So, when OM Systems dropped Joe from their ambassador team, he dumped all of his Olympus gear and went to a Sony high FF resolution camera. I don't necessarily disagree with his choice but it really seems to minimize his previous promotion of m43.
This video has 2 years and so far this was the best video I've watched about photography as a beginner...it put my foot on the ground and avoid me to spent unnecessary money thank you...
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!!
@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!
@Randall Huleva It sounds as if you are assuming a lot. I don't need your rudimentary photography or business advice! I actually studied photography in a real college for two years. I have had work published. I have won awards. I won't tell you where or when because that will probably result in an unsolicited biased all negative critique of my work, no matter how good it is. You just don't get my point. As I said everybody thinks they are a photographer! They have convinced people who don't know better that bad photography is better than good photography. Get it!? They get work as photographers. Get it? That work could have gone to someone who actually knows what they are doing. Get it??!! ...and there are a lot of them. Get it?! That is it!
i've been shooting a lot more film and seem happy for it. I use a tripod a lot and I very seldom see anyone using them on youtube reviews of cameras. I haven't had much luck in low light hand holding.
Yikes. I adore Joe, I’ve gone to a conference just to see him give a talk and do a shoot with him. Joe, you’re an AMAZING photographer but this conversation adds nothing constructive to the discourse, I watched it from beginning to end and just noticed you talk a bunch of trash, try to settle scores that don’t need be settled. Your work speaks for itself, period. M43 is OBVIOUSLY a viable, alive, and thriving platform for photography. Show us a meaningful way forward, break down for us how the Em1 ii has had a positive impact on your work. Tell us what you love about creating great images with the gear you’re grinding. You can do better than this. Still love you Joe.
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...
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,
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.
I'm just here to say. I shot crop frame for years. I have an A0 image on my living room wall shot with a Nikon D90 (12mpix) so I know whats possible with a crop sensor. I recently moved over to full frame. Its not a myth. There are benefits. As to whether those benefits are worth the cost and weight, each photographer must decide that on their own.
Frederick -- very much enjoy your site and your interviews; most happy to see this chat with Joe! Joe always brings the photo love to wherever he goes -- this was no exception. Great convo by you both! Thanks!
I gave up on upgrading cameras a while ago : the gx85 shoots wonderful 4k stabilized video and you can adapt any lens you want. The Olympus 1.2 lenses are stellar for pro photo work and Sigma foveon cameras are amazing for more artsy work. I even shoot with older CCD based Nikons for family pictures, nothing can beat the skin tones of those cameras
This is 4yrs after this was posted, but I still find Joes views on photography, gear, brands and "influencers". There are two well known (a couple) TH-camrs that annoy their brand jumping and brand / sensor sabotage. Finally .. Analogue photography is now bringing more young people into photography. One of my much younger work colleagues is now shooting film and developing his own film, now I'm happy that photography isn't dead.
@@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.
Just bought into fullframe for use with my vintage lenses, coming from Fuji APS -C. I was just not aware about the advantages of FF in difficult situations like high contrast or low light. The immense dynamic range and low light capabilities just make a difference in post. In standard situations i agree, any modern camera is more than capable. I also keep selected Fuji gear, because there are just many situations where you don't want to carry a kilo+ of stuff with you.
Not disagreeing with anyone, but my issue was interior, no flash, architectural shots for large print. I had fully invested in Oly m4/3 for years and wasn't happy with the prints. Tried the Sony a7R3 and changed everything over. Yes, heavy as f*. Not cheap. Love the results. I don't do weddings, portraits, people and online is just an adjunct to what I want. So, take that with a grain of salt, a slice of lime, and some Don Julio.
Good video, but a point was raised about ergonomics and actual use not being addressed and virtually every camera review I watch focuses on those and UX.
Olympus should be dominating the market. Their cameras are every bit as retro and cool looking as Fuji while also being WAY more convenient and smaller than Fuji cameras. All they need is vintage film simulation colours in JPGs just like Fuji and they've got a winning recipe. Why the hell isn't Olympus doing anything about it? This is such an easy opportunity for them to capitalize on. Fuji's hipster X100VI is huge.... with a fixed lens, and for some reason that camera got 1 million pre-orders?? LOL.
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.
Great conversation, but the title does not cover the contents. Ff a myth is maybe 1 minute of the conversation and it doesn't even come to a nice conclusion with a bunch of arguments. Bit disappointed about that...
@Randall Huleva 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. 😉
Great conversation, all true. In November 2017 I got my first E-M1m2 and never regret that. I enjoy every bit of the system. Also I register in Czech republic Olympus club which has fantastic customer support, gear training, photo exhibitions and monthly contests and much more .... For the end user either professional or amateur it is just fantastic. I feel like I have the company fully behind. Too bad it is not the same here in the USA.
I like Joe Edelman. I have a few more years of experience but he knows what he's talking about and gives it to his audience straight up. I was surprised to hear he can shoot for billboards with a micro 4/3. I do a lot of that and wouldn't use anything less than my Nikon full-frame so I take my hat off to him.
Great video man, I switched to Olmpus MFT a few years back and it's great, such a huge weight saving and the image quality is great. I've got the convenience of my old 35mm SLR film cameras but with all the advantages of digital.
after watching the other guy's "M43s is dead" video; I lost all respect for him, after finding Joe Edelman, I went out and bought a Lumix G85 and then a GX85..... and then sold my full frame Nikons.... I'm hooked. M43 is just getting started.
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!
@@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.
Thanks, a few months late, for a very enlightening 40 minutes. Well worth the time! I particularly appreciated the comments about the often overlooked aspect of ergonomics. If it doesn't feel right in your hands, how much will you use it? On the subject of people who complain about complicated camera menus... have you used Adobe Photoshop?
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.
Luckily, I just came across this video and I loved the entire thing. I’m kind of late to the party but I just subscribed and was looking at your subject titles and can’t wait to watch many of them. If they are like this video you should have over 100,000 views for each one because you really did an excellent job on this one. This is the first time I’ve seen any of your videos, but it won’t be the last.
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.
It's not about which sensor size is better, it's about which sensor size best matches the lenses you're using and what you're photographing. Say you have a 200mm lens. If you want to use that to shoot a portrait, you probably want to use a larger sensor so you can get closer and minimize your depth of field. But if you're shooting a sports event and you can't get close enough to your subject to fill your frame, a smaller sensor is probably the better choice. I'm a Nikon shooter and I do a mix of portraits, sports, events, and landscapes. I use both full frame and APS-C bodies (D750 and D7200, fantastic pair!) and swap them out as necessary. I shot a regatta out of Annapolis, MD, USA this last weekend and I used a 70-200 f/2.8 on my D750 and a 300mm f/4 on my D7200. I got twice as many "keepers" on the crop sensor setup, and I got them without having to crop out crazy amounts of image space. Remember: a camera is just a box to collect light. Pay attention to how you're collecting the light and everything else just works out.
@@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")
One of my favourite TH-cam photography channels involves a guy talking about technique using just an entry level Nikon DSLR with the kit lens. The focus is all on technique and not on gear, which is how it should be, especially for those of us who just want to learn how to take great pictures. That is all we want to do, we're not aiming to be professional photographers but we are aiming to be proficient photographers.
I use a Nikon D700 and D3!! love the photo's they produce!! I actually sold a D500 to buy a very nice lens :) I have found that I don't need a lot of modern tech! don't need video, touchscreen, blue tooth, wifi!!! and I don't want to deal with massive file sizes! and I don't print stuff that covers castles :) I really do believe modern cameras are hyped up!! I'm not saying they are bad!! but they make people feel they need them!! they will produce the best pictures!! its down to the user and the glass!!! seriously!! people need to talk about glass more than bodies :) why do I use a D3? because its a tank that lasts all day on battery power!! takes stunning photos!! and great if your in the middle of nowhere :) away from cities and tech!! just photography!!! no social media!! and it will survive an alien invasion :)!! but saying all this! you do get assholes who give you attitude and talk to you like your a terrorist!! but thats not stopping me from using DLSR cameras
Love my D700, totally agree with you. just had a shot blown up to 8 ft. looks awesome and tack sharp. 12 megapixels, plus you don't choke your computer and hard drives with these huge files. I have newer and higher meg cameras, but I just love the output and feel of that D700. What a bargain now too! You can buy a full frame Nikon or Canon FF like the 5d for a few hundred buck and they are hard to kill.
@@CVCC Yep! You can probably go back to my first digital, a sony P71 @ 3.2mp and print out decent prints from it. Its a beast point and shoot. Slow focusing, slow wiriting to the card, and the LCD is smaller than most viewfinders but it still takes good shots. Its more of the photog being cool with their gear at this point.
I think Olympus has some great sensor tech. What they do with that small of a sensor is really great. However, when Sony, Canon, and Nikon are putting out aps-c cameras at 30mp and full frames at 60+ mp, newcomers to the market are going to look at the 20mp of Olympus and pass them right by if Olympus doesn't step up their game.
Mike Dixon That would be an example of marketing over functionality. Very few photographers, even among professionals (however defined), have practical use for 60 MP. While some people certainly will buy on the numbers, chasing marketing over practical use, other nice features (like shooting speed, buffer size, cooling requirements) doesn’t seem like the direction in which I’d hope companies would go.
@@jamespeirce2582 I hope Olympus has some advances in their sensor technology in the near future because if they are betting their future on marketing ability it's going to be a tough sell. New customers look at features, and 1/3 the number of pixels is a big feature spec hurdle to jump. As for "no practical use" I would beg to differ because it allows for a great deal of cropping, saving both money and weight on buying a 600mm or 800mm lens and still having 20 to 30 mp of image left.
That's why i love techgeartalk. All the specs from user perspective. I skip all those "but this cause its new" rewievs . Ill stay with my sl2, It gets the job done and i love its ergonomics. But sometimes i just feel i need to dust off my trusty P6 and just shoot a roll. Its a personal experience and no amount of MP or sensor size will change that. Pieriod.
Didn't Minolta sell cards that added some extra functionality to some of their film cameras? The likes of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic etc have at last woken up to computational/AI tech that Apple/Samsung have pioneered in recent years. The idea of adding customisations or d/l'ing custom F/W updates from a phone or tablet is an interesting idea. As an aside, I've stayed FF with a Z6 but appreciate many would prefer to cart around less weight!
They already made FF cameras smaller and everyone complained about it. I swear, if I see another reviewer showing their pinky hanging off a grip... Unless these imaginary future people grow smaller hands, I don't see the camera size getting smaller. Maybe these future people will shed their pinkies. You have to design ergonomically, and sometimes that means you can't make it smaller. Lighter is more likely.
I agree with much of what was said regarding digital & possible paths regarding the various sizes and formats. I am a photographer from the "film days", and avoided going digital (except I did own a Nikon "Coolpix" temporarily in the early to mid-2000's until cell phone image quality became better). I purchased a used APSC Nikon D3400, and am really happy with it, but would love to give an Olympus OMD a spin, along with possibly a FF dslr. I know that eventually, mirrorless will replace dslrs, but I like that "film days" experience (the mirror slap, etc.), which I still shoot in all formats. I agree also with the younger generation's aim to "experience photography with more, not less human interaction, which is why film has enjoyed a slight resurgence. I mean who would have dreamed a couple of years ago that Ektachrome would be re-introduced, or that certain film cameras are fetching record prices on the used market? Many of the younger generation enjoy making art through their developing knowledge of the basics of photography, and what better way than with a no frills manual camera? Still, I recognize that I've become "spoiled" with all the technology digital can provide, thus enabling me to capture shots I'm sure I would miss using a film camera.
My iPhone X never fails to amaze me with the fantastic shots I take with it. Such a tiny lens/processor, kind of seems surreal that it can compete with most point and shoots and even dslr’s. P.s. This was an excellent expose on the state of photography/cameras today and where we may be headed. To me, smaller cameras with larger sensors is the way to go and as the iPhones progress (and other phones), they will be your primary carry camera. Regarding manufacturers, I’ll bet Sony is the first to downsize cameras without losing quality for all parts. Also, I do love Olympus. Own Olympus, Canon and Sony.
Where's the FF myth part? Some good points but from an Olympus whatever they call it? Also regarding the AI, if that's the future then one might as well shoot with a point and shoot, then call it a day. Definitely agree about the gear heads and people need to actually learn how to shoot
Here we go with the BS>>Just because a person shoots a certain way,with certain gear,does not make someone else's methods and gear a myth.Whether it's 4/3 or medium format,or in between,they are all different,so the only myth is that one imagined in someone's head.It stands to reason if someone uses certain brands or formats,they will support it.That does nOT take away from the FACTS and science that govern the capabilities of said format..
There is a definite difference between full frame and crop sensors but this is principally due to the depth of field difference. Were it the case that there were more F1.0 lenses for crop sensors then the crop sensors would be at an advantage for many kinds of shooting as they would have similar shallow DOF capabilities to full frames but they would have the benefit of being able to shoot this similar DOF at double the shutter speed or half the ISO… not only does this negate the ISO advantage that full frame seems to have, it actually gives the advantage to the crop sensor. Full frame and larger format sensors do have an advantage, however, by way of their ability to resolve detail… FOV is critical and for a given FOV the full frame lens is optically “closer” (i.e. 50mm vs 35mm) than the crop sensor. In my experience this is hard to detect between some lenses but it becomes easier to detect on longer lenses and when the sensors get smaller than APS-C (i.e. 4/3).
Excellent dialogue! I use my iPhone, an Olympus Tough TG-5, and a Canon 80-D, and way too much glass for it. But to hi-lite what I thought was the big take-away from this video, I thought I'd switch to a parallel domain. I also doodle around with jazz guitar, and have seen the same problem of getting more caught up in the technology than in the art of telling your story. In fact, have seen this before in the history of jazz at the beginning of the jazz-rock fusion era emerging from Miles Davis's jam bands ... Weather Report, Mahavishnu, Return to Forever, Lifetime, Headhunters ... all these great supergroups got caught up at one time or another in the emerging technology of electric instruments and effects. But as the musicians matured, they proved their creative genius by staying true to the basic values (pro-social subversives?) and innovative approaches to improvisational music. Similar to so many TH-cam sites dedicated to 'gear-tography', there are as many music sites dedicated to self described 'audiophiles' with way too much time and money to burn to actually bother making music. But as a former college educator (Associate Professor, Jissen Women's College), I would take your message one step further. There are a lot of bad actors on the world political/economic stage (dark-triad personality types) who are way too good at 'telling their story' at the expense of others. So in empowering EVERYONE to tell their story, you might be worsening the problem. I would add a moral element that is also missing from a lot of otherwise good music instruction sites. If we are going to tell our stories, let's remember to add the moral element of empowering the marginalized, and holding authority accountable. I know of a lot of TH-camrs who are demonetized for that very thing. But in the end, it is either that, or using this platform for self-promotion as a salesman. Not a lot of wiggle room for a moral gray-zone. As you both mentioned in your excellent dialogue, I am guessing the economic system and consumer culture are having a big, and not necessarily 'good' impact on the creative process. Time, hopefully sifts the chaff from the wheat, but hindsight is 20-20. 😆 By the way ... upvoted, followed, and notifications turned on!
Great video a lot to take in and think about. I made a lot of money when we went digital and the gear was nothing like it is today. So bigger is not better there are sometimes you do need gear that will help. You are the guy with the eye and brain that can help make an image better not your gear.
Sorry I’ve heard lots of TH-cam video reviewers talk about ergonomics and how the camera feels in the hand.They all talk about the same features of any new camera.
Hey Joe. I guess you love Olympus enough so that you had it branded on your arm. I didn't see the Nikon brand. I suppose even with a twenty year affair you didn't love it enough?😊
fun stuff. in some ways you are making Tony's point for him--the iPhone/Pixel is good enough for most people and only those who push the limits like sports photography, wildlife photography where you need LIGHT and Length. But I totally get it, I rented the EM1 and now just using a D7500 and thinking about using it during travel and comparing images and thinking about mostly I am really just capturing memory with the occasional cool image. And yeah, I wish Olympus had an Android deal with the pixel software would be awesome
Great podcast!!! I’m becoming a member. Joe, you are great! You are An Original Gangsta, O/G Photographer. That comes from the heart. Love the gear-tographer...I would love to hear an argument between “photography”. And “digital imagery”. In other words. Does photography have an ethical argument? The reason no one looks like their Instagram pictures because they are lying on their imagery. You heart it here first: “ A digital image does NOT a photograph make!” Is it the NY skyline if I erase the Empire State Building. Old people, the science of photography...rules vs. The young, the craft of imagery...anything goes. You get the point. -Dr. Leo Sneed
PS The only full frame cameras I own are film cameras, which I occasionally use for B&W. I own a NIKON N50 and, an old Minolta I got at a yard sale for$10.00 with a Sunpac flash, and a Bronica medium format camera. I will probably sell the medium format and donate the Minolta to a school. I may replace them with a used NIKON N100 or used NIKON high end film camera body. I find no real advantage in modern full frame digital cameras that make them worth the premium.
Honestly, I'm a little aggravated that nobody has produced mirror-less 24mmx24mm size sensor 24MP body with just a flip out screen and a legacy mount. That's the most practical tool imaginable. You hold it one way, you're completely in tune with your environment and the camera, with plenty of cropping power and composition flexibility in post. GRRRRR! WHY IS NOBODY MAKING THIS DESIGN! ARGH!
Go try a few cameras, pick what feels best for you because you're likely going to A) move on to something else and B) be the problem taking pictures, not the camera. Use it for a while. really get to know it. You'll find what you do and dont like, and move on from there. Rinse and repeat. I have cameras from basically every brand now, but I dont really like canon's colors in a lot of models, or how the cameras feel at all. Their menus are awesome though. I prefer Nikon, but also like Sony for a lot of things. I want one of the new Fuji - but at the end of the day, whatever - its what I have and what I'm taking pictures of. For most people, my gear is not ideal since I'm a night fotog and varied in what I like to shoot. There are so many cameras and favorites for people because there is so much to take pictures of, and so many people taking pictures. Find what you enjoy.
Joe, I think you should come back to shooting film, developing, and darkroom printing process. If you take the lead, it'll bring back lots of excitement to photography with younger creatives. You're fighting, and advocating to digital people who love gear, and only gear talk. With China in the playing field with these cheap sharp copy lenses, cheap studio lights, photography is no longer about composing a story. Please come back to film, and do segments with Lina Bessnova, Alan Brock, and film shooters.
Or do both? Depends on someone's business model. I'd rather be shooting film, but my location, access to chemicals and space to dedicate to it, the cost of film and related accoutrements are all working against it. So it's digital until I can get these costs down.
@@MiaogisTeas Yes, whichever works best for your workflow. I started with digital, and currently the process of doing 80% film for those special shots. I don't think the cost of film is a major issue for small business owners, it migh even be an unique selling proposition.
Joe what are the strobes that you are using in your background are this Interfit flashes? What happened to the Honey badger strobes? Regarding M4/3 large groups and low lights and high ISO not very good to noisy. New Olympus the top of the line best ergonomics but the sensor is to old and the EVF is not that great compare to G9 , last the price is to high compare to Sony 7 3. I think 4/3 as a place but it will be a hard sale to professionals with price for full frame camera starting at $1300 I know with 60% less features then Olympus. Very interesting conversation to both you.
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?
Going to get to a point where there will be camera operators not photographers. Yet I see many more famous photographers moving to larger medium format cameras with larger sensors. Of Course they can afford the thousands of dollars for a camera body. Allot of photographers match the cameras to the job. Annie Leibovitz famous for her famous people portraits has used a great many different cameras and still does . I think the last video showing her taking pics for her latest book she was using some kind of hasselblad digital medium format but she has the best attitude use the best camera for the job. I think she has used most everything. Landscape photographer I follow uses one of th Fuji medium format cameras not sure if its the $10k one or a cheaper one. Yea all I got from this conversation was how pleased the one guy was dumping his Nikon and going to mirrorless olympus? Dunno some of the youtube guys are moving away from picture cameras and towards 5 and 8k movie cameras like Red and Zcam and others. But yea this vid wasn't helpful As Ansel Adams said “The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” Meaning you the photographer.
Composition matters more than gear. Your choice of gear will impact how you compose a shot, but your vision and abilities as a photographer will impact it far more.
We are in a time where AI is outstripping the need for human talent in many industries and on many levels. Trust me, that will come back to wreak havoc in ways we can only imagine in the late summer of 2019.
10:50 I've had one of the recent Sony cameras...and the recent m4/3 cameras and now a Nikon Z. I can say for sure that while Sony has some good cameras, they're not necessarily 'best' for everyone and there are many things other cameras/brands do better. Of course, you get disparaged by gear fans for saying that, but it's the truth. If people would focus more on actually making nice photos rather than talking about photons and other BS in the gear forums, they would be much better off (and happier). And 14:21 Yes, phones do well these days but obviously are far below the standard of a good APS-C or FF sensor and that still matters for anyone that cares about editing and image quality. my iPhone XR makes nice photos, but I only use it to document something at work. Never use it for serious photography. People who would have bought point and shoot cameras and been happy with those type of cameras are the people that are completely happy with phone photos. If you don't care about editing and the image quality isn't important, then phones would be totally fine for higher end art as well. But technically, phones are not anywhere near the quality of a good large sensor (high ISO & DR for example)...and the fake bokeh still isn't convincing (enough).
No youtubers talk about camera ergonomics?? Are you kidding me? Everyone talks about ergonomics all the time! Big Nikon DSLRs are big and heavy, Sony has lenses where bigger fingers get squeezed between the lens and grip, this or that lens is front heavy on this or that body, etc, etc.
Ergonomics is individual. I don’t care that this journalist or that TH-camr likes the ergonomic of this or that camera. I would not see any added. value. Modern cameras , especially mirrorless, are highly customizable. I am more interested to exchange on experience with camera using.. This help to have fun using your gear and practice more.
All other things being equal ... a larger format camera will always offer better image quality than a smaller format camera. This is true whether you consider film cameras, or digital cameras.
For example ... a 24 megapixel DX format camera compared to a 20 megapixel Full Frame camera. At first glance, you might believe the results would be more or less equal, which they are. But on closer examination, you'll see that a larger format camera will offer better dynamic range, and less noise. The difference in this range is NOT huge, but it's SURELY noticeable.
we invest in stuff we believe in, which in turn obligates us mentally, and we become fanboys - ultimately sufferering from the 'digital stockholm syndrome' . good analysis.
Actually film is resurgent again. The young photographers are picking it up fast and the older photographers are getting back to it. It is a “true” art form it requires skill, digital does not you can just slam 100 frames and one will be good. With film you have to know what to do and you only have so many frames on a roll. Yes for the average consumer the phone is fine I am talking about true photography for the purpose of art.
Not really. I mean when it comes to MFT... probably, just the fact you cant get a high resolution image when stopping down for more DoF. But i had FF for some years, i liked FF only because of 50mm primes being 50mm as well my 750mm F4 newton being 750mm (and nearly too tight already, 50mm as well 750mm for AP). Also the low light performance was also pretty good despite having an outdated FF sensor (2016, EOS 6D IIs sensor in the EOS RP). But since i "downgraded" sensor size but upped any other performence with the EOS R7 (APS-C) i would not want to go back to FF except for Astrophotography. You could not even tell a difference in IQ when you would compare a FF camera + 24-105 F4 vs my R7 with a very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 except if you compare the longest and shortest zoom (24mm vs 28 on the wide end and 88mm vs 105 on the tele, the FF setup has slightly more zoom range in both directions) And i think thats the point in this video... a good APS-C or MFT setup can even beat a "cheap" full frame setup with garbage glass. On top... with APS-C, MFT even more, you can create smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses than its FF equivalent. Also smaller sensors can be better stabilised (thats why the Panasonic G9 II etc has that great IBIS) Yes, if you can (budget and weight/size wise), full frame. For wildlife i would love a R6 II + modern 600mm F4 with and without 1,4x TC used. But thats nearly 20k $, my car costed less which im driving since 2010 including service and repairs... APS-C or MFT is the way to go for most people interested in photography, FF (or bigger) more or less exclusively PROFESSIONALS, with some exceptions such as astrophotography, high MP needs (beyond 60MP) etc.
Pic Orientated talk: FF is good for certain kinds of photography. And APSC is good for the crop factor... say, to focus on an object or object group. So what's the answer? Get one of each... preferably with a nice set of compatible lenses.
5gz wifi is still faster than LTE and we won't be seeing 5g standardized and propagated for sometime. Name your brand, they all have apps for Android, iOS, Mac and Windows which will pair to the camera and send it to your computers HD or some cloud storage. Still it would be neat, and expensive on your cell bill, as well as supporting global data bands.
I thought the myth of full frame was something to do with DOF bokeh compression and lens choice it appears to be about why we shouldn’t get GAS “Olympus curious” that’s new
I really liked the part when Joe was talking about the people that are equipment fans with no photography ability. I have seen many people like that but even more surprising is the number of people out there, mostly young women, that call themselves professional photographers and have no idea how to use their equipment. The sad part of that is they are getting paid for their lack of knowledge and skills to boot.
Its all about the pictures. I saw professionals that didn't know anything about exposure triangle, yet they was able to put themselves into situations where they took excelent pictures. Being in the situation is more important then learn all about tec on the internet.
People don't print pictures anymore. They live in a world of unrealised potential, like owning a Ferrari to go to the convenience store. Any camera on sale today from M4/3 to full frame will provide a sharp 30" gallery quality print. Matted and framed that's a lot of wall space.
Here it is, the stupidest fucking comment I have read all day. People absolutely still print. I sell thousands a week in prints from my sessions and sizes way bigger then 30 inches. I sell several 60"+ prints a week. My images are on billboards and on the side of buildings all over the world.
Good advert for Olympus ..... if you believe what they're saying. If they can't use full frame to its best advantage (because they don't want to or don't know how) I'm sure the next video will be Phase One IQ250... why my Olympus point and shoot takes better portraits ;-)
I shot a feature film with a GH5. I've since moved to the BMPCC4K. And I get amazing footage out of it. So, no, micro 4/3 will never be dead. In my time as a film maker, and after hundreds of hours of researching my choices in film gear purchases, I've discovered that there are a lot of brand specific fan boys. When I see people putting one brand over another, there is always a self-serving need behind it. Whether it's about getting sponsorships or subscribers, it's a thing. You say you get better bokeh with full frame sensors? So what? Get the "tool" you like and feel comfortable with. Leave the brand slamming to the fan boys.
What is called "full frame" is basically digital 35mm. Back in the day ( when I was spending way too much time in the darkroom ) 35mm was considered a SMALL format! The Mamiya RB 6X7 was my camera of choice as I could not afford a Hasselblad! I think the term full frame was actually coined by the camera companies ( Canon, Nikon, Permaflex, etc. ) to make the digital 35mm format seem much bigger than reality.
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...
“Full Frame” is a term created by gear-a-holics - sounds a lot better than saying “legacy 35mm film size” which is what it is. As someone who shot 35mm back in the 1980s and 90s, we didn’t think 35mm was the “best” format... it was just more convenient and good enough compared to medium and larger format film. A 35mm size “full frame” sensor was selected by the early DSLR makers (Kodak) largely for backward compatibility with existing lens for the 35mm format. As a technology professional, I always wondered what size sensor would have been chosen had designers been able to design the 1st high end enthusiast digital cameras with a “clean slate” - no need for backward compatibility. Doubtful it would be 35mm sized sensor - nothing magical about that size.
When 4x5" was standard 35mm was called "miniature photography", since it was only about 1/20th the size of negative. far from "full frame" Even worse, common Medium Format sensor is not 6x9cm, but 4.4 x 3.3cm. (less than 2x the size of 35mm, whilst MF film was 4.5x the size of 35mm). For real Pro work we ought to have 4x5 inch sensors with 400mpx. That would approach the resolution we had in 60 years ago, using Kodak Technical Pan film.
At last - somebody speaking sense. In the 1970's I was a young photojournalist for a London Newspaper....the older guys used medium format cameras (e.g. Mamya, Rollei) and thought the younger guys who used 35mm film cameras as 'in adequate' because their sensor size/film size was too small! Over the years I have owned many cameras including Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon etc. Today I pick my camera based on quality of glass, size, weight and image quality. At the moment I have an APSC camera and honestly you can't tell the difference in 99% of the time...I borrowed a full frame camera recently because I was shooting a concert where the lighting non-existent...but unless you live in a cave it was too big and heavy for my daily use.
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.
My old mate used to say the most important part of a camera is the nut behind it. I use Nikon because they are good and I am used to the menu's, I have used cannon but found it to be a great camera but the ergonomics and menu's were, and only in my opinion tricky to use, but I guess it's what you are used to. Personally I like film photography it's more of a challenge because one can't review the pictures taken so one must learn how to use the camera on both auto and manual. Just my opinion though, I think the main thing is just having fun.
and as soon as Joe had his chance he dumped his m 4/3 gear and went full frame. Sais his Olympus gear is good enough for taking photo's of his grand kids. I threw every word he has said over the years in the trash and unfollowed him
I love the term "geartographer"! I have a few photographer friends that bug me for being so out of date with my 7D Mark II and all my version one f2.8L glass that I've used for the last 15 years. Your shots would be so much better with the 70-200 f2.8 USM III! Look at the specs of your lens! They suck! Needless to say, I've never upgraded to fully frame or mirrorless. Simply because what I currently have does a great job. When was the last time you looked at a photo and said, "WOW! what a great full frame picture!" "Look at that 4/3's bokeh". Innovation is great. But not I'm not changing just because there's something new. Trying mirrorless interests me, full frame interests me, but if I really had to choose between a trip and a new camera body, the trip wins hands down. Just take more photos! Great video :)
Am I misunderstanding or did you both say that the camera is going to make the decisions and you're happy with that? So you would have anyone with a camera shoot your wedding? Taking pictures is one thing but taking pictures people want is another. I can run around pointing my camera at things and use pre-determined profile settings to get 'computer preferred' bokeh or depth of field for portrait or landscape but knowing how to frame/compose/light a shot is a whole different ballgame. People don't buy my photos because they are perfectly computer calculated - they buy them because they like the framing, lighting, and composition decisions I made at the time that I took the photo. And deciding that a shot would look better with X bokeh compared to Y bokeh. There use to be one market of people just shooting snapshots and a completely separate market of pros - so maybe Nikon/Canon/Etal should admit they tried to convert a 'consumer' marketto pro equipment and now they are paying the price as the market corrects for that. Let daily snapshot folks have the new point-n-clicks (low end cameras and/or camera phones) and be happy with that market being its own market. Get back to focusing the high-end gear on the core market of serious hobbyists and pros. These market 'losses' they are seeing are just market correction as the two markets correctly split again as they technology needs and cost justifications for each market are very different.
All Joe's talk about Sony fanboyism is so disingenuous. The world was all Canon vs Nikon forever. Every event I attended for years you'd hear Canon/Nkon back and forth between photographers. Then Sony comes along and provides some new features and the Nikon and Canon fanboys felt so threatened they both turned on Sony users.
mavfan1 I don’t get it too. I don’t know of it is because Sony didn’t took him as an ambassador as Olympus did ($$$) or something else. Actually , to be sincerely Fuji users are much more fanboys than Sony ones
So true. I shot Sony for years before I went to Panasonic m43. I never even considered buying Canon or Nikon. I’m sure their cameras are brilliant, but after the abuse and snobbery I experienced from their users (including photography retail store staff), I’d never consider buying them.
So, when OM Systems dropped Joe from their ambassador team, he dumped all of his Olympus gear and went to a Sony high FF resolution camera. I don't necessarily disagree with his choice but it really seems to minimize his previous promotion of m43.
Joe was a good photographer, but I’m sure he wanted to bite the apple with Eve eventually 🍎 😅
This video has 2 years and so far this was the best video I've watched about photography as a beginner...it put my foot on the ground and avoid me to spent unnecessary money thank you...
In the end, use whatever the heck you want to use. Just Shoot!
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
@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!
@Randall Huleva It sounds as if you are assuming a lot. I don't need your rudimentary photography or business advice!
I actually studied photography in a real college for two years. I have had work published. I have won awards. I won't tell you where or when because that will probably result in an unsolicited biased all negative critique of my work, no matter how good it is.
You just don't get my point. As I said everybody thinks they are a photographer! They have convinced people who don't know better that bad photography is better than good photography. Get it!? They get work as photographers. Get it? That work could have gone to someone who actually knows what they are doing. Get it??!! ...and there are a lot of them. Get it?! That is it!
i've been shooting a lot more film and seem happy for it. I use a tripod a lot and I very seldom see anyone using them on youtube reviews of cameras. I haven't had much luck in low light hand holding.
Yikes. I adore Joe, I’ve gone to a conference just to see him give a talk and do a shoot with him. Joe, you’re an AMAZING photographer but this conversation adds nothing constructive to the discourse, I watched it from beginning to end and just noticed you talk a bunch of trash, try to settle scores that don’t need be settled. Your work speaks for itself, period. M43 is OBVIOUSLY a viable, alive, and thriving platform for photography. Show us a meaningful way forward, break down for us how the Em1 ii has had a positive impact on your work. Tell us what you love about creating great images with the gear you’re grinding. You can do better than this. Still love you Joe.
Description reads "aside from the obvious physics". Yeah, there's really no myth, is there?
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,
My hobbies aren’t cheap. Luckily my wife’s hobbies are expensive too. Did you know they make $12,000 sewing machines. She likes cameras too.
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.
I'm just here to say. I shot crop frame for years. I have an A0 image on my living room wall shot with a Nikon D90 (12mpix) so I know whats possible with a crop sensor. I recently moved over to full frame. Its not a myth. There are benefits. As to whether those benefits are worth the cost and weight, each photographer must decide that on their own.
Frederick -- very much enjoy your site and your interviews; most happy to see this chat with Joe! Joe always brings the photo love to wherever he goes -- this was no exception. Great convo by you both! Thanks!
I gave up on upgrading cameras a while ago : the gx85 shoots wonderful 4k stabilized video and you can adapt any lens you want. The Olympus 1.2 lenses are stellar for pro photo work and Sigma foveon cameras are amazing for more artsy work. I even shoot with older CCD based Nikons for family pictures, nothing can beat the skin tones of those cameras
I love the GX85!
This is 4yrs after this was posted, but I still find Joes views on photography, gear, brands and "influencers". There are two well known (a couple) TH-camrs that annoy their brand jumping and brand / sensor sabotage.
Finally .. Analogue photography is now bringing more young people into photography. One of my much younger work colleagues is now shooting film and developing his own film, now I'm happy that photography isn't dead.
Unrelated, but I just wanted to give you props for not revealing your sub count. It's about the quality of the content, not just flexing numbers.
Did they talk about full frame myths at all? Or am I trippin?
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.
Just bought into fullframe for use with my vintage lenses, coming from Fuji APS -C. I was just not aware about the advantages of FF in difficult situations like high contrast or low light. The immense dynamic range and low light capabilities just make a difference in post. In standard situations i agree, any modern camera is more than capable. I also keep selected Fuji gear, because there are just many situations where you don't want to carry a kilo+ of stuff with you.
Not disagreeing with anyone, but my issue was interior, no flash, architectural shots for large print. I had fully invested in Oly m4/3 for years and wasn't happy with the prints. Tried the Sony a7R3 and changed everything over. Yes, heavy as f*. Not cheap. Love the results. I don't do weddings, portraits, people and online is just an adjunct to what I want. So, take that with a grain of salt, a slice of lime, and some Don Julio.
Good video, but a point was raised about ergonomics and actual use not being addressed and virtually every camera review I watch focuses on those and UX.
Wonderful conversation, I listened it while driving my car through crazy Yogyakarta Indonesia... No accident so excellent content 😄😉
Wouldn't better content increase the chance of an accident?
Olympus should be dominating the market. Their cameras are every bit as retro and cool looking as Fuji while also being WAY more convenient and smaller than Fuji cameras. All they need is vintage film simulation colours in JPGs just like Fuji and they've got a winning recipe. Why the hell isn't Olympus doing anything about it? This is such an easy opportunity for them to capitalize on. Fuji's hipster X100VI is huge.... with a fixed lens, and for some reason that camera got 1 million pre-orders?? LOL.
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.
Great conversation, but the title does not cover the contents. Ff a myth is maybe 1 minute of the conversation and it doesn't even come to a nice conclusion with a bunch of arguments. Bit disappointed about that...
@Randall Huleva 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. 😉
Great conversation, all true. In November 2017 I got my first E-M1m2 and never regret that. I enjoy every bit of the system. Also I register in Czech republic Olympus club which has fantastic customer support, gear training, photo exhibitions and monthly contests and much more .... For the end user either professional or amateur it is just fantastic. I feel like I have the company fully behind. Too bad it is not the same here in the USA.
I like Joe Edelman. I have a few more years of experience but he knows what he's talking about and gives it to his audience straight up. I was surprised to hear he can shoot for billboards with a micro 4/3. I do a lot of that and wouldn't use anything less than my Nikon full-frame so I take my hat off to him.
Indeed a chat, rather than an interview.
Great video man, I switched to Olmpus MFT a few years back and it's great, such a huge weight saving and the image quality is great. I've got the convenience of my old 35mm SLR film cameras but with all the advantages of digital.
after watching the other guy's "M43s is dead" video; I lost all respect for him, after finding Joe Edelman, I went out and bought a Lumix G85 and then a GX85..... and then sold my full frame Nikons.... I'm hooked. M43 is just getting started.
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.
One things certain...you can get away on a bad lighting with a full frame BETTER than APSC.....On a Good lighting it's pretty insignificant
Thanks, a few months late, for a very enlightening 40 minutes. Well worth the time!
I particularly appreciated the comments about the often overlooked aspect of ergonomics. If it doesn't feel right in your hands, how much will you use it?
On the subject of people who complain about complicated camera menus... have you used Adobe Photoshop?
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.
Luckily, I just came across this video and I loved the entire thing. I’m kind of late to the party but I just subscribed and was looking at your subject titles and can’t wait to watch many of them. If they are like this video you should have over 100,000 views for each one because you really did an excellent job on this one. This is the first time I’ve seen any of your videos, but it won’t be the last.
The myth of full-frame was discussed like 40 seconds in a 40-minute video, but I really enjoy it. New subscriber here :)
Which 40 seconds?
No absolutes... there are some good teachers and reviewers here, have faith. I did find you both after all!
9:30 Who is being talked about here? Would it be Tony N. (and his wife)?
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. th-cam.com/video/qjXSnNMZ0PU/w-d-xo.html
Yes I believe they are referring to the Northrups. (I think they are absolutely OUTSTANDING)
It's not about which sensor size is better, it's about which sensor size best matches the lenses you're using and what you're photographing.
Say you have a 200mm lens. If you want to use that to shoot a portrait, you probably want to use a larger sensor so you can get closer and minimize your depth of field. But if you're shooting a sports event and you can't get close enough to your subject to fill your frame, a smaller sensor is probably the better choice.
I'm a Nikon shooter and I do a mix of portraits, sports, events, and landscapes. I use both full frame and APS-C bodies (D750 and D7200, fantastic pair!) and swap them out as necessary. I shot a regatta out of Annapolis, MD, USA this last weekend and I used a 70-200 f/2.8 on my D750 and a 300mm f/4 on my D7200. I got twice as many "keepers" on the crop sensor setup, and I got them without having to crop out crazy amounts of image space.
Remember: a camera is just a box to collect light. Pay attention to how you're collecting the light and everything else just works out.
"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")
One of my favourite TH-cam photography channels involves a guy talking about technique using just an entry level Nikon DSLR with the kit lens. The focus is all on technique and not on gear, which is how it should be, especially for those of us who just want to learn how to take great pictures. That is all we want to do, we're not aiming to be professional photographers but we are aiming to be proficient photographers.
I use a Nikon D700 and D3!! love the photo's they produce!! I actually sold a D500 to buy a very nice lens :) I have found that I don't need a lot of modern tech! don't need video, touchscreen, blue tooth, wifi!!! and I don't want to deal with massive file sizes! and I don't print stuff that covers castles :) I really do believe modern cameras are hyped up!! I'm not saying they are bad!! but they make people feel they need them!! they will produce the best pictures!! its down to the user and the glass!!! seriously!! people need to talk about glass more than bodies :) why do I use a D3? because its a tank that lasts all day on battery power!! takes stunning photos!! and great if your in the middle of nowhere :) away from cities and tech!! just photography!!! no social media!! and it will survive an alien invasion :)!! but saying all this! you do get assholes who give you attitude and talk to you like your a terrorist!! but thats not stopping me from using DLSR cameras
Love my D700, totally agree with you. just had a shot blown up to 8 ft. looks awesome and tack sharp. 12 megapixels, plus you don't choke your computer and hard drives with these huge files. I have newer and higher meg cameras, but I just love the output and feel of that D700. What a bargain now too! You can buy a full frame Nikon or Canon FF like the 5d for a few hundred buck and they are hard to kill.
@@CVCC Yep! You can probably go back to my first digital, a sony P71 @ 3.2mp and print out decent prints from it. Its a beast point and shoot. Slow focusing, slow wiriting to the card, and the LCD is smaller than most viewfinders but it still takes good shots. Its more of the photog being cool with their gear at this point.
I think Olympus has some great sensor tech. What they do with that small of a sensor is really great. However, when Sony, Canon, and Nikon are putting out aps-c cameras at 30mp and full frames at 60+ mp, newcomers to the market are going to look at the 20mp of Olympus and pass them right by if Olympus doesn't step up their game.
Mike Dixon That would be an example of marketing over functionality. Very few photographers, even among professionals (however defined), have practical use for 60 MP. While some people certainly will buy on the numbers, chasing marketing over practical use, other nice features (like shooting speed, buffer size, cooling requirements) doesn’t seem like the direction in which I’d hope companies would go.
@@jamespeirce2582 I hope Olympus has some advances in their sensor technology in the near future because if they are betting their future on marketing ability it's going to be a tough sell. New customers look at features, and 1/3 the number of pixels is a big feature spec hurdle to jump. As for "no practical use" I would beg to differ because it allows for a great deal of cropping, saving both money and weight on buying a 600mm or 800mm lens and still having 20 to 30 mp of image left.
It's hard to take anyone seriously when they have an Olympus tattoo across their forearm.
You have to admire the commitment though!
That's why i love techgeartalk. All the specs from user perspective. I skip all those "but this cause its new" rewievs . Ill stay with my sl2, It gets the job done and i love its ergonomics. But sometimes i just feel i need to dust off my trusty P6 and just shoot a roll. Its a personal experience and no amount of MP or sensor size will change that. Pieriod.
At 36:00 - for wish items for cameras.... Please add night-vision and infrared / heat sensing capabilities.
Didn't Minolta sell cards that added some extra functionality to some of their film cameras? The likes of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic etc have at last woken up to computational/AI tech that Apple/Samsung have pioneered in recent years. The idea of adding customisations or d/l'ing custom F/W updates from a phone or tablet is an interesting idea.
As an aside, I've stayed FF with a Z6 but appreciate many would prefer to cart around less weight!
They already made FF cameras smaller and everyone complained about it. I swear, if I see another reviewer showing their pinky hanging off a grip... Unless these imaginary future people grow smaller hands, I don't see the camera size getting smaller. Maybe these future people will shed their pinkies. You have to design ergonomically, and sometimes that means you can't make it smaller. Lighter is more likely.
I agree with much of what was said regarding digital & possible paths regarding the various sizes and formats. I am a photographer from the "film days", and avoided going digital (except I did own a Nikon "Coolpix" temporarily in the early to mid-2000's until cell phone image quality became better). I purchased a used APSC Nikon D3400, and am really happy with it, but would love to give an Olympus OMD a spin, along with possibly a FF dslr. I know that eventually, mirrorless will replace dslrs, but I like that "film days" experience (the mirror slap, etc.), which I still shoot in all formats. I agree also with the younger generation's aim to "experience photography with more, not less human interaction, which is why film has enjoyed a slight resurgence. I mean who would have dreamed a couple of years ago that Ektachrome would be re-introduced, or that certain film cameras are fetching record prices on the used market? Many of the younger generation enjoy making art through their developing knowledge of the basics of photography, and what better way than with a no frills manual camera? Still, I recognize that I've become "spoiled" with all the technology digital can provide, thus enabling me to capture shots I'm sure I would miss using a film camera.
My iPhone X never fails to amaze me with the fantastic shots I take with it. Such a tiny lens/processor, kind of seems surreal that it can compete with most point and shoots and even dslr’s. P.s. This was an excellent expose on the state of photography/cameras today and where we may be headed. To me, smaller cameras with larger sensors is the way to go and as the iPhones progress (and other phones), they will be your primary carry camera. Regarding manufacturers, I’ll bet Sony is the first to downsize cameras without losing quality for all parts. Also, I do love Olympus. Own Olympus, Canon and Sony.
Love Joe and totally agree with him on EVERYTHING in this talk.
Where's the FF myth part? Some good points but from an Olympus whatever they call it? Also regarding the AI, if that's the future then one might as well shoot with a point and shoot, then call it a day. Definitely agree about the gear heads and people need to actually learn how to shoot
there are no myths..it's just making a point to shoot 4/3 because he says so...
The myth. Is still the myth.
@@one4allall4one91 ..unless you have proof that's still a myth and opinion...
Here we go with the BS>>Just because a person shoots a certain way,with certain gear,does not make someone else's methods and gear a myth.Whether it's 4/3 or medium format,or in between,they are all different,so the only myth is that one imagined in someone's head.It stands to reason if someone uses certain brands or formats,they will support it.That does nOT take away from the FACTS and science that govern the capabilities of said format..
@@one4allall4one91 ..Here you go...reality..
Great talk, enjoyed it a lot. Keep doing, Joe!
Great video fellas
Really Manny ? All they did was beat around the bush
There is a definite difference between full frame and crop sensors but this is principally due to the depth of field difference. Were it the case that there were more F1.0 lenses for crop sensors then the crop sensors would be at an advantage for many kinds of shooting as they would have similar shallow DOF capabilities to full frames but they would have the benefit of being able to shoot this similar DOF at double the shutter speed or half the ISO… not only does this negate the ISO advantage that full frame seems to have, it actually gives the advantage to the crop sensor.
Full frame and larger format sensors do have an advantage, however, by way of their ability to resolve detail… FOV is critical and for a given FOV the full frame lens is optically “closer” (i.e. 50mm vs 35mm) than the crop sensor. In my experience this is hard to detect between some lenses but it becomes easier to detect on longer lenses and when the sensors get smaller than APS-C (i.e. 4/3).
Excellent dialogue!
I use my iPhone, an Olympus Tough TG-5, and a Canon 80-D, and way too much glass for it. But to hi-lite what I thought was the big take-away from this video, I thought I'd switch to a parallel domain.
I also doodle around with jazz guitar, and have seen the same problem of getting more caught up in the technology than in the art of telling your story. In fact, have seen this before in the history of jazz at the beginning of the jazz-rock fusion era emerging from Miles Davis's jam bands ... Weather Report, Mahavishnu, Return to Forever, Lifetime, Headhunters ... all these great supergroups got caught up at one time or another in the emerging technology of electric instruments and effects.
But as the musicians matured, they proved their creative genius by staying true to the basic values (pro-social subversives?) and innovative approaches to improvisational music.
Similar to so many TH-cam sites dedicated to 'gear-tography', there are as many music sites dedicated to self described 'audiophiles' with way too much time and money to burn to actually bother making music.
But as a former college educator (Associate Professor, Jissen Women's College), I would take your message one step further.
There are a lot of bad actors on the world political/economic stage (dark-triad personality types) who are way too good at 'telling their story' at the expense of others. So in empowering EVERYONE to tell their story, you might be worsening the problem. I would add a moral element that is also missing from a lot of otherwise good music instruction sites. If we are going to tell our stories, let's remember to add the moral element of empowering the marginalized, and holding authority accountable. I know of a lot of TH-camrs who are demonetized for that very thing. But in the end, it is either that, or using this platform for self-promotion as a salesman. Not a lot of wiggle room for a moral gray-zone.
As you both mentioned in your excellent dialogue, I am guessing the economic system and consumer culture are having a big, and not necessarily 'good' impact on the creative process. Time, hopefully sifts the chaff from the wheat, but hindsight is 20-20. 😆
By the way ... upvoted, followed, and notifications turned on!
Great video a lot to take in and think about. I made a lot of money when we went digital and the gear was nothing like it is today. So bigger is not better there are sometimes you do need gear that will help. You are the guy with the eye and brain that can help make an image better not your gear.
Sorry I’ve heard lots of TH-cam video reviewers talk about ergonomics and how the camera feels in the hand.They all talk about the same features of any new camera.
So true, you don't make better pictures with a bigger/more expensive camera (or lens). But hey, marketeers are trying hard to tell us different
Hey Joe. I guess you love Olympus enough so that you had it branded on your arm. I didn't see the Nikon brand. I suppose even with a twenty year affair you didn't love it enough?😊
ten minutes in, a good show, but still no mention of photo-sensors ( the full frame - APSC- Four-thirds part of the camera)
fun stuff. in some ways you are making Tony's point for him--the iPhone/Pixel is good enough for most people and only those who push the limits like sports photography, wildlife photography where you need LIGHT and Length. But I totally get it, I rented the EM1 and now just using a D7500 and thinking about using it during travel and comparing images and thinking about mostly I am really just capturing memory with the occasional cool image. And yeah, I wish Olympus had an Android deal with the pixel software would be awesome
Great podcast!!! I’m becoming a member. Joe, you are great! You are An Original Gangsta, O/G Photographer. That comes from the heart. Love the gear-tographer...I would love to hear an argument between “photography”. And “digital imagery”. In other words. Does photography have an ethical argument? The reason no one looks like their Instagram pictures because they are lying on their imagery. You heart it here first: “ A digital image does NOT a photograph make!” Is it the NY skyline if I erase the Empire State Building. Old people, the science of photography...rules vs. The young, the craft of imagery...anything goes. You get the point.
-Dr. Leo Sneed
Love the talk you IDEA of a WIRELESS CLOUD CAMERA is AWESOME
For a guy who eschews all that is not NIKON, the OLYMPUS tattoo on his arm seems like real commitment!
Is that an “Olympus” tattoo on Joe’s forearm!?
Yes, he's a paid Olympus speaker.
Because he is the REAL Zzzeus s [THUNDER!!]
@@mavfan1 He drank the Olympus Koolaide
And he's talking about Sony fanboys.... With an Olympus tattoo on his arm.
PS The only full frame cameras I own are film cameras, which I occasionally use for B&W. I own a NIKON N50 and, an old Minolta I got at a yard sale for$10.00 with a Sunpac flash, and a Bronica medium format camera. I will probably sell the medium format and donate the Minolta to a school. I may replace them with a used NIKON N100 or used NIKON high end film camera body. I find no real advantage in modern full frame digital cameras that make them worth the premium.
Why doesnt Olympus talk about these myths on their web site to dispel the myths!
Honestly, I'm a little aggravated that nobody has produced mirror-less 24mmx24mm size sensor 24MP body with just a flip out screen and a legacy mount. That's the most practical tool imaginable. You hold it one way, you're completely in tune with your environment and the camera, with plenty of cropping power and composition flexibility in post. GRRRRR! WHY IS NOBODY MAKING THIS DESIGN! ARGH!
2023 Huge thanks 🙂
Go try a few cameras, pick what feels best for you because you're likely going to A) move on to something else and B) be the problem taking pictures, not the camera. Use it for a while. really get to know it. You'll find what you do and dont like, and move on from there. Rinse and repeat. I have cameras from basically every brand now, but I dont really like canon's colors in a lot of models, or how the cameras feel at all. Their menus are awesome though. I prefer Nikon, but also like Sony for a lot of things. I want one of the new Fuji - but at the end of the day, whatever - its what I have and what I'm taking pictures of. For most people, my gear is not ideal since I'm a night fotog and varied in what I like to shoot. There are so many cameras and favorites for people because there is so much to take pictures of, and so many people taking pictures. Find what you enjoy.
Joe, I think you should come back to shooting film, developing, and darkroom printing process. If you take the lead, it'll bring back lots of excitement to photography with younger creatives.
You're fighting, and advocating to digital people who love gear, and only gear talk.
With China in the playing field with these cheap sharp copy lenses, cheap studio lights, photography is no longer about composing a story.
Please come back to film, and do segments with Lina Bessnova, Alan Brock, and film shooters.
Or do both? Depends on someone's business model. I'd rather be shooting film, but my location, access to chemicals and space to dedicate to it, the cost of film and related accoutrements are all working against it. So it's digital until I can get these costs down.
@@MiaogisTeas Yes, whichever works best for your workflow. I started with digital, and currently the process of doing 80% film for those special shots. I don't think the cost of film is a major issue for small business owners, it migh even be an unique selling proposition.
Love these podcasts, very informative and insightful!
Joe what are the strobes that you are using in your background are this Interfit flashes? What happened to the Honey badger strobes?
Regarding M4/3 large groups and low lights and high ISO not very good to noisy.
New Olympus the top of the line best ergonomics but the sensor is to old and the EVF is not that great compare to G9 , last the price is to high compare to Sony 7 3.
I think 4/3 as a place but it will be a hard sale to professionals with price for full frame camera starting at $1300 I know with 60% less features then Olympus. Very interesting conversation to both you.
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?
Black and white Poindexters
They are just trying to make us buy more and more, obviously. Sony a6400 + Sigma lenses + talent = money. And some still left in your bank account.
Going to get to a point where there will be camera operators not photographers. Yet I see many more famous photographers moving to larger medium format cameras with larger sensors. Of Course they can afford the thousands of dollars for a camera body. Allot of photographers match the cameras to the job. Annie Leibovitz famous for her famous people portraits has used a great many different cameras and still does . I think the last video showing her taking pics for her latest book she was using some kind of hasselblad digital medium format but she has the best attitude use the best camera for the job. I think she has used most everything. Landscape photographer I follow uses one of th Fuji medium format cameras not sure if its the $10k one or a cheaper one. Yea all I got from this conversation was how pleased the one guy was dumping his Nikon and going to mirrorless olympus? Dunno some of the youtube guys are moving away from picture cameras and towards 5 and 8k movie cameras like Red and Zcam and others. But yea this vid wasn't helpful As Ansel Adams said
“The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!” Meaning you the photographer.
It is about the photographer's skills not the kit!
Composition matters more than gear. Your choice of gear will impact how you compose a shot, but your vision and abilities as a photographer will impact it far more.
We are in a time where AI is outstripping the need for human talent in many industries and on many levels.
Trust me, that will come back to wreak havoc in ways we can only imagine in the late summer of 2019.
Joe is a fantastic teacher and trainer! But wait -- you mean I can't learn to swim from watching TH-cam videos??? ;-)
10:50 I've had one of the recent Sony cameras...and the recent m4/3 cameras and now a Nikon Z. I can say for sure that while Sony has some good cameras, they're not necessarily 'best' for everyone and there are many things other cameras/brands do better. Of course, you get disparaged by gear fans for saying that, but it's the truth. If people would focus more on actually making nice photos rather than talking about photons and other BS in the gear forums, they would be much better off (and happier). And 14:21 Yes, phones do well these days but obviously are far below the standard of a good APS-C or FF sensor and that still matters for anyone that cares about editing and image quality. my iPhone XR makes nice photos, but I only use it to document something at work. Never use it for serious photography. People who would have bought point and shoot cameras and been happy with those type of cameras are the people that are completely happy with phone photos. If you don't care about editing and the image quality isn't important, then phones would be totally fine for higher end art as well. But technically, phones are not anywhere near the quality of a good large sensor (high ISO & DR for example)...and the fake bokeh still isn't convincing (enough).
He has Olympus literally tattooed on his arm...
No youtubers talk about camera ergonomics?? Are you kidding me? Everyone talks about ergonomics all the time! Big Nikon DSLRs are big and heavy, Sony has lenses where bigger fingers get squeezed between the lens and grip, this or that lens is front heavy on this or that body, etc, etc.
Ergonomics is individual. I don’t care that this journalist or that TH-camr likes the ergonomic of this or that camera. I would not see any added. value. Modern cameras , especially mirrorless, are highly customizable. I am more interested to exchange on experience with camera using.. This help to have fun using your gear and practice more.
All other things being equal ...
a larger format camera will always offer better image quality
than a smaller format camera.
This is true whether you consider film cameras, or digital cameras.
For example ... a 24 megapixel DX format camera compared to a 20 megapixel Full Frame camera. At first glance, you might believe the results would be more or less equal, which they are. But on closer examination, you'll see that a larger format camera will offer better dynamic range, and less noise. The difference in this range is NOT huge, but it's SURELY noticeable.
i always pick my sony nex 5r for travel even if i have the latest of the sony a7 cameras...
in studio m4/3 is plenty. you have plenty of light and don't want a super shallow depth of field
we invest in stuff we believe in, which in turn obligates us mentally, and we become fanboys - ultimately sufferering from the 'digital stockholm syndrome' . good analysis.
How the hell is FULL FRAME a myth? It's a proven fact! And it's so real that nothing of non full frame deserves to be called full frame to this day.
Hey Joe what camera do you shoot with?
Toneh
Actually film is resurgent again. The young photographers are picking it up fast and the older photographers are getting back to it. It is a “true” art form it requires skill, digital does not you can just slam 100 frames and one will be good. With film you have to know what to do and you only have so many frames on a roll. Yes for the average consumer the phone is fine I am talking about true photography for the purpose of art.
Full frame picture image is always better
Not really. I mean when it comes to MFT... probably, just the fact you cant get a high resolution image when stopping down for more DoF.
But i had FF for some years, i liked FF only because of 50mm primes being 50mm as well my 750mm F4 newton being 750mm (and nearly too tight already, 50mm as well 750mm for AP). Also the low light performance was also pretty good despite having an outdated FF sensor (2016, EOS 6D IIs sensor in the EOS RP).
But since i "downgraded" sensor size but upped any other performence with the EOS R7 (APS-C) i would not want to go back to FF except for Astrophotography.
You could not even tell a difference in IQ when you would compare a FF camera + 24-105 F4 vs my R7 with a very old EF-S 17-55 2.8 except if you compare the longest and shortest zoom (24mm vs 28 on the wide end and 88mm vs 105 on the tele, the FF setup has slightly more zoom range in both directions)
And i think thats the point in this video... a good APS-C or MFT setup can even beat a "cheap" full frame setup with garbage glass. On top... with APS-C, MFT even more, you can create smaller, lighter and cheaper lenses than its FF equivalent. Also smaller sensors can be better stabilised (thats why the Panasonic G9 II etc has that great IBIS)
Yes, if you can (budget and weight/size wise), full frame. For wildlife i would love a R6 II + modern 600mm F4 with and without 1,4x TC used. But thats nearly 20k $, my car costed less which im driving since 2010 including service and repairs...
APS-C or MFT is the way to go for most people interested in photography, FF (or bigger) more or less exclusively PROFESSIONALS, with some exceptions such as astrophotography, high MP needs (beyond 60MP) etc.
Pic Orientated talk: FF is good for certain kinds of photography. And APSC is good for the crop factor... say, to focus on an object or object group. So what's the answer? Get one of each... preferably with a nice set of compatible lenses.
I sold my Nikon gear and bought an OM-1. Thank goodness I was right. 😅
I second that vote for cellular enabled camera's which should also allow GPS tracking if its stolen.
5gz wifi is still faster than LTE and we won't be seeing 5g standardized and propagated for sometime. Name your brand, they all have apps for Android, iOS, Mac and Windows which will pair to the camera and send it to your computers HD or some cloud storage. Still it would be neat, and expensive on your cell bill, as well as supporting global data bands.
I thought the myth of full frame was something to do with DOF bokeh compression and lens choice it appears to be about why we shouldn’t get GAS
“Olympus curious” that’s new
I really liked the part when Joe was talking about the people that are equipment fans with no photography ability. I have seen many people like that but even more surprising is the number of people out there, mostly young women, that call themselves professional photographers and have no idea how to use their equipment. The sad part of that is they are getting paid for their lack of knowledge and skills to boot.
Its all about the pictures. I saw professionals that didn't know anything about exposure triangle, yet they was able to put themselves into situations where they took excelent pictures. Being in the situation is more important then learn all about tec on the internet.
@@weizenobstmusli8232 That's because they set their cameras to "P" for professional, LOL!
@@Hoggdoc1946 , if I want to get the shot 100% I sometimes use iA, insecure amateur 🙄
ergonomics = program the camera to your own liking... geeeez how hard
steve Programming doesn’t change the feel in your hand. That’s UI/UX
@@justinspeer8481 oh...sry then:)
People don't print pictures anymore. They live in a world of unrealised potential, like owning a Ferrari to go to the convenience store. Any camera on sale today from M4/3 to full frame will provide a sharp 30" gallery quality print. Matted and framed that's a lot of wall space.
Here it is, the stupidest fucking comment I have read all day. People absolutely still print. I sell thousands a week in prints from my sessions and sizes way bigger then 30 inches. I sell several 60"+ prints a week. My images are on billboards and on the side of buildings all over the world.
Good advert for Olympus ..... if you believe what they're saying. If they can't use full frame to its best advantage (because they don't want to or don't know how) I'm sure the next video will be Phase One IQ250... why my Olympus point and shoot takes better portraits ;-)
I shot a feature film with a GH5. I've since moved to the BMPCC4K. And I get amazing footage out of it. So, no, micro 4/3 will never be dead. In my time as a film maker, and after hundreds of hours of researching my choices in film gear purchases, I've discovered that there are a lot of brand specific fan boys. When I see people putting one brand over another, there is always a self-serving need behind it. Whether it's about getting sponsorships or subscribers, it's a thing. You say you get better bokeh with full frame sensors? So what? Get the "tool" you like and feel comfortable with. Leave the brand slamming to the fan boys.
I was always been a fan of having a deep depth of field. Now I do a majority of my work with micro four third cameras.
What is called "full frame" is basically digital 35mm. Back in the day ( when I was spending way too much time in the darkroom ) 35mm was considered a SMALL format! The Mamiya RB 6X7 was my camera of choice as I could not afford a Hasselblad!
I think the term full frame was actually coined by the camera companies ( Canon, Nikon, Permaflex, etc. ) to make the digital 35mm format seem much bigger than reality.
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...
“Full Frame” is a term created by gear-a-holics - sounds a lot better than saying “legacy 35mm film size” which is what it is. As someone who shot 35mm back in the 1980s and 90s, we didn’t think 35mm was the “best” format... it was just more convenient and good enough compared to medium and larger format film. A 35mm size “full frame” sensor was selected by the early DSLR makers (Kodak) largely for backward compatibility with existing lens for the 35mm format. As a technology professional, I always wondered what size sensor would have been chosen had designers been able to design the 1st high end enthusiast digital cameras with a “clean slate” - no need for backward compatibility. Doubtful it would be 35mm sized sensor - nothing magical about that size.
When 4x5" was standard 35mm was called "miniature photography", since it was only about 1/20th the size of negative. far from "full frame" Even worse, common Medium Format sensor is not 6x9cm, but 4.4 x 3.3cm. (less than 2x the size of 35mm, whilst MF film was 4.5x the size of 35mm). For real Pro work we ought to have 4x5 inch sensors with 400mpx. That would approach the resolution we had in 60 years ago, using Kodak Technical Pan film.
I stopped with about ten minutes left but, do they ever actually talk about sensors?
At last - somebody speaking sense. In the 1970's I was a young photojournalist for a London Newspaper....the older guys used medium format cameras (e.g. Mamya, Rollei) and thought the younger guys who used 35mm film cameras as 'in adequate' because their sensor size/film size was too small! Over the years I have owned many cameras including Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon etc. Today I pick my camera based on quality of glass, size, weight and image quality. At the moment I have an APSC camera and honestly you can't tell the difference in 99% of the time...I borrowed a full frame camera recently because I was shooting a concert where the lighting non-existent...but unless you live in a cave it was too big and heavy for my daily use.
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.
My old mate used to say the most important part of a camera is the nut behind it. I use Nikon because they are good and I am used to the menu's, I have used cannon but found it to be a great camera but the ergonomics and menu's were, and only in my opinion tricky to use, but I guess it's what you are used to. Personally I like film photography it's more of a challenge because one can't review the pictures taken so one must learn how to use the camera on both auto and manual. Just my opinion though, I think the main thing is just having fun.
and as soon as Joe had his chance he dumped his m 4/3 gear and went full frame. Sais his Olympus gear is good enough for taking photo's of his grand kids. I threw every word he has said over the years in the trash and unfollowed him
This video did not age well 🤣🤣
LOL... no, it did not!
I love the term "geartographer"! I have a few photographer friends that bug me for being so out of date with my 7D Mark II and all my version one f2.8L glass that I've used for the last 15 years. Your shots would be so much better with the 70-200 f2.8 USM III! Look at the specs of your lens! They suck!
Needless to say, I've never upgraded to fully frame or mirrorless. Simply because what I currently have does a great job. When was the last time you looked at a photo and said, "WOW! what a great full frame picture!" "Look at that 4/3's bokeh".
Innovation is great. But not I'm not changing just because there's something new. Trying mirrorless interests me, full frame interests me, but if I really had to choose between a trip and a new camera body, the trip wins hands down.
Just take more photos! Great video :)
Am I misunderstanding or did you both say that the camera is going to make the decisions and you're happy with that? So you would have anyone with a camera shoot your wedding? Taking pictures is one thing but taking pictures people want is another. I can run around pointing my camera at things and use pre-determined profile settings to get 'computer preferred' bokeh or depth of field for portrait or landscape but knowing how to frame/compose/light a shot is a whole different ballgame. People don't buy my photos because they are perfectly computer calculated - they buy them because they like the framing, lighting, and composition decisions I made at the time that I took the photo. And deciding that a shot would look better with X bokeh compared to Y bokeh. There use to be one market of people just shooting snapshots and a completely separate market of pros - so maybe Nikon/Canon/Etal should admit they tried to convert a 'consumer' marketto pro equipment and now they are paying the price as the market corrects for that. Let daily snapshot folks have the new point-n-clicks (low end cameras and/or camera phones) and be happy with that market being its own market. Get back to focusing the high-end gear on the core market of serious hobbyists and pros. These market 'losses' they are seeing are just market correction as the two markets correctly split again as they technology needs and cost justifications for each market are very different.
All Joe's talk about Sony fanboyism is so disingenuous. The world was all Canon vs Nikon forever. Every event I attended for years you'd hear Canon/Nkon back and forth between photographers. Then Sony comes along and provides some new features and the Nikon and Canon fanboys felt so threatened they both turned on Sony users.
mavfan1 I don’t get it too. I don’t know of it is because Sony didn’t took him as an ambassador as Olympus did ($$$) or something else. Actually , to be sincerely Fuji users are much more fanboys than Sony ones
So true. I shot Sony for years before I went to Panasonic m43. I never even considered buying Canon or Nikon. I’m sure their cameras are brilliant, but after the abuse and snobbery I experienced from their users (including photography retail store staff), I’d never consider buying them.
nobody cares about your gear,images, or opinion. free you brain lobes, and know Sony will have a new body for you every 6-9 months...keep buying!