Are camera filters obsolete in the age of digital photography? Can't we just Photoshop images? Not so fast! We take a look at four filters you still need in your camera bag.
Whether or not to use filters depends on how much value you put on your own time. Taking a few seconds to screw a filter onto your lens will save you hours at the computer. So if you are living a busy, active life doing interesting things, and hanging out with fascinating people, then filters can be a godsend. If on the other hand every second of every day is a living hell and you would rather huddle miserably in a darkened room twirling knobs while life‘s rich pageant passes you by, by all means never use filters.
Filters are indeed often great accessories. One additional drawback versus the software is also that we need one filter for each lens size we have... it may become very expensive then.....
One of the reasons why we still need filters is because they still generate substantial sales for the camera industry, and filters require so little R&D and are so cheap to make that the profits are highest.
Ease up people. This video may not change the world of photography, but it provides good information to reinforce what most of us already know. If you don't like his style, just move on or make your own video and see what personal comments that gets.
I love your work, Chris. Thank you for another great video. There are many interesting elements in the video format not present in the reading form, and you bring out the best of those elements. Please keep up the excellent work.
Another not covered are didymium filters out there (Hoya red intensifier for one) that strip a particular wavelength (yellow orange) from the spectrum that can't be replicated by digital manipulation. Sunglass manufacturers are increasingly using it too because it helps the red-orange and green-yellow cones in the eye differentiate reds and greens a bit better and colours pop (although I find it leaves the overall image colder). There are even some making colour blindness specs using it. Astro photographers use it too to help strip out the light pollution by sodium lights.
I got one of those brand new still in the box for $5 on the bargain table at my camera store and it’s true, they create effects you can’t get in Photoshop.
Subject matter aside, I am sorry to say that I do not like your style, Chris—it's (sometimes, i.e. when you are in the shot) an irritation - is all that arm waving and hand chopping motion necessary? Why not let your words do the talking, after all, that's what they are designed for..... But I do consider you a major asset (sorry, only one 't') to DPR.
I have to be honest and admit that upon reading your comment, my first response was to react with displeasure about the fact that you have crossed eyes, and are very unnaturally a bear that has command of the written word. But I soon realized that you were laying negative judgement about my appearance and my personal characteristics which are simply a part of who I am. Something which I can't nor want to change about myself. I contemplated the sad feelings and rejection that I experienced upon reading your statement. Now I realize that your ursine eye problems are simply a part of who you are, and that can be a beautiful thing. I accept you as you are cross eyed bear.
Totally agree with you Chris on polarisers and ND filters not being made redundant (yet) by digital technology. I’d much rather get it right in camera and avoid unnecessary post processing. My experience is that post workflow often can’t do as well as can be achieved using these physical filters, especially when they are used properly.
Thanks for your video on this topic...very useful.
Good video on polarizing, ND, and graduated ND; but not to my liking on UV. In this video, a UV is described as being useful as a lens protector. Fine, they will do that. However, many older UV filters do have a color tint. Green, for example in Tiffen UV filters. My point is that if you want a lens protector, get a multi-coated clear lens protector, don't use some UV filter you have lying around. While I'm on my soap box, let me comment on filters in general. I've never had a problem with reflections from an uncoated polarizing filter. Your experience may be different; but that's my experience. For UV, clear, and Skylight filters, I insist on good optical glass, multi-coated on both sides, no shiny retaining rings, blackened edges on the glass, and well blackened matte finish on the mounting ring. Jerry
Red filter for monochrome sensors would be great - for RGB bayer sensors no help because you can only evaluate red channel and make convert it to B/W. Would helpt to get e.g. 2 stops of ISO, no debayering artifacts, smoother transitions. But this is the niche of a niche market!
@rc53 Agree, even for those who are not deaf. I generally avoid video and prefer to read just because in our living room there are usually already 3 other phones and tablets playing video with sound, or 2 playing video and the third on a videocall to the other side of the world, speaking as loud as possible just to be understood on the other side.
As an Aviation Photo-journalist, I regularly get called on to shoot light propeller driven aircraft for magazine covers. When you're shooting at 1/100" or less to get nice blurred prop arcs, you end up with massive depth of field with the small apertures.
I therefore regularly have to use various ND filters to open up the aperture, narrow the depth of field so that I don't get a confusing sometimes cluttered background that detracts from the subject. Better to shoot in camera the to get the desired effect than to reply on PS. I'm old school, 'shoot in camera and do the minimum in PS just to enhance, not alter'.
Favorite filter of all time: R72 infrared. I still remember the excitement first time I shot infrared on a 5mp Sony 717, which had the IR pass filter from the factory!
IR photography is like looking into the upside down sometime, for Stranger Things fans out there. It can be a pain to get your ND + R72 filter combo right, it requires long exposures and post can be a PITA. But once you pass that learning curve and it starts clicking, you develop your own style and marvel at the results.
As a Nikon/Sony shooting landscape photographer, I tossed my silly square GND filters in the trash 10+ years ago, and never looked back. I chuckle to myself when I see big name Canon-shooting landscape photographers on Youtube still slapping a GND on every single shot they take, hehe. I laugh even harder when I see people mounting those enormous 150mm filters on their 14-XXmm lenses, especially now that I have the Nikon 14-30mm f/4 Z/S at my disposal.
I mostly use 2-3 circular threaded filters now, a polarizer, a 10-stop ND, and an 8-stop polarizer. They all fit nicely in a little padded case, and they allow for effects that would be virtually impossible without such filters.
So what makes you more virtuous that you laugh at others for being different? You have something that more closely meets your preference . That is no reason to deride others for their preference.
Because tact is boring, and sarcasm is fun and even good for your health.
Besides, trust me, I give them a lot less grief about GNDs than they do when it comes time to laugh at people who are obsessed with dynamic range, and let's not even talk about how "terrible" my Sony/Nikon colors are compared to Canon. Every Canon landscape photographer will be happy to tell you how much they just love their colors... :-P
"because tact is boring, and sarcasm is fun and even good for your health"
Reads like convenient generalisation for self justification followed by more statements about a lot other people you don't really know and imagine are as factional about cameras as you appear to be.
No, I actually engage with hundreds of other photographers on a regular basis, in-person and online, and it's literally my job to know the strengths and weaknesses of each different camera brand for various different types of photography. I'm just calling it like I see it, while poking lighthearted fun at my friends who shoot Canon. Although, the close landscape/nightscape friends I have who used to shoot Canon have all switched to Sony within the last 5 years, but we still find ways to trash all brands as we see fit.
You sound like a very serious person. I'm sorry that my type of humor has offended you, whether you're just here to defend a category of photographers you see as a victim, or you're actually a Canon-shooting landscape photographer who still loves using GNDs...
I accept that this is a gear site, it’s good when both gear and photography are discussed but reading the many threads over the years DPREVIEW seems to be the place to discuss gear. Yet some feel it’s ok to poke fun at people for their own gratification
Your suggestion that you know other people based on your connections and can safely generalise from this assumes too much . Canon shooters for instance are not some unified category of people who like to talk about canon colours. They are very diverse people. Education is for example located in a cultural milieu. Finally I am not defined by the few comments I make here, not serious, sad or offended.
Again, it sounds like my brand of humor isn't for you. I firmly believe that one of the best ways to disarm potentially hurtful statements, and to encourage diversity, is to joke about argumentative hot topics. So, what you might see as an excuse to vent some form of aggression, I see as a healthy way to level the playing field, and entertain in the process.
@alanpuzey, this IS my life; I do photography content for a living. ;-)
Good video but additionally: some filters are just plain fun and can do fun things to your images, and why not use them? I have an old Star filter I use on occasion, and have real fun telling people with a straight face no I did not do this in Photoshop.
Not touched on here, but I still think one of the best uses for ND Filter/Filter systems is for portrait and fashion photography to be able to slow down the shutter speed, open the lens up and mix nicely with flash.
I can't imagine more or less clean computational PL/ND without heavy use of AI-methods, but it's most likely we will see good PL and ND software filters very soon and the result will be much less aggressive manipulation, than e.g. sky replacement in some software products. But the question will still be there, do you wan't AI to manipulate your memories?
Polarizers actually change how the camera views the world in a way that cannot be replicated in software.... The extra dimensions that a polarizer makes accessible to the camera are simply not in the raw data without the polarizer
I agree, Sirandar. However I rarely feel a need for them anymore. Adjust highlights, shadows, black point, vibrance, etc and I find the results just as pleasing if not moreso. Of course you can't remove reflections like a polarizer can, but, that's a small use case.
you don't need artificial Intelligence (AI) if you have all the data in your raw, AI is always about creating a new data. If you do a software version of CPL filter you will maybe use machine learning (ML) technique and feed system with a bunch of real world photo-pairs with and without CPL attached. So the system will learn how to manipulate the user picture to make it more "CPL" like. As a result you may e.g. get a fish in your polarized water (as a part of some ML sample) and there was no fish on original photo. As an amateur photograph I don't want to get the fake fish on my pic, but professionals may like it.
IMO, a circular polarizer is a must for any landscape photographer, as is probably set of neutral density filters. But beyond that (the UV, split-grad, and the special effects filters) I don't think you need them--partially because you can re-create the effects in post nowadays with the tools available, and have more control over things like graduated filters. UV filters are not really that useful with digital cameras, other than lens protection, which I rarely recommend people use them for that--unless they are shooting in bad or windy conditions, like at the beach or if it's raining). And as for the split/grads, I much prefer to do that in post because then it's not baked into my image.
But effects from CPLs and ND filters is harder to replicate in post, so you most likely want those filters especially if you're into landscapes or water falls, etc.
Everybody forgets that UV/Clear filter's are also used for weather sealing, both Canon and Nikon have admitted they need to be in place to complete the weather sealing of a lens. Now obviously on higher end super-tele zooms or primes they are not needed, but Nikon at least does include one in a drop-in filter that's technically a lens element in the optical formula. I only own use Nikon Clear filter's and they are great, no image degrading and really well built, great optical glass. I'd rather get dust, debris, oil and water on my filter than the front element. I can replace a filter after a year or two of use and meanwhile I've never touched my front element. Had cleaned my front element a hundred times, that will take off some of the coatings and or scratch the lens, etc. I do own and love the Polar Pro CP filter's and also I own a Nikon drop-in CP for my 400mm f2.8E VR FL.
"The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens has a "Tight seal structure [that] ensures excellent dustproof and drip-proof performance" (owner's manual). You are going to want a protective filter on this lens to fully seal the area between the front elements and the lens barrel. Canon USA confirms that the filter is indeed needed for complete sealing, adding "The EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is similar to other black L-series lenses that accept front-mounted screw-in filters."
Of course there is a huge mark-up in camera branded protection filters. Convincing brand fan boys that branded protection filters are a must is surely quite lucrative. They all do it. Ask yourself, if it's so important, why aren't protection filters fixed items? For me, when the camera is off, the lens cap goes on. When the camera is on, I don't want anything between the front element and the subject that won't improve the image.
I use the Megabux variable circular polarising shitot filter. Guaranteed to make every picture shi... well, very good. It actually does nothing, but makes you think it does.
Sort of like the SoftRam scam of the mid 1990s. The product, which claimed to double your computer's RAM and even displayed corroborating information, was a total, complete, utter hoax. It did nothing. Nothing.
I'm kind of surprised only the basic old filters seem to be discussed, colours, ND's, pols. There are new filters designed for specific tasks that have very selective wavelength attentuation (expensive though) that might find a place in general photography.
Yes, like the neodymium filter often wrongly called a colour enhancing filter. It doesn't "enhance" colour at all. It changes the colour balance to give an effect that may or may not produce an interesting result. It needs to be used judiciously. I don't know if the effect can be reproduced in post.
Yes, for my small lenses, I use a permanently screwed on cheap metal lens hood only. If I intend to walk around with it a lot, I'll put a lens cap on the hood.
I have been a photographer for over 50 years and create technical training videos for online courses for a large university. This is a particularly nice introductory piece, informative, quick and right to the point. The inevitable polemics in these comments are totally out of place. Good job Chris and Co.
Chris mentions using UV filters just to protect the front element of the lens from damage. Another slightly less expensive option is to use clear filters, which don't affect the image at all (assuming they're good quality and have an anti-reflective coating).
No, UV filters aren't clear at least the ones I used to have. They have a slight yellowish tinge. Don't know why digital users even speak about UV filters. Film is sensitive to excessive UV not digital sensors. In any case, just plain glass is a good UV filter so not a lot gets through the lens anyway.
Neither our eyes nor optical UV filters can achieve a sudden, complete cut-off between “violet” and “ultraviolet” at a precise wavelength. I assume the camera manufacturer will have worked out the best combination of filtration to add to the sensor, and interpretation of the strength of blue-end light. I don’t want to upset that balance with a UV filter that is likely to remove more of the weakly visible violet light than the manufacturer assumed, but I do want to protect my lenses from damage, and not feel too stressed about causing scratches when I clean them. So I use clear protector filters rather than UV filters (and accept that image quality might be a minute fraction better if I left the filter off). I’m disappointed that Chris didn’t mention the option of clear protective filters rather than UV in his video.
I would only use a UV filter if I was concerned about dust or salt water or something hitting the lens. Like if I was shooting a protest. Otherwise they are just another piece of glass in the light path. I feel they can interfere with AF.
Yes, they can affect AF but only slightly. I had a camera/lens combo calibrated. It was a long lens and I forgot to take off the protection filter. At infinity with AF it was perfectly sharp but when I took off the filter, with AF it was ever so slightly soft but nothing to worry about. It was phase detect AF so I perhaps the extra bit of glass caused a slight shift if that's even theoretically possible. CDAF probably would not have this issue.
G Pik How are you qualified to say what is the wrong entertainment is for folk??? the main use of video is entertainment ..many are entertained by this vid....maybe it boosts your ego by making such statements
@dave8; with a written article you could have posted higher resolutions of the photos and allowed for more critical examination. You know, like the image comparator? And yes, I prefer written articles to those videos.
I tend to agree. Videos are fashionable now but I think you could convert information much more efficiently with an article. Personally I am getting tired of watching a 15 minute video to learn something I could read in 2 minutes.
Agree with written. This type of info is something I read. I'm not always in an environment where watching a video is useful. I don't want to get out my headphones, or don't have them with me. Nobody else in the room is interested in the content.
I can read it just fine without having to look unavailable if one of my kids needs something (headphones sends a message of unavailability).
Dmanthree i did not think the article was talking about resolution..there were say no examples of cheap vs expensive filter and no attempts at replicating say a polariser in software so what was there to comper????? but whether filters are relevant today .i cannot think of how this article could be conveyed better in print ..of course, you could have had a very different article that favoured print..but we did not ...i don't know why folk like the OP complain about free content ..don't like vids dont watch ...
Yes. Video is probably the least useful way of imparting technical information. Can't easily scan back and forth to find what you need, can't easily bookmark, imprecise revision, can't easily skim, can't jump between main content, references and sidebars, information delivered in a strictly linear format over which the consumer has no control, very low information density requiring disproportionate time investment.
But it's great for delivering ads to a captive audience.
@dave8: being able to download and compare the images side by side to see exactly what the filters do without having to pause a video and see a glimpse of it might help. Look, we won't agree on this. I'm done here.
Sony had some nice apps in their older alpha-cams, especially a digital ND-filter that combines multiple exposures to a RAW-file or a similar app that substitutes a grad-filter.
As I moved on to a new A7iii I had to get all these filters in real life again because they abandoned the apps..
What Sony alpha had an ND Filter "app" in it? I've had Sony alphas from the a200 all the way to the a99 II that I have now. I don't remember even reading about apps of that kind in any Alpha cameras. Are you sure you're not talking about pre-alpha cameras from before their purchase of the Minolta Camera Company from Konica/Minolta? "alpha" of course comes from Minolta, since "alpha" is what Maxxum/Dynax cameras were called in Asia. Sony kept the name for brand recognition so Minolta people would know. None of the Sony alpha cameras I've had have had any apps of those types.
@Kirk The pre-historic Alphas and Minoltas don't have any app compatibility, but the the alphas from the a6000 to the A7xii (and some of the RX models) are capable of using this kind of apps. Just search for "PlayMemories Camera Apps".
I use CPLs for water surface and sky, and its the only filter I've ever missed having on or properly adjusted when an image gets to post processing (for me the acid test.)
Yeah, HSS is basically equivalent to flash + ND. A choosable fraction of the flash's light falls on the shutter curtain, so sun intensity and flash intensity are reduced by the same amount once you get above the flash sync speed.
I wonder why people pay so much for HSS when they could use an ND filter for an equivalent effect.
That's easy - HSS is simpler to use. Also, it eats around 3 stops (depending on many factors) but after that you get more light from the flash (proportionally) than you would if you were using 5 stop ND (which you also have to carry, and in the right size for your current lens, etc). Edit - and people don't really pay for it, it's hard to find a modern system that does not support it.
Pay so much for HSS? You haven't heard of godox have you? Cause their flashes and strobes aren't that expensive at all.
Additionally the filter is an other thing you need to bring along. If you have ever forgotten a filter or brought the wrong one or anything like that you will be happy that your flash has the HSS feature.
I use a polarizer mostly when on vacation in summer with my kids. It can help reduce highlights or even prevent clipping in harsh lighting. That's especially true for highlights on glossy faces with sun cream. :-) Sure a sunbounce and / or flash would do an even better job, but I only want to take very essential gear with me on vacation and a polarizer does virtually not take up any additional space.
I'm slightly surprised about the infrared filters not being mentioned. While you can create a similar'ish look in post processing, it will not be exactly the same as what the sensor captures when you filter out most or all of the visible light.
While modified cameras have very obvious benefits for near-IR photography, I have used IR filters successfully with non-modified DSLRs (even a 850nm one that blocks all visible light). The main limitation is way longer exposure times, so a tripod is needed and scenes with movement are problematic, unless you're specifically going for things like long-exposure waterfalls.
I'd rather say that using them on non-modified cameras introduces limitations for what you can successfully photograph with them, so considering the long exposure times vs. what you wish to photograph is a very good idea before buying.
@mika; yes, I know that, but the exposure times are so long that it's only useful in very rare occasions. Also, a converted mirrorless cam is far easier since it can focus off the sensor. There is a focus shift for IR images. Like I said, using an IR filter on a normal camera is, IMO, a waste of time.
Agreed, it's one of the coolest things you can do on a slightly rigged consumer cam. There's no way you can replicate R72 filter results. IR photography makes you take the gloves off and get creative in post. I.e. Snow white trees with hues that are slightly off, glowing roses, etc.
I'm not sure that I agree with your comments on UV filters. Personally, I use one of SIGMA's clear ceramic protecter filters on my lenses - especially the more expensive ones. That said, I do have UVs on the cheaper lenses - for the same reason. As you yourself say, while they might be considered "unnecessary", they are a LOT cheaper than buying a new lens. Ignoring all of that. though - I have found in some situations that a UV will enhance skies. I haven't logged it or studied it , so I can't give more detail of what sort of sky it works on. But it does seem to work on digital sensors, somehow, sometimes. And while I like the idea of SOOC and "capturing what we SEE", not what we can create by photoshopping our images, there's nothing worse to deal with during printing than a weak sky! (Of course we can also go to the "correct filter" and put the polariser on instead - LOL)
Just on the "SOOC and "capturing what we SEE"" and a bit off topic. The camera doesn't lie. It captures what's out there albeit with some in-camera enhancements. However, what we see is not what's out there. Our brain "interprets" what the eyes see and creates an image in conjunction with all our other senses and emotions operating at the time. You see an extremely interesting tree that inspires you. You photograph it and what do you get? Just a tree. This is where PP comes in. PP recreates that dull image of a tree into that inspiring image that you experienced when you first saw the tree. As an experiment, take a image of a wonderful scene. Export it in raw and if your raw processor allows it, develop it with all adjustments zeroed out. Look at the image. I guarantee it will look extremely dull but that is what was really out there. What we see is something quite different.
1- I bought some vintage beauty filters recently. B+W, hoya and tiffen ones. Nice and cheap nowadays. They produce physical effects, not digital. But I have to admit that with a program, I have adjustment options. 2- I have a "protector" (not UV) filter to protect the front element. I prefer not use the UV filter to let the UV ray cross the lens elements and prevent the growth of fungus. Does this make sense?
I tested cheap vs expensive filters and I feel scammed I bought the expensive ones first. The ones I tested are UV and CPL filters, with the expensive being more than 10 times the price of the cheap one. Filters manufacturers have just done clever marketing convincing photographers to get an expensive filter with their brand on it.
depends how cheap we are talking. There are a lot of $10 filters on ebay and those are generally quite bad. If we are talking $50 vs $150, then I agree.
@tkbslc Of course one needs to look at each individual filter. My cheap ND and IR filters are OK. I read that cheap UV pass filters should be avoided. For a CPL I probably wouldn't go for the cheapest either.
It would be interesting if someone went out and tested a bunch of these filters to prove whether expensive really is better. So far it is people with a vested interest in selling branded filters who say they are better.
ND filters are essential for video. Many higher-end video cameras have a selectable or variable ND filter built into the body.
A significant amount of motion blur is necessary to preserve the illusion of continuous motion. While the shutter speed can be as fast as 1/8000 second in a Sony A7xxx or FS5, much faster than 1/120 second results in an annoying stroboscopic effect. 80% of my video is shot with the lens wide open, to isolate the subject from the background. That's difficult outdoors without an ND filter.
Stacking exposures produces a similar effect on moving water for still photography. While a 1/8 second or longer exposure for a waterfall requires a tripod, you can use nearly any shutter speed, handheld, with exposure stacking.
Aurora HD software does an exceptional job stacking exposures for either motion or HDR effects. Remember to turn the motion reduction option off.
JFYI Chris, you can do stacking in camera for getting ND effect in Pentax models like K-3ii and K-1, maybe other models support that too. Sometimes it can be useful, like for instance when you don't own ND filters for some lenses. thanks for the video!
"That's fine if you are happy with JPEGs. Others may prefer RAW images and the ability to adjust the results in post." The Pentax cameras create a stacked, averaged DNG, if that's what you're shooting. You get both DNG and JPEG if you want . . .
What are you talking about @Ed ? The Pentax cameras has several stacking algorithms to use for different purposes and the results are dng, or jpg if you wish or both. Up to you...
I use a polarizer often, mainly to increase the saturated look of vegetation.
UV filters also serve the function to complete the weather resistance of many lenses. I generally suffer the two stops and just keep a polarizer on for this (since things are generally wet and reflective in that situation anyway).
NDs do a better job smoothing erratic behavior in long exposures. Stacking multiple shorter captures can make vegetation on the edge of a waterfall appear to jump around. YMMV.
IR, narrowband, and sky glow filters are also not replaceable with digital means, but are obviously niche.
Got f/1.2 lenses? You’ll “need” an ND2 or ND4 to shoot wide open outdoors in bright light with it. Without an ND your camera simply can’t set a fast enough shutter speed.
Never needed ND for that. 1/8000 and f/1.2 works just fine on a sunny tropical beach. I think I had one shot with small blown highlights which I would have left blown anyway.
FuhTeng - No camera has a 1/32.000th full shutter.
The marketed shutter time of 1/32.000th of a second is the PER SENSOR LINE readout speed of the sensor. Meaning it is the shutter time for a single line of pixels on the sensor
For a 24MP sensor that means you have to multply the readout speed times 4000. (6000 x 4000 pixels = 24MP)
1/32.000 (0.00003125 sec) * 4000 => 0,125 second for the full readout of the sensor, divided by the number of output lanes on your sensor. Mostly 4 , 6 or 8 Lets assume you have a modern camera with 8 lane output
The true shutter time (full readout of the sensor electronic shutter) would be 0,125 / 8 => 0,0156 second
Which compares to a mechanical shutter speed of appr. 1/60th sec
Your believed 1/32000th of a second shutter is actually nothing more than shooting at 1/60th of a second with a mechanical shutter
There you have the answer to your 'Ultra Fast' shutter speed... You thought you had. Hope I didn't shatter your dreams on the use of the ES
I’m in sunny San Diego with ultra bright light to contend with. My D700 has a 1/8000 max shutter speed which means an ND2 is the minimum I need for shooting an f/1.2 lens wide open here. If I shoot at the beach with sand and sun brightness levels it means an ND4. It just is what it is.
My D1X, interestingly, has a 1/16,000 max shutter thanks to its CCD being able to act as an electronic shutter.
Jones Indiana thanks for the explanation, which sounds right to me, but I think your answer to the question is wrong.
The missing piece is that the sensor supports two operations, "clear line" and "read line," which are analagous to the front and rear curtain respectively. The electronic shutter will reduce the light measured just like the mechanical shutter, so it will work fine in lieu of ND filter if you don't need a long exposure.
Phase One has a built-in exposure stacking mode using the electronic shutter, so the mechanical shutter doesn't close between "exposures". It just reads each line and then clears it. Using an electronic shutter this way is totally reasonable.
Thanks Chris, but for videos like this, publishing in such high resolution on YouTube is a pain in the neck. Playback is extremely slow, bandwidth hogger, and very sluggish, especially nowadays with people working from home. I would be happy to watch it in 720, or even in 480 resolution. Please consider that.
I agree but it’s an irony isn’t it? Jordan buys an S1H to shoot 4K full frame video and a) people can’t see the difference watching on their smartphone, and b) people say the video becomes a bandwidth hog. 😜
Yeh @yslee1, Let's humiliate him with his crappy internet connection. People are going to think we're really cool mocking him, and it certainly makes me feel big and important.
As @PerfectMark mentioned, you can always arbitrarily lower the streaming resolution to what's convenient for you or even leave it on "auto" so the system chooses whatever resolution your connection can handle at the time.
I won't mock his connection speed. We've all been there at one time or another. The fact that he doesn't know how to choose the quality of the videos he's watching though...
The a7R V is the fifth iteration of Sony's high-end, high-res full-frame mirrorless camera. The new 60MP Mark IV, gains advanced AF, focus stacking and a new rear screen arrangement. We think it excels at stills.
Topaz Labs' flagship app uses AI algorithms to make some complex image corrections really, really easy. But is there enough here to justify its rather steep price?
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
There are a lot of photo/video cameras that have found a role as B-cameras on professional film productions or even A-cameras for amateur and independent productions. We've combed through the options and selected our two favorite cameras in this class.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both the speed and focus to capture fast action and offer professional-level image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing around $2000 and recommended the best.
Family moments are precious and sometimes you want to capture that time spent with loved ones or friends in better quality than your phone can manage. We've selected a group of cameras that are easy to keep with you, and that can adapt to take photos wherever and whenever something memorable happens.
What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.
While peak Milky Way season is on hiatus, there are other night sky wonders to focus on. We look at the Orion constellation and Northern Lights, which are prevalent during the winter months.
We've gone hands-on with Nikon's new 17-28mm F2.8 lens for its line of Z-mount cameras. Check out the sample gallery to see what kind of image quality it has to offer on a Nikon Z7 II.
The winning and finalist images from the annual Travel Photographer of the Year awards have been announced, showcasing incredible scenes from around the world. Check out the gallery to see which photographs took the top spots.
The a7R V is the fifth iteration of Sony's high-end, high-res full-frame mirrorless camera. The new 60MP Mark IV, gains advanced AF, focus stacking and a new rear screen arrangement. We think it excels at stills.
Using affordable Sony NP-F batteries and the Power Junkie V2 accessory, you can conveniently power your camera and accessories, whether they're made by Sony or not.
According to Japanese financial publication Nikkei, Sony has moved nearly all of its camera production out of China and into Thailand, citing geopolitical tensions and supply chain diversification.
A pro chimes in with his long-term impressions of DJI's Mavic 3. While there were ups and downs, filmmaker José Fransisco Salgado found that in his use of the drone, firmware updates have made it better with every passing month.
Landscape photography has a very different set of requirements from other types of photography. We pick the best options at three different price ranges.
AI is here to stay, so we must prepare ourselves for its many consequences. We can use AI to make our lives easier, but it's also possible to use AI technology for more nefarious purposes, such as making stealing photos a simple one-click endeavor.
This DIY project uses an Adafruit board and $40 worth of other components to create a light meter and metadata capture device for any film photography camera.
Scientists at the Green Bank Observatory in West Virginia have used a transmitter with 'less power than a microwave' to produce the highest resolution images of the moon ever captured from Earth.
The tiny cameras, which weigh just 1.4g, fit inside the padding of a driver's helmet, offering viewers at home an eye-level perspective as F1 cars race through the corners of the world's most exciting race tracks. In 2023, all drivers will be required to wear the cameras.
The new ultrafast prime for Nikon Z-mount cameras is a re-worked version of Cosina's existing Voigtländer 50mm F1 Aspherical lens for Leica M-mount cameras.
There are plenty of hybrid cameras on the market, but often a user needs to choose between photo- or video-centric models in terms of features. Jason Hendardy explains why he would want to see shutter angle and 32-bit float audio as added features in cameras that highlight both photo and video functionalities.
SkyFi's new Earth Observation service is now fully operational, allowing users to order custom high-resolution satellite imagery of any location on Earth using a network of more than 80 satellites.
In some parts of the world, winter brings picturesque icy and snowy scenes. However, your drone's performance will be compromised in cold weather. Here are some tips for performing safe flights during the chilliest time of the year.
The winners of the Ocean Art Photo Competition 2022 have been announced, showcasing incredible sea-neries (see what we did there?) from around the globe.
Venus Optics has announced a quartet of new anamorphic cine lenses for Super35 cameras, the Proteus 2x series. The 2x anamorphic lenses promise ease of use, accessibility and high-end performance for enthusiast and professional video applications.
We've shot the new Fujinon XF 56mm F1.2R WR lens against the original 56mm F1.2R, to check whether we should switch the lens we use for our studio test scene or maintain consistency.
Nature photographer Erez Marom continues his series about landscape composition by discussing the multifaceted role played by the sky in a landscape image.
The NONS SL660 is an Instax Square instant camera with an interchangeable lens design. It's made of CNC-milled aluminum alloy, has an SLR-style viewfinder, and retails for a $600. We've gone hands-on to see what it's like to shoot with.
Recently, DJI made Waypoints available for their Mavic 3 series of drones, bringing a formerly high-end feature to the masses. We'll look at what this flight mode is and why you should use it.
Astrophotographer Bray Falls was asked to help verify the discovery of the Andromeda Oxygen arc. He describes his process for verification, the equipment he used and where astronomers should point their telescopes next.
OM Digital Solutions has released firmware updates for the following cameras to add compatibility support for its new M.Zuiko Digital ED 90mm F3.5 Macro IS PRO lens: OM-D E-M1 Mark II, E-M1 Mark III, E-M5 Mark III, E-M1X, and OM-5.
Comments