, will hit the sensor as an unfocused "flare". Flare can be minimized with baffles, flat black surfaces, and internal lens element coatings. All of this costs money. So, low flare = high $$. Blur is when light destined for one pixel on the sensor bleeds into adjacent pixels. We are all aware of what a blurry edge looks like, but the effect is even more devastating on fine contrasting patterns like I discussed above. There are lots of kinds of blurs: focus, coma, chromatic aberration, and of course diffraction. The last is universal and directly related to the f/number. You measure blur as a "diameter" of a circle on the sensor. Most of the light that should go to the center of the circle will at least remain in that circle. For statistically-uncorrelated blurs, a reasonable estimate for the total blur diameter would be a root-mean-square measure: total-blur = sqrt(blurA^2+blurB^2+...). We all know that correcting most kinds of blur is expensive. If a lens is so good that diffraction blur dominates, telescope makers call this "diffraction-limited optics". Needless to say, such optics are very expensive. Diffraction blur diameter is proportional to f/number. So, a lens stopped down to f/4 has twice the blur diameter as a lens stopped down to f/2. You could estimate a blur "sweet spot" for a high-end lens as being when the diffraction blur spot diameter is equal to the pixel stride. For a 61-megapixel full-frame camera, I would estimate that the sweet spot is about f/3. I know this is a lot of detail, but I hope it helps.

@@stuartschaffner9744 This is not an explanation for the difference between micro-contrast and sharpness. Perhaps you misunderstood what I was referring to from the video.

Smaakjeks K , I could have easily misunderstood you. If so, my apologies. Actually I was responding more to Tony’s comments and to what seems to be some pervasive misunderstandings about lens flare. If you have some specific disagreements with what I wrote then we can discuss that.

@@stuartschaffner9744 What you wrote seems fine. Thanks for taking the time to explaining it to me, all the same :-)

It's a combination of software, memory, and age can corrupt memory cards.

Excellent recommendation!