ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2019
- Sign up for the expo at PHOTOPLUS for free using code: PFSTOP
www.photoplusexpo.com/
Read the full article here: fstoppers.com/originals/does-...
Read the original post and polls here: fstoppers.com/originals/can-y...
Gear and Workflow Recommendations:
Our Favorite Gear -
fstoppers.com/fstoppers-gear-...
Music
Artlist.io - artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
Epidemic Sound - www.epidemicsound.com/?...
Software
Adobe Creative Cloud - bit.ly/3hjVXdE
Luminar 4 - skylum.evyy.net/M6RAM
Capture One - captureone.38d4qb.net/NO29q
Support Fstoppers by shopping at:
B&H - www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=6857...
Amazon - amzn.to/3hkTEXS
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 70 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "โฟกัส vs สเตฟาน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_fVieQ89DRQ/mqdefault.jpg)
As a photographer for more than 50 years, 12+ of those working professionally in military, industrial, biodmedical and security industries plus a little commercial work, I got a great laugh out of this. So glad you did it and subscribed so I don't miss your next test. When I shoot, my thoughts are on what will be my final or primary medium for sharing. If it is for social media, any decent cell phone camera is good enough. If it is for larger print or or news publication display, even a small 1" sensor can produce amazing results in decent light. Good photographers shoot for their primary outcome for expression. Not for pixel peeping. And the truth is that in normal situations, almost any camera with a decent lens and proper exposure and photographic vision can be a great shot. Sensor and lens don't really matter that much. It is when you push the extremes, that you begin to see the difference, and even there, it is not as extreme as many people think. Of course I grew up with photography when there was no auto-focus, no auto exposure, no affordable fast lenses (F3.5 was considered fast). I also shot with everything from 8X10 inch sheet film to 35mm but mostly medium format. It seems that in today's world it is about 'extreme' bragging rights more than actual quality, usability or output. I can't imagine being a sports photographer today and have to sit down and screen literally thousands of perfectly exposed and perfectly in focus images, none of which stand out. I'm retired now. I shoot for the joy of it and my own personal satisfaction. I probably get more interesting photos with my camera phone, simply because that is the camera I always have with me. Yet when I do have my good gear and get out with it, I am shooting not for social media or bragging rights but for something that is special or extraordinary to me. Something for print. We live in a world of social media gear heads, and very few "real" photographers. Then again, the real photographers are probably out with their cameras creating a few great images, not sitting at a computer most of the time arguing gear. In my pro years, my greatest photo accomplishment was as a Navy photographer on the weekend on-call duty. A recon aircraft was inbound with shots of a new Russian ship. Shots were taken from a bad angle, at sunset using a 5 inch film nose camera. By the time the film arrived, I and the intel mate had 4 hours to process, the film and deliver 50 sets of finished photos. He selected a series of 5 shots from one angle that would be made into a composite image. Each Frame was unevenly exposed so in printing I had to hand dodge and burn every image for every frame and we had to produce 50 copies of each frame, or a total of 250 prints, each hand dodged and burned, all in under 4 hours (and that included film processing time.). We did it. We got an award for it. No one outside of military intel or command would ever see it, but it was an amazing feat of skill to do it. I closed the lab at 5:30 AM. The intel guy still had 30 minutes to make 50 copies of his analysis to package with the prints and a plane was waiting to take it all to the "big guys" in Washington and all the relative units around the world. I left a message for the lab chief and told him I had been up all night and needed some sleep so couldn't make it in at 8 AM. He sent me a message back and said that was fine. To report at Noon instead. Real photography is about getting the job done, no matter the job or the conditions. Gear does not matter. Only final results matter relative to the end use for the images. I worked in technical fields as a military, industrial, biomedical and security photographer for more than 12 years. The only argument about gear was "can it get the job done". And yes, even in those fields there is a need for "creative" photography. Have never had any paying client ask me what gear I used. They only care about final results. The argument about gear is really more about the final use and outcome. Not about pixels, format or brand.
what camera would be the best at taking pictures of the woods lots of trees annd suck to get best image of say a squirrel on a limb or what ever happens to be in shot not really focusing on anything just the woods then examining picture
glad i read that. i find myself fixated on gear and too many shots too. i know about it already, but this text did something to me. thank you!
Sorry to say but lenses do matter. I'm just realising that my Sony kit lens 16-50 is not sharp at all. I'm just beginning out.
@@AshishKumar-kv4hr of course some lenses are sharper than others. especially kit lenses are obviously just basic quality in a small package.
but if you read david robinsons comment like I did, you will come to the conclusion that its mostly about getting the work done.
i also own expensive sony GM lenses and some Sigma Art ones, and I too see a difference on my monitor.
But no matter how much i will spend on gear, its about getting the work done in the end.
Most professional video work or film is done at f4 or even slower, makes me rethink all the money I spent on f1.4 primes.
Thank you for sharing your incredible story!!
Anybody who claims they can tell the difference between low res images from different sized sensors shot at f8 and cropped to look similar is on the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Or on the far left of an IQ bellcurve.
and compression from youtube
I can tell especially in astro, but not only, when i shoot with with my sony ff or my olympus, both posted to social. Sony is just smoother
What is the point of such a test? If I wanted photos at such a low resolution then I could stick to my 3.2 MP digital camera from the year 2000. I got the cheapest camera with the sensor I wanted. The A5100 gives me very similar results to what I expect from my film days except I get way better dynamic range. No phone camera is close enough to be remotely interesting by comparison, plus that phone would cost a lot more. Without RAW and that dynamic range then my whole style of shooting goes out the window. I like non-staged situations and being able to get highlights and shadow detail on a sunny day without fill lights or bounce cards is an amazing freedom. No phone gives me the digital darkroom flexibility that I need and when cropping, you need 3-4 times more resolution in the small sensor in order to match the actual visible resolution of the larger sensor.
They’re not at f8 across the board. Only one camera was at f8.
The sensor size and results are irrelevant. Everyone knows photography is obsessing about the specs of the latest gear, pulling the trigger, taking it out a few times and then leaving it to gather dust in a drawer while we use our phones. Thought we were all clear on this.
Tom Ripley lol
🤣🤣🤣
true story ...
🤣🤣🤣🤣 Best comment!
get out of my head!
You should also do a test to see whether it takes the same amount of time for a Porsche 911 and a Ford 150 to travel from A to B, when both vehicles are traveling at 60mph.
😆😆😆😆😆😆
Hahahaha good point
Exactly what I was thinking...
Metaphor is perfect
Crop the speed to 20 same test as this camera test :D
Mate! you definitely have to read out some of your favourite and most heated comments on your next video. That would be gold.
Also looking forward to the results, probably will not change my mind on the cameras I use, but it will make me more informed on the advise I give.
Yeaaaah read them all
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
can you make a video on the the difference between Nikon camera straps and Canon camera straps?
Why not medium format camera straps too? They have a little something special about them. I can't quite put my finger on it, but they just look a little better.
Don Fitzsimmons dont forget mft straps they fit different .
I find Canon straps have the best colors.
What is with the fancys third party straps?
Ive had a nikon strap on my 6d for a while i felt like both cannon users and nikon users would kill me at any moment......
I don't know whether to be sad or impressed that this video is not titled "Does (sensor) Size Matter?"
bro plz i can clearly see the mans soul on the medium format camera.
Hahah
Hilarious
It's almost as if the photographer's art, the composition, the lighting and the concept of the photo are more important than the canera that records the final image... this is heresy. Premium-quality WUM, I approve
So you’re telling me that great new camera with an extra 10mp and amazing eye focus won’t make my photos into master pieces 😭
sure, but just try to take images in lowlight with a kit lens and a camera that has bad ISO performance. Not saying good gear makes someone instantly a pro but even a pro can't capture certain images in certain conditions with any gear.
@@xcy7 sure, a pro photographer would never attempt to improve a low light situation with strobes. Point taken. I'll buy the medium format.
xcy-7 lol most pros would use either strobes or Speedlights, not only to improve the low light situation but also to make their images better than an amateur’s.
@@thomasjames7644 yeah, if you can carry around strobes or have reflective surfaces for the speedlight. Neither of them would work for, for example, a military combat photographer. You also couldn't really carry around a strobe if you're photographing a social event where the subjects are moving around. A speedlight could be useless depending on the space. Both the speedlight and the strobe light could also potentially ruin the look and feel of the shot since it introduces light that naturally is not present in the scene.
I guess the dynamic range tests didn't pan out as that video we were promised never came.
Hahah amazing!
Should you throw in a decent mobile phone's camera in the mix?
Jacob Edmonds are there any ? I am being serious. Today I was shooting kids rugby. I had the only camera there - yes really. This was in an affluent suburb, and no one was using their expensive phones, because they cannot shoot sports.
@@nordic5490 I agree with you. I don't think this test is specifically designed for sports though. I really don't think an iPhone or pixel could really beat a mirror less or full frame camera especially when it comes to anything with a telephoto or fast shutter speed but might be interesting to see the test results though. Or even chuck it on a drone and test wide angle footage.
@Bhargav Chavda are you seriously telling me to shoot sport with that p30 shaky 10x optical zoom? stop fantasize the phone ffs.
For video yes, for stills even though the resolution might match a modern ILC the handling wont. I can shoot monster fish in my community tank a hell of a lot easier with my fuji than I can with my zenfone.
In your future videos be sure to test ISO on darker photos when comparing size of sensors. This will make a really good video.... I can already tell a difference on the guys shirt with grain showing worse on one and not the full frame.... This is how you can tell in major way which camera made which pic...
I got my popcorn. Can't wait for the show to start in the comments!
Lots of comments, no controversy. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus it is hard to tell the difference but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
i love this type of videos that you make man ... so diffrent !
The reaction you're getting to this is highly predictable. The same thing happens when you confront heavily invested hi-fi snobs with the evidence of well-designed double-blind tests comparing a system that costs, say $5,000 with one that costs $50,000... and no-one can tell them apart. Obviously, you've done the test wrong!
I used to work at an streaming audio service and I had an argument with a dev that said NOBODY could tell the differences between 56/128/320/Lossless as we were trying to decide the compression rates we wanted to launch with. He did a blind test on me and I got them all correct, and he even did one at 148 or some such nonsense and had me guess and I said 150. But I did agree that I am in a VERY small minority and we chose our bit-rates accordingly...the point is there ARE people that can tell the differences in these things, but they are in the very very small percentage. Knowing what the test criteria is is key. In this test of course there is little difference that most can't see since the "Difference ratio" of any quality (much like most music bit rate) change is almost negligible to most people
Oh, and I'd still put my Mamiya RB67 with the right film for the situation against any modern system. If you have the time, that glass and that size of negative is still hard to beat...it's just not convenient and the majority of people couldn't tell the difference anyway, but hey I'm not making images for you. :P
And of course this is the internet and there is no way for me to prove it, but I went and took the test and found it hard at the low resolution but chose them correctly...for this I get nothing and can go back to taking pictures with whatever I have at the moment since I stopped worrying about gear. :)
I've done the same blind test myself, with different bit rates being compared. I could tell 320 from 96 with a little over 90% accuracy, but telling 320 from 150 was harder, I only got 60% right. So, I have an objective reason to prefer 320. However, I simply couldn't distinguish between two hi-systems, both playing the same 320 bit content - even though one cost 10 times more than the other.
To each is their own. Just buy what ever your heart desires; If your budget allows it. 😚😚
Absolutely brilliant, and please do more of these videos.
solid idea. Would have been nice to have this when I was starting out. May have kept me with APS-C and switch to full frame 2 years ago.
Not angry here... 😂 Good test, thanks! This is on a fully lit scene. I'd love to run the same test on a low light scene.
@@jscul That wouldn’t prove anything though. He explains that. That’s like saying he should’ve shot wildlife so APSC looks best because of the crop factor.
@@jscul That is exactly the point. The differences are widely discussed and widely known. He even mentions the differences here. This is showing how any format can reproduce almost the same image. And how hard they can be to tell apart.
@@jscul That’s a reason he explained. And clearly it’s important to you. But there’s hundreds of videos explaining the pros and cons already. He mentioned those points but this video isn’t about those differences.
@@jscul But this discussion is prepositioned on a scenario he wasn’t addressing. Those issues are discussed a thousand times already. Everyone knows a full frame sensor is better for night sky photography. Not everyone knows you can create almost identical shots with different sensors and focal lengths.
@@jscul But that information is widely known and accepted. Why must every comparison go into detail about something most people know? Night sky photography is a very small segment of the photography community and that is not what this piece is about. Personally, I shoot a lot of wildlife and he didn’t go into much detail about the advantages a crop sensor has in that regard, but that’s not what this is about.
Must every comparison relate directly to your own interest? I would’ve thought not. But you clearly feel it must.
OMG, I cant wait for the next episode! love this series!
Love this video and what inspired it. Please keep on making them.
Thank you.
"I released these low-res files online"
Right. Because whoever uses a large sensor camera uses it for low-res files to put online.
you would be surprised
Finally someone did this, thanks! Please include sony a6400 with sigma 56mm f1.4 vs sony a7iii with 85mm f1.8 in that next video!
Love what you're doing man! Keep these coming!
You tell em!. THANKS for the video and the time to inform the people "what's what". Looking forward to you're next installment. Great content.
*Laughs in large format*
LF is unmatched in resolution and shallow DOF. You can get the equivalent of like f/0.73 on 8x10
Just random gibberish about jargons lol used to be funny but now irrelevant.. thiojoe..
This was an awesome test! The Gh5 is such a versatile camera, but it was cool to see the differences with the XT3 and the 6d.
Well done, from someone who owns micro four thirds, apsc and full frame. Processing photographs is an art in itself and makes a big difference. I will be looking at the rest of your posts about this. Thanks for the work you put in. I am someone who has no loyalty to brands or sensor size.
Good Job buddy. Looking forward to the next detailed video.
HATS OFF
Aps-c still the sweet spot for me. Portablity, the price and decent picture quality.
and the size of a camera.
@@tomasrandom6430 Yeah, APS-C camera that fits in a coat pocket is for me.
Me to. APS-C for low light shots.
APSC is ok. I'd rather use full frame because of the better dynamic range and low noise, with just a slight weight and size increase. It definitely makes a difference in regards to performance and image quality in many situations I find myself in.
@@MusicByAngels more likely your FF camera will have lower dynamic range than APS-C in most often used ISO range 200 - 3200
go here: www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
and compare Fuji X-pro3 with FF camera you planning to buy
I enjoyed this! Not sure why people get upset about something so elementary and instructive. Thanks!
Best content yet! Looking forward to the print episode, thank you!
Where is the follow up video to this..? I’m interested to see what you found out
what makes an image good (at least for what I do- fashion and portraits) in order of most important to least important … the photographer, the model, the clothes / styling, the light, the location, story, luck, everyone in a good mood, lens, body (sensor size). Given this- the size of a sensor is very rarely the thing that makes or breaks a shot. So many other factors are so much more important- and even if you wanted to focus entirely on technicals- a well lit small sensor camera can often out resolve a poorly lit large sensor camera. So really it all just depends- for more photographers- full frame makes the most sense b/c its portable enough, fast enough etc to be convenient- and its large enough of a sensor to give you the creative choice to not always have to light your situation perfectly. Other photographers who always light their shots with strobes or flash might be much better served with APS-C or M43 if they offer a price point or technology set that adds value to the shooter like a 4k60 hybrid video fundtion or a flippy screen to help compose images at low and high angles- etc
I think your comment would cover not only this but many other questions I mostly see on youtube!
The “special look” of medium format exists because you get the FOV of a wider lens while retaining the compression/perspective of a larger focal length. It’s exactly what the “Brenizer Method” is based on.
Exactly, when you shoot with a 90mm lens on a 6x9, and it has the same FOV as a 35mm lens on full frame, but has the shallow dof of a 90mm lens at close range.... that's the magic....don't get me started on 4x5 or 8x10
Compression and perspective are functions of your distance from the subject and not the lens.
@@cheeeeezewizzz I dont even know what hes talking about, hes just wrong.
@@Steelcrafted ok. We won't...
Alex Vozniuc we get this. Fstoppers has done this before. The tiny detail that counts here is 'the equivalent field of view'. I guess it all depends on the dof you are after. I own a Canon 85mm F1.2 and f1.2 is unuable for portraits, the dof is too tight. This video is for entertainment.
Nicely done Lee! Spot on conclusion. Full frame is the best solution for shallow depth of field in most situations.
This is f-in awesome. lookin forward to the next one!
At first, I was about to hate on this video but your point is very true imo. The main thing people say is great about full frame is the shallow depth of field. 🤷🏿♂️ Depth of field is overrated especially if you shoot studio work or fashion (f8 or f11 in almost every studio setting). Also when I shoot events I usually shoot at F4 or 5.6 anyway...
I went from aps-c (Nikon d500) to full frame a7r3... I made the switch because I wanted eye af,a smaller lighter body and more megapixels. Overall, any picture I take with the a7r3, I could have taken with the d500. I find the high iso performance to be similar between the 2. Honestly the best thing i get from the a7r3 is crop-ability and crop mode. I get the high mp without the drawbacks of horrible high iso performance. I don't really notice much difference in the depth of field primarily because I really don't shoot wide open anymore. I will say the main thing I miss about my d500 was the combo with the sigma 50-100 1.8. I feel like that lens was irreplaceable because of what it offered in terms of low light (not depth of field).
:36 Ehh, f-stop is actually a mathematical function relating to the amount of light the aperture will let through, it doesn't say anything about the _actual_ amount of light transmitted, partly why cinema uses t-stop; the exposure accuracy is far more important than the precise depth of field (yeah, many other reason too).
There is also quite a bit to be said about depth of sharpness, and usability. Let's say you want the background out of focus, and just your subject sharp nose to back of head (10 inches) -full body, a shot like that is a million times easier with medium format due to the sensor size, for 35mm you're at 200mm or more for that (not wasting time finding a DoF calculator), some people can shoot like that, but most (subjects) can't. I guess bit-depth shouldn't be addressed, but it actually should, because if the images are blown up, the small format will fall apart way faster than the high bit depth MF file.
well said
No, f-stop is a measurement of the physical dimensions of the aperture in relation to the focal length of the lens. 50mm lens with a 50mm aperture= f1 lens. 50mm lens with a 25mm aperture= f2 lens, etc. The f stop is nothing but a ratio. Light that passes through is measured in T stops.
kurt lindner Yeh and e=mc2 ✌️
kurt lindner not much difference between f stop and t stop. T stop account for the small amount of light lost.
Joshua Son pretty much what he meant though the words may differ.
Love it! Thanks for sharing and running the test!
Love this test and looking forward to see the results👌
I love this!!! Keep making these types of videos. The people who rage can't be true photographers. You are right when you say you can take great shots with any camera.
You can take great shots with any camera but ... come on ... I can take better shots on my full frame camera than if I used my daughter's Barbie doll camera from Walmart.
I agree, I use a D5300 and am constantly thinking about when I should upgrade but I love the photos I get and I couldn't see a better camera making much of a difference to the work I produce.
True, my iPhone takes great shots
I believe all current camera and most older cameras take great pictures. I nobody ever says how good there pictures from there a77ii are. Maby its just me but my a77ii had a lot of problem with coler noise and soft images especially in lower light. I was shooting everything in jpeg didnt try proccesing raw images maby that would make a diffrence.
It's a nice romantic idea, but it's also not true: you just can't replicate the look of a FF 35mm 1.4 on a MFT system, unless someone comes out with a 17mm 0.7 lens. On Super-FF (APS-C), you'd need a 24mm 1.0.
Yeah, I can already hear people say that such a shallow DOF is cheap gimmickry, but those people are almost always using crazy telephoto ranges for their portraits. A FF 35mm 1.4 will give less bokeh and therefore more context in an environmental portrait, than let's say MFT tele-portrait lenses.
But what camera does David Riley use for his cat photography?
I had a mate years ago, I went around to his place and he showed me a Hasselblad. It was the first time I had ever seen a camera like that before. I couldn't tell you what model it was but it's one of the ones where you have to look at the camera from above to see the subject in front of you. He demonstrated how take a photo and he took a photo of his kitchen. Mind you it was just an average kitchen, the lighting was normal daylight, nothing special and yet it was one of the most magical photos I had ever seen. I thought how can this camera make an ordinary kitchen look so extraordinary?
You can tell me that under the same conditions you can make images mostly look the same and from this video I believe you however from what I understand now, my mate had a medium format camera and the images from that are significantly more beautiful than on any other camera I have ever seen or used since. So I would say without rigging things to all be matching and just taking photos right out of the box so to speak the medium format images win every time for me.
This video makes me very happy. Getting down to the facts. We need more of this.
It's true that any camera can be matched to any other camera in a test like you've done. However, that doesn't take into account how people actually use a camera. E.g put a 50mm f1.8 on a full frame and then use the same on a M4/3 camera and you'll find with the M4/3 you'll have to get further back to get the same framing. Then communicating with models etc gets more difficult. There is so many factors to be considered in the real world that don't have anything to do with how people test. Also, I'm sure you'll get to it, but dynamic range, low light performance etc are big things for me, and many others so thats why I continue to use full frame cameras (I have no brand loyalty but currently use Sony).
50mm full frame =/= 50mm mft
Hi great video... it's been a couple of months now, and I was just wondering if you were still planning on making the video with the all the camera prints?
Would be really interesting to see how well they stack up to each other.
Thanks!
Awesome concept. I'm looking forward to the printed-photo tests!
This topic is something I always wanted to learn more about since I started photography. If anything it opens up a lot of doors for those who want to change camera gears for ergonomics and price 🤙🏾
Totally agreed with your opinion. good luck for next video
Haha, love it. For me I have the best camera for me. That's all I need.
Thank you for running this test. its for knowledge and objectivity.
VERY GOOD VIDEO!!!.... very well made and easy to understand.
"I also like making all the photography nerds angry" keep going Lee. I'll be with you hahahahha
Phitthaya Thepwichian more anger = more comments = altering the Google algorithm to bump this video up in 'recommendations'. This is business.
@@nordic5490 Very entertaining business, though! :D
Lots of comments, no controversy that I can find. Everyone agrees that at very low resolutions / everything in focus, it is hard to tell the difference, but that there is an obvious difference in every other situation.
0ooTheMAXXoo0 yet you’ve felt the need to repost this exact comment several times 🤔😜
hahahaha I love this! and I for one truly appreciate honest reviews and test like these because It helps me make the right decisions on my future purchases thank you fstoppers keep up the good work!
Awesome stuff! I'd love to see a video test on various cameras including G95
Thanks for this test! Great work!
I have to say the images don't look exactly the same. The differences can be seen in the background mostly. In the last comparison, when you said they looked exact, my discerning eyes picked up a background that was more blown out in one photo (GFX 50R) than in the other. That, to me, suggested that the one that was not blown out had a wider dynamic range in terms of exposure. The skin tone was also slightly different. The GFX 50R had slightly more orange skin tone - but only very slightly.
I notice those details because I'm a videographer and I color grade all my footage before posting to the public. That brings up another point. In videography, at least, full frame is assumed to be better because theoretically it has higher dynamic range of exposure and color. The Canon EOS R, for instance, is better than the Canon 80D in many respects; but the main difference is that it's full frame. But then you look at the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera (BMPCC) and you realize the actual image quality is probably just as good as a full frame...The BMPCC is a Micro 4/3 sensor, and as compared to the Canon EOS R, it's arguably better.
But as we all know, the true quality comes not in the camera but in the artist behind the camera....And in the color grading in post.
Since you brought up the 80D v R, would you recommend an upgrade from the 80D to say the R6, by passing the R? Or are APS-C DSLR's still relevant in 2021?
@@sonicvboom They're still relevant. But if you're upgrading, go to the R6 or R5. Keep in mind that the R6/R5 are not ideal for video due to overheating issues, so perhaps look into a different camera if you're doing a lot of video, like Sony a7s iii.
Me and my M43 camera (G9) love this video.
You still in Puerto Rico? How do you like it so far?
Thanks for this!!! Well done!
This video should never be hated, it saves clueless photographers from spending the extra to upgrade their already great gears that arent really unnecessary just to satisfy their GAS cravings. We should be thanking the author for the all effort he put in this vid to educate us, allowing us to make a more rational decision in investing in any equipment.
The medium format covers more area that's all.
Brilliant
At the end of the day of your happy with your photos who cares what others say.👍👏👏
Awesome video! Thanks for the info! I always just blindly believed that bigger was better!
Can't wait to see the next video and see the size of the prints you'll be showing. The only thing I know is that all the images I see taken from great photographers with medium format have something different about them. Plus I work with 35mm and medium format and edit these images at 100% and I clearly see a big difference
Online, I wouldn't expect much of a difference. I think it's print where the larger format cameras shine. There's more detail, more depth to a medium or large format print that you won't get - or that I haven't seen -- in a full frame or smaller sensor. Oh, great! You're going to do a print test! Can't wait for that one!
In addition to larger format sensor size, even more megapixel count will yield very different results when it comes down to larger *prints* . Any one that disagrees have never hosted/ been a photo art gallery before.
So a 12 megapixel medium format will be more detailed than 12 mp ff? And backwards, will a 50 mp ff be less detailed than a 50 mp medium format
Great video, love this channel. Keep up the good work!
This is so cool :) Can't wait till the next video!
loved this, more please
Love it. The range of negative reactions and arguments are just misdirected fear of failure, feeling they chose the wrong gear.
P.S. Im happily shooting and selling Crop 12MP.
Preach! The other big issue you should touch on is that full frame is actually the cheapest way to get shallow dof. To get the equivalent of a 50mm f1.8 on a 35mm sensor you need a 35mm f1.2 on APS-C ($$) or a roughly 70mm f2.4 on MF ($$$).
Interesting! Apologies if this blatantly obvious but how did you come to the f1.2 for APS-C?
F1.4 on DX not F1.2. Also you picked the cheapest and only cheap lens for FF. 50mm F1.8 ff is $100 for Nikon AF-D lens. Pick something like 24mm F1.8 and the lens costs are likely a lot closer.
@@batsonelectronics F1.8 on crop is not the same as f1.8 on full frame the T values would be vastly different.
@@HassanDibani F1.8 would be F1.3 on DX, not the F1.2 the other person said.( I said f1.4 but I was off 1/4 stop ) T stops vary from lens to lens, F Stop is the image standard and is close enough. Circle of light is obviously larger for larger glass but the circle of light for a m4/3 is smaller than for a FF so total light is sensor size dependent.
Can't wait to watch the next video!
i always wanted to see a test of this... thanks you!
Now you know what Galileo experienced in the Middle Ages.
If comparing low res daylight photos taken with deep depth of field makes you feel better about not owning a FF or MF camera, knock yourself out.
Do the same test at night, in a nightclub, with a wide open fast lens on each, or blown up to poster size. Suddenly the sensor size will be all too apparent.
Well done explaining this topic that so many people get crazy about.
Video was motivation enough to subscribe. Curious for future tests.
I could have told you the canon 6d was superior. 2012 in the house!
"Do Larger Sensors Produce ----Different---- Looking Images? I stood in one spot and shot my buddy Keith Bradshaw with 4 different cameras with 4 different sized sensors. To keep the field of view the same, I used a 50mm "equivalent" lens on each camera. ----To keep the depth of field the same, I changed the aperture as well.----" This is so funny... I'ts the same like a comparison between Ferrari Enzo and Toyota Prius when both drove a 60MPH... CLICKBAIT for me
Right...
No, you're missing the point. He wanted to see if consumers would be able to detect inherent "advantages" of larger sensor cameras such as dynamic range and resolution. The fact that you cannot tell the difference proves the test successful in that the sensor size doesn't matter
@@epicengines2565 You have to tell this to the photographers, who shooting with Hasselblad. They missing the point and they should use a GH5 instead. Sensor doesen't matter. Oh what I love TH-cam and pointless comparisons like this one, "controversial" content for making many. I can take identical picture using a smartphone and FF camera. I can prove that sensors doesen't matter. I can prove that focal lenght doesen't matter. I can prove that aperture doesen't matter. I can prove all of these, but I need to prepare my shots before and after if they need to looks similar... If I just grab a two cameras with different sensors and take a pictures, you see this instantly because all of this things matter. Everything depend about subject and what you need or expect.
@@shuttermaniac sorry but this helped me realized just how stupidly biased most photographers are to full frame for such a little thing that wont in a million years make you a good photographer, by a looong shot, specially in making a good image. this confuses a ton of people and unsure of themselves if wether their camera is good enough... ofc taking out of the way *super* cheap options that can do decent at times. y'know, more quality options like a canon m50/100 or a sony rx vii, an A6100/A6400, or any in that range of cameras with smaller sensors, that yet posses high photographical performance and versatility without spending thousands and carrying around bigger/heavier gear... specially if you put on good glass though, that makes a huge difference as many people should know.
Had it reviewed by people looking at the images at 1/3rd of the screen width on a website. It's a good analogy because also most car owners can just do with a Prius but still buy a 4x4 truck/Porsche/etc
I Loved this video, thanks for doing the work.
the test is nice for beginners. good idea!
what if you also cropped all the images to fit the medium format ratio and see if your viewers can tell the difference. And perhaps dont do any cropping or resizing and see what the viewers prefer.
That's why I use aps-c. It's almost never compared 😂
Fullframe still have a huge advantages in night and astrophotography and way shallow dof which is perfect for portrait photography. It really depends on what you shoot.
@@Lccan1990 But the cost is much higher and full frame line lenses are expensive too. For me personally, since I don't shoot professionally for clients and all, aps-c is great.
@@YashMenghani agreed. just buy faster glass or a speedbooster. there is the benefit of autofocus, but at an astronomical cost
@@YashMenghani ya if only hobby then no point go ff
@@Lccan1990 No but even professionally, many people do shoot with aps-c, cause like there isn't a whole lot of difference if you see, people do still shoot amazing milkyway shots from aps-c (Sony a6300 in my case) and if you saw this video, you obviously won't argue about DOF.
Keep ‘em coming! Love the videos!
Love this video, waiting for the next!!
Can you make a video about the difference between full sensor and crop sensor images?
ICB Productions - yes a6400 with sigma 56mm f1.4 vs a7iii with 85mm f1.8 would be great
does Expensive Camera Straps Increase Your Camera Image Quality?
Absolutely brother. If you're not using a Peak Design or Black Rapid strap, you're not gonna get any likes on Instagram.
@@beardedjedi7080 thanks for the tip, since i use peak design strap i can get 80 extra likes on my posts
Thank you for maybe my favorite photographic video on YT & certainly the most entertaining. Recently I purchased a MFT system due to size, weight, & cost but would have enjoyed the test even if I had purchased FF. Outstanding.
Fantastic stuff. The irreverence is fantastic. You are hitting third rails like crazy. Love it.
We need to get more people involved in photography, not shame them out of the art form because they may like m4/3 or APSC, or simply can’t manage the expense or weight of bigger sensor systems.
Lee, you are brilliant. This needed to be done to get rid of the fallacy. It has never been about the gear, it’s about the person behind the gear and the sheer skill that that person possesses to get the job done. What Medium format provide is a huge margin in crop ability during the editing process, especially in commercial photography.
Everyone doesn’t need Medium format or even Full Frame and for those who do you will know if you need it and can justify it and Lee is angering people who are gear centric and brand loyal and for that I applaud him. Lee has one goal here and that is to make folks think and realize why we all love photography in the first place, which has nothing to do with full frame, Crop or Medium Format.
Yes, more videos like this please.
Can you get a hold of a Phase One or Hasselblad medium format? ( the big ones, not the X1d)
Lee, you're doing the Lord's works...keep at it. Haha
Looking forward to more videos like these
Great test. Will help alot of people
Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others. Also, Karl Taylor has several videos on his page comparing medium format to 35mm full frame that might be worth taking a look at (don't worry, people argue on his videos as well).
Karl Taylor did use the cheapest zoom kit lens he could find and put it up against a prime. He rigged the test in favour of the medium format.
"Why dont you talk to photographers that actually use medium format cameras and ask them why they choose medium format sensor cameras over others". Because most off them are biased. They think it is/was the best. But if you actually put the numbers together and compare apples to apples: MF only wins with resolution (above 50MP).
@Neil1770053 The sad thing is, the Hasselblad would have won anyway, but it was a case diminishing returns, where you have to spend a hell of a lot more money for tiny improvements.
The new 100MP sensor (and the 150MP 645 sensor) do move the game on significantly from Full Frame, but what you're effectively getting is a bigger image rather than a camera with a new type of look. The medium format look was definitely a thing in the days of film, now, it doesn't exist. It's a bit like Leica users bleating on about "the Leica look". It was a thing back in the film days, now, it doesn't exist.
@Neil1770053 sweet... unless your fetish is body pheromone
@@UCreations Dude, you're just making up BS with your generalisations. There are enough official Fuji X photographers wo both use APS-C and Fuji's semi-medium format. There are tool that work best in some cases, whereas they won't work as great in others. Larger sensors will always allow for more tonal details, better colour rendition, etc, there's just no working around for that. The question is what you want or need personally.
All popular sensor sizes (mft, super 35mm/aps-c, and 35mm/ff) have their compromises and (dis-)advantages, and just because someone uses sth. with joy and explains why he/she can't get the same images with another system, that doesn't make the tech you use bad.
You are the one turning this whole thing into an argument.
Don't you get better low light performance from larger sensor cameras?
Yes, YEARS ago in my early days I lost a job because the company hiring me required a full frame system due to the nature of the low light environment. At the time I had been shooting cropped. When I switched, I noticed a huge difference in the noise. The sweet spot for photography is 20-40 MP Full Frame. Anything larger and the noise starts to appear again. Everything has a sweet spot.
of course, its just physics.
Not necessarily. There are many factors involved besides size of sensor.
It's just about pixel pitch. An APS-C camera with a modern sensor and a low pixel count - let's say 8 megapixels - would give better iso/low light performance than a 36 megapixel FF camera with a sensor of the same generation.
More pixel density will cause more noise.
A 24 MP APS-C sensor has the same pixel pitch as a 36 MP FF one. So of course, a 24 MP FF sensor will have better noise performance than a 24 MP APS-C sensor (if they are both from the same generation of sensors).
You guys rock...love testing and examining the results. That why I like the color blue...just because.
Great test and absolutely what I expexted. Thx a lot.
I'm here to watch the gear nerds lose their @&>/!
Preston House the funny thing is, they are arguing about nothing.
The comments are more entertaining
Me too 🥤🍿
@@peter_shadow7559 gear nerds are fun to mess with