Ted Forbes—photographer and inspirational educator behind The Art of Photography—recently got a chance to try out the Phase One IQ3 100MP Achromatic digital back, and man did it ever leave an impression. In his short video overview above, he dives into the images he captured with this bayer filter-free, monochromatic medium format beast, explaining why he feels this camera is a true 'gamechanger.'
If that word triggers your gag reflex, you're not alone, but Forbes isn't one to throw hyperbole around and he gives good reason (and plenty of examples) for why he believes this digital back is something special. Pay particular attention to what Forbes is able to do using filters and the sensor's ability to pick up light outside of the visible spectrum.
Check out the full video above to see the camera in action and dive into some sample images, but don't forget to watch it at the highest possible resolution YouTube and your monitor can handle. You'll need every available pixel at your disposal.
This is the kind of thing I could see renting out for myself as a birthday present for a couple days.. just to see what it's like to shoot something this expensive/rarified.
I do kinda wonder, however, why the video about the $63,000 black and white only camera is.. in color.
This is an interesting debate but I have an honest question for the group. Has anyone calculated what a low ISO 4x5 film resolution would equate to in pixels in a digital format? Say in similar designed monochromatic sensor to keep the comparison more simple? And if it was or has been accomplished what the ppi needed to be to take advantage in a printer? It's truly a serious question without a hidden agenda. I used to shoot 4x5 mostly B&W. I've personally been dreaming of a day when that quality could be replicated in digital.
In testing I did with 4x5 Fuji Astia 100F, scanned on an Aztek, I could resolve between 60mp to 70mp. Fine grain b&w would be a bit higher...not much though.
I own an Achromatic, watched the video, and know others buying one. There is a lot to love about this back and the XF system. You don't have to love it, or even care about it, and may take some satisfaction from assuming that everyone shares your perspective, but not everyone does [at the end of the video, the target audience & pricing model are correctly summarized]. I love shooting with my D810, and new 850. With Zeiss lenses, they produce some amazing images. And I love my iPhone. But the XF is a well-designed system that puts the Nikon/Canon/Oly/Fuji/Sony user experience to shame—except of course for weight & bulk. But hey, it's MF. And the P1 sensors, and the people who make the market for them, benefit all of us in the long run. With Sony owning the sensor market, any R&D developed for MF sensors—and as I believe P1's R&D work with Sony is non-exclusive—ultimately will benefit all of us in this profession/hobby. Mega$ R&D goes on in almost every industry; why is it bad here?
Granted, the price is high, but do you have data to back up the assertion of "obscene profits"? I doubt it. I could not locate any public P&L info for Phase One.
You might be right—if all you count is the material & direct cost. Or maybe you just need to consider a bigger picture; direct manufacturing costs are never the whole story. Nor does your inapt comparison necessarily translate into obscene profits, which is what you claimed. P1 plows a lot of resources into R&D, and the market is small, so there are fewer purchases to spread the cost around. Niche manufacturers [Zeiss, Hassy, Mamiya & Rollei before. etc.] generally have higher prices. So what? It's still largely a free world: no one makes you buy them, and their worth and success are decidedly determined by the market. Ounce for ounce, my Zeiss lenses are generally much better than my Nikkor lenses; but only I can decide if they are worth it to me. Same with the P1 backs. And when one looks out there in the market, plenty of people are buying these. And that's all the better for the rest of us. It works this way in almost every industry, and I don't see anything obscene about it.
No, Dave, you never printed a sharp anything, not even a 4X6 from that artifact laden mess. It's just not what you do. You simply hope your grainy and grungy stuff will be accepted as "art," just like the fashionably? gloomy pic of the back of two unsuspecting pedestrians' head shown a few panels down in your gallery. Anyone reading this thread can look in my gallery and my Flickr page and see a sharp full res pic any day of the week and twice on Sunday, right out to the 200Mp limit. So yes, I'll take the D850 and $60,000. I'll have a lot less geometric distortion and sharp corners, both of which will never happen with whatever lens gets put on this Phase One monstrosity, which would seldom if ever be used for more than one shot at a time. And that's enough.
Sorry Reilly...you are judging sharpness by a 1200 pixel image reduced to 394k. The 16x24 print shows grain sharp in the rock and mountains in the back. Claim what you like...but only a fool judges sharpness from a tiny, compressed image. And are you seriously trying to compare street photography, processed from pushed film for the purpose of enhancing grain, with landscape work? With every post you reaffirm the lack of depth in your knowledge of not only the technology, but of art in general....just like every other time you've tried to attack me and failed.
Well Einstein...they can focus stack and stitch with the 100mp body as well and always beat the D850. We get it...you have no need for it, don't understand it, can't afford it...and think 8mp is enough for any size display. Move on...you're getting tiring and whiny.
One of us worked professionally for decades with paying clients....the other is a forum expert who thinks 8mp is enough for any display. Sorry Reilly...the bottom starts with you.
Only a fool would judge sharpness from a heavily compressed small jpg. Printed nice and sharp for a client sale at 16x24. Man, you just keep digging yourself deeper...it's hilarious.
For the price of this, I rather have a Hasselblad 100mp camera and a new Range Rover to travel around and take pics. I can live with the more limited dynamic range...
I actually watched this and have no idea why I would buy a $63K camera, there was nothing that was actually said that made me think "damn I need this camera". I really learned nothing other than I wasted a few minutes of my life that I won't get back.
I think I’m going to discontinue watching Ted’s videos. Too often they contain very low signal to noise ratio aka information to bla-bla ratio. My impression of him is somebody who likes to hear himself talk. And not in an entertaining or inspiring kind of way. Very tiring.
He started things well with the "history of photography" and such "broader audience presentations" for those who doesn't want to read books and learn more about the history and methods itself.
But he has then moved more for the "This is YouTube, if you want to make money, follow this FAQ" -direction where they just need to do it to stay up.
Amazing really, a blast from the past. Took me back to shooting my Olympus OM2n with B&W film in the 80’s. Then I spent most of my time shooting through yellow, sometimes orange and occasionally red filters too. Back then, we didn’t understand that film sensitive to IR was an ‘advantage’. It just sort of gave flatter images that we had to sort out (if you could) in the darkroom and was generally considered a bit of a pain.
Of course, the resolution wasn’t as good but then I didn’t need to add grain in ‘post’ ‘coz it was built in.
Epic bit of kit though. Possibly analagous to having the crazy $$$ to splash on a Hassleblad back then. Though I think that (at mid 80’s prices) would have bought a few or a Arri or Aaton pro 16mm movie camera set up
Companies just love to gouge (not gauge, I said "gouge") the idiots and wannabes out there. You have $64.000? Good! Because this company will gladly relieve you of it, if you're dumb enough😩
You could buy 5 Sony A9 and 5 Nikon D850s and a video-centric GH5 for that! And I bet you you'll get world-Class black-&-whites with those!
This makes Leica seem like a bargain! Please people, tell this company to cut the bullsh_t. There are companies who will race to the top and charge top-dollar to siphon the wealthy elite, that's all this is, companies will charge what they can get away with, simple as that!
Well, I guess it is for the wealthy set with $63k to spend on a black and white only camera.. maybe it is.. and I thought the Leica monochrome camera was kinda spendy for what it does..
"I use my old Canon D30 at 3mp with a Zoneplate adaptor and pinhole adaptor. My Canon 10D spends most of it's time with my daughter so she has both digital and film gear. My old D2X is actually a walkaround body for me as I love the ergonomics."
And he is slamming Reilly? Puzzled, but that's OK. This is the internet. I can think of a better use for $64,000 - even as a rental.
As the subject was old cameras and if anyone uses them, your puzzlement is puzzling...as this has nothing to do with the topic here, or Reilly's trolling. Sorry that you are confused...but it says more about you then me.
Not to worry, Steve. The film people are odd ducks who see things differently. Grainy B&W of the back of an unsuspecting pedestrian's head makes them swoon.
1. He said things that emit IR light are brighter. Like face! The face does NOT emit IR light in the range this camera can see. It reflects! 2. He is so amazed about IR sensitive sensor so it is unbelievable! Looks like he never took IR photos in his life. Full Spectrum converted cameras available from $300 and up. 3. And if it is "Ikea of cameras" then it is garbage! In any case, such a narrow niche item is not a game changer by any stretch! :)
I really don't get it who would buy a D850 to shoot B&W even for personal use when they know 100mp is available. And the (if your lucky enough) 8-10 great images shot in a year could have been much better if shot with a better sensor?
Yes.... When you only follow DPR, you are only among gear heads and pixel peepers who are not there producing the photographs for business.
You see this all the time here. People whine how a body X is too expensive, how a lens Y is too expensive, how a A, B or C is too expensive.
When you are professional, you need to be prepared to invest 50 000-100 000€ for your business if you want to be making money in big time.
You don't hear truck business owner to whine how they need to invest 150 000€ just for the truck, then invest more for everything they need, total business going easily for few millions.
Same thing can be said about so many other business startups that you just need to often have tens of thousands worth of capital, meaning you need loan to start all.
Photography business is very cheap even if you start with this Phase One back and their few lenses. Even cheaper if you go to Fuji or Hasselblad.
Every Canon, Nikon, Sony etc body and basic 5-7 lens setup is NOTHING.
A company is free to offer anything they want at any price they want. In the case of Phase, the products are costly to develop and manufacture and the market small and demanding. If it sells, the company thrives, and the next increment can be financed. If they miscalculate or underperform, they are gone--simple survival of the fittest. Nothing new here.
Why does everyone waste so much effort whining about such a commonplace dynamic?
People buy those, then they do own photography and they generate multiple times the cost of that back in a year. And some even buy it for their use and then they rent it for some special people too. Some starts a business together and buy it together.
It ain't purchased by DPR audience who are mainly hobbyists and can't even afford to put a few grand a year for their camera gear.
It is time for DPR audience to realize that 100 000 - 200 000€ for a photography business ain't stupid when you know what you are doing.
tommy K1, that was a very pompous argument. Cameras like these need to be in the hands of pros shooting 24/7 to pay themselves off and are reserved for the upper echelons of product, architecture, and iconic portraiture. That market is extremely small and you really need to build decades-long reputations to get to that level. Plenty of photographers 'know what they are doing' and yet do not need or cannot justify a $63k camera.
I interrupt the many critics to say this: As someone new to photography, I don't have an ox being gored here in terms of a less expensive camera system I use and thereby reflexively defending it as so many of the previous comments suggest to me. I am here, first and foremost, to learn about new equipment and techniques and to appreciate what others can do with this art form.
I admit as a beginner my first impression of reading the word "achromatic" was less than exhilarating. But some of Mr. Forbes' shots remind me of what another well-known photographer did with black-and-white images. His name was Ansel Adams. And this product by Phase One is intended (in part) for the likes of modern day artists on his level. Bravo to Phase One for making this unit and to those who can both afford this system and have the talents to fully utilize it.
Cost included, whether or not the IQ3 is truly a "game changer" depends in no small measure on how much game one brings to the table.
I would be very surprised to read an article (or see a video, in this case) of a $63k camera which do not produce amazing photos. This will be an Item! Besides - a good tripod with Sony a7R III should produce results which are hardly distinguished with what I sew in this video. IMHO
$63k for the camera, $10k for the selfie stick and another $15k for the special-purpose bionic arm to hold that selfie stick. Not a problem! Still, I'd buy that camera if I hand grossly obscene amount of spare change.
someone convince me that all the human energy that went into making this $63,000 camera was best spent making that camera instead of....idk, feeding 10,000 starving children?
For what, one day? You could take the camera and shoot the starving kids then start a go-fund-me page, making the money to feed the children and keeping the camera. Though I doubt that you could see a real-life difference between a picture taken by this and an m43 camera, when in the hands of a good street photographer, while still collecting as much funds.
Applicable to any premium or luxury product, to the Humans who do all the effort to make such a product possible and existent, it is worth it in order to feed there own children and have a home, is that enough?
travelguymiami are you for real? Do you go on all the product review sites and leave a comment like this or photography is your special topic of interest? Go pander your naive BS elsewhere.
I'd suggest some time (probably years based on the openness your question) studying economics, philosophy, evolution and game theory, and perhaps some soul searching regarding what makes us human. But this is a photography website. You don't have to buy somebody else's creation to be interested in it or respect it.
I think it's troubling that you took the time to make your post when you could have used the time to feed a starving child instead. (Me? I'm here because I'm heartless and just don't care.)
These were some truly interesting comments to read. I especially enjoy the one that suggested to an economics professor that he should go study economics for years (it was unwittingly clairvoyant since literally that is what I will be doing for all the years of my life!) . If you are interested, I could explore the topic at length with you all about why your comments miss the boat completely (with the exception of Bryce Steiner, who underscored the point quite well in his final sentence). Good chat, though, guys and gals. :)
I can't make up my mind if its more depressing or pathetic for you to confess that an economics professor has forgotten all about supply and demand. May I suggest a sabbatical? That 'boat' we missed was the Titanic.
@ travelguymiami go read Dawkins selfish gene ( actually read it don't just assume you can guess the contents - it's probably the most incorrectly referenced text) then apply what you have learned about gene theory to the concept of charity (whether individual or national) as a means for saving the world or nations as opposed to just being to feel good and apply to specific non-parasitic, sustainable elements/people/memes...
as for the morality of pricing, I guess like many economists you have not yet discounted communist-esque systems hence your - to a more conservative less idealist chap - odd question about the morality of pricing your own creations for maximum profit / or just to suit your own emotional goals as opposed to the less human notion of 'production' where you artificially decide what society should be working on and indirectly remove a huge chunk pf the motivations for creation and self fulfillment....
Finally, you must see the irony of asking a question only to then act like you already know all the answers - it's a waste of other people's production time. which is ironic given the subject. I was attempting to send you in the right direction so you wouldn't remain confused/unhappy...I guess I should ignore these sort of posts. :)
Never heard of law of diminishing returns? Is a 3500$ D850 8/9 times better than a 400$ D5300? Does a one million bugatti score 100 times better laps than a normal 10000$ car? (At least with that you could get around 100 times the girls!)
Naturally sharp and clean photo looks like I'm watching with my own eyes. Bayer filter surely ruins this feeling because it produces a bit messy fine details and sometimes other artifacts. Pentax K-1 pixel shift photos almost give the same natural feeling in color, if motion artifacts are low enough.
Megapixel race seems pointless with current megapixel amounts, but it is a fight against Bayer filter blurring. Even with FullHD display, it seems to require a +100 MP Bayer filtered photo downsampled to ~ 2 MP before natural feeling is achieved.
As 4K is all the hot rage, maybe lets do the numbers for that. 4K pixels on the long axis means you have 2K red and blue, means you would need 8K just to get proper 4K for the red and blue channel.
Now, if we look at audio stuff, we use a minimum of 2x oversampling (44 or even 48kHz), ideally 4x (96kHz) or even 8x (192kHz) (if I remember some old Windows bugs, they use 4x oversampling internally, for example).
So, with just 2x oversampling (for red and blue) we would need 16K on the long axis, which goes beyond 100MPix already; just to get 4K final resolution which has enough information available for proper "recovery" of frequencies/details etc. For 2K final resolution it would be something into the 40-50MPix we have nowadays, assuming 2x oversampling. Oupsies. And the best about that all: Increasing the resolution doesn't come for free. What a bummer :)
After 3 min in this AMAZING video it turned out te be a commercial. At 5 min of AMAZING AMAZING promises I gave up on what turned out not really AMAZING. Was this video made by a 12 year old in 2015? Is it a kickstarter thing?
My video watching rules: if I hear 'amazing' I lean back, it's not really very interesting. If I hear it twice I start checking my mail on the second monitor. If I hear it three times I close.
Ever heard about rentals? This is of course a niche product, but seriously stunning results, just think of the prints you'd get! Make back that rental money almost instantly
The difference between this and the Foveon is that the Foveon captures color. But essentially they use the same light gathering method - one color/luminance per one pixel per all pixels per one sensor surface.
No they don't. Certainly not the Quattro. The Quattro captures 1/4th the resolution on 2 wide spectrum of light. This one is capturing 100% full resolution on the spectrum of light it does. Also the Foveon (any of them) has way more noise rather very fast. This affects high ISO performance. The high ISO of Foveon doesn't even compare to current m43rds, let alone something like this.
Finally Foveon is *very* DR challenged (Merrill or Quattro- take yoru pick). This camera runs rings in DR around it.
There's a big difference how this camera captures its luminance intensity and how Foveon does it, for B&W. And of course, this one doesn't capture any color.
I meant the Merrills. Btw, have you used one? When I first tried the Merrills it would be an understatement saying that I was pleasantly surprised, but rather I was STUNNED by the quality and the lack of noise. It has an unbelievable richness of detail, color and emotional quality. Try it for yourself and see. I was rejecting Sigmas once, but once you go with Sigma, everything else is of inferior quality AT BASE ISO I have to stress that. The highlight DR range on the Foveons is stellar.
And even if you were talking old Merril style foveon don't forget 3 colour layers means three times the read noise, smaller full well capacity and higher dark current.
@martindpr - Yes, I have used one. And I had used a DP2 for a couple of years before it. What you also get is lack of color consistency with some rather strange magenta/green casts on the pictures depending on subject. The B&W can be great, but what I said about the HIGH ISO and DR still stand.
The DR is the total range of a device. If you have great dynamic range on highlights - which btw, other current APS-C sensors still have more than the Merrill anyway, but poor shadow range (Merrill has horrible shadow range), your total DR is still less. On a sensor with more shadow range than highlight you can easily shift that by under exposing and then bringing the exposure in post back up.
So just having good highlight range but poor shadow range doesn't mean much. And then like you said- this is only at base ISO- there's many situations many people may want or even need to shoot at higher ISO.
To say that the Phase One back uses the "same method" like Foveon except Foveon does it with color is not accurate at all. You still have a three-layer spectrum response to deal on the Foveon where the last layer gets less and less light- so more and more noise. This does affect how you are going to do your B&W conversions. See all the people doing tips on "use the blue channel to do lower noise?" That trick is nice but in doing so you are effectively applying a blue filter to the data (in some way)- something you don't have to do with the Phase One back.
This all said, this doesn't mean the Foveon Merrill doesn't have its appeals within the small operating range it has (low ISO, etc.)., but I wouldn't compare it to this medium format sensor/Camera.
Why do some people are completely ignorance saying "...the best technology will be a fail if no one can afford it." Foolish people never know what is technology.
Dear Mr Leung, I' ve been working as a researcher most of my life, developing technologies for various industries. I know very well what I'm talking about. It may become a game changer when it's affordable, which is not gonna happen. Domestication of fire was a game changer, invention of the wheel, steam engine, petrol engine, automotive, airplanes, Hubble space telescope, flat displays, cell phones, camera in cell phones was a game changer.
An overpriced monochrome camera that produces 100 megapixels files which are totally useless for 99.9999% of the people on the planet. There is no point. This won't sell to more than a few hundred units. For studio purpose, or hyperspectral/polychromatic imaging, you'd be better served with an industrial camera connected to a laptop... for a lot less money.
If you need portability, 100mpix and BW... This is the camera for you, but don't call it a game changer.
Also, the space shuttle was a great idea but, the cost of launching satellites with it was high because of maintenance costs. Plus, the payload was low compared to Russian launchers for instance. The safety was also an issue. Russians had their own space shuttle and abandoned using it because the Soyuz launcher was safer and cheaper. The shuttle was great to carry people and food though. It is much larger than a capsule and you can put a pressurized lab in the loading bay. If the shuttle was so great, there would be another, better model, flying already. It's been a great, albeit not so safe, mean of transporting astronauts and making their lives much, much more comfortable in orbit.
I'm going to be Devils advocate and point out nuclear weapons are perhaps the biggest game changer of all and yet will hopefully never be in reach of the common man. I know what you mean though it won't be sucessful until its affordable.
@Zdman. Dude, your analogy would only make sense if the government bought a supply of those PhaseOne cameras to make photos for the public. Or if you considered the fact that you actually own a piece of WMD through paying taxes.
Domestic affordability is not required for game changing technology, clearly large engineering, mass production, robotics gas turbine and rocket science might be regarded thus. I think Mr Forbes uses a little hyperbole in order to make the point that this camera allows a higher level of image quality, dynamic range and tone interpretation, than was previously possible using digital photography, given the uniqueness of the product we should allow him that ahead of any direct experience or detailed technical comparison
There's no analogy, the original poster said to be a game changer it has to be in reach of the common people. I gave an example of a game changer that is clearly not. I'm not trying to tie it to the Phase one in any way and actually do get the point he was trying to make but one should be careful of absolutes.
Wait. I'm honestly not sure, but the fact that a black piece of fabric may look bright in near infrared, did he claim that as an example of great dynamic range? I'll have to look again when I find the time.
there are advantages and disadvantages to color vs b&w, ted. for example, we can see how yellow your teeth are with color. in b&w we'd have to guess the hue.
Any camera that has a multishot function for sampling full RGB values can essentially get you close to this cameras output once properly converted to monochrome. However, since multishot is relegated to mostly studio use, PhaseOne would have the advantage by simply taking three consecutive shots with each shot having either a red, green, or blue filter on the lens.
i wonder which was the Pentax camera his friend was using. I can't tell from this video about the final result, but i was amazed by the old bikes race shots... i wont ever spend such amount of money im not a pro either, maybe a Pentax K1 someday. Many people complaints here, but i guess that if he spent such sum is coz that reports to his business or way of work, so... happy for him.
I think "gamechanger" is relative. At that price, it had better produce 10x better images than cameras it costs 10x more than. If it is barely better than a Hassey H6D ($15k) or even the Pentax 50S ($6,500), then... and keep in mind that those other cameras can record color. Black and white is self-limiting in that not everything works in black and white. Some images need color to work.
I am a firm believer in paying through the nose for the right tools, because it's the results that matter. But if I can get almost similar results from a cheaper camera, there's no reason to splurge.
Honest question: many pros on these boards will buy one of these?
If I had the cash I certainly would. Black and white is tricky with a regular color sensor. I do plenty of it, but dynamic range is not nearly as broad as I wish it were, and I almost always have to settle with blown out highlights or blackened shadows in what I would consider normal scenes. Check out my gallery for some examples of what I am describing.
To:Conrad567- If you divide your resolution by 50%green, 25%blue, and 25%red you will have a better understanding as to why both ends of the spectrum get crushed. Even better, your computer has to fill in the blanks by using a de-mosaicing algorithm to make a "best guess" as to what the color actually is.
@conrad, thx for the feedback. I'm curious why a good DSLR doesn't already give you the shadow recovery / DR you need to overcome the blown out highlights and blackened shadows? Surely the extremes aren't that polar? Also an honest question without a hint of sarcasm: you really think a camera is worth 63k if it can recover the highlights and raise the shadows? As in, you think it will pay for itself? For me personally, I cannot fathom forking over that kind of $$$ for DR and shadow recovery. I rent a Fujifilm 50S from time to time and it is plenty good enough for my outdoor shots.
If I was doing high end fashion, or if I had the talent of Ansel Adams, then sure, the camera would pay for itself. It's like asking a truck driver if his new Kenworth pays for itself, or a computer programmer if his new computer pays for itself. It just depends on the level of expertise. Shooting weddings on the weekend would certainly NOT pay for this camera.
As for your other question, certainly a "good" DSLR has better dynamic range than a micro 4/3, but nothing like what this camera was doing. I owned a Hasselblad H3Dii-39 for a while. It was a monstrosity of a camera. But dang! The photos that monster could create. And the DYNAMIC RANGE was awesome. It blew away ANYTHING that the DSLR's of the time could do. Now DSLR's have improved dramatically, and there are some that I am sure compete easily with that camera. But now the MF camera backs that are coming out, even the smaller ones like the Hasselblad XD1 or Fujifilm GFX-50 are blowing away the current DSLR's.
@Conrad567 "But now the MF camera backs that are coming out, even the smaller ones like the Hasselblad XD1 or Fujifilm GFX-50 are blowing away the current DSLR's."
Are they actually blowing away cameras like the D850 and A7RIII? Isn't the XD1 and GFX-50 based on the same 44 x 33 mm sensor tech thats been out for at least 3.5 years now?(Same one on the Pentax 645Z) Obviously that sensor is still fantastic today but it's not actually a cutting edge medium format digital sensor and the full frame sensors out today are catching up(not saying they are the same yet and obviously there are different advantages in DOF in a crop medium format sensor)
Very flat and dull images. Looks like Fuji's black and white OOC jpgs. Medium format small, medium? there are like 3 different sizes already. Hasselblad's 100MP H6D-100c costs $25000, I assume gives you basically the same IQ.
I really think that some of you get on here and attack everything just so that the rest of us will know your level of expertise. This is not a compliment.
It is designed for post processing. And no comment that is a state of opinion is fact. Just keep on keeping on with whatever you are shooting with. If you can't see the advantage this system offers, then you clearly are not who it is marketed for.
Just remember, you can ALWAYS add more contrast to a photo in post processing, but you can't ALWAYS recover detail in shadow and highlight areas. Not all cameras are created equal.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. So far, it's a fun camera to shoot with – if a bit over the top.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
The GFX 50R is a 50MP rangefinder-style mirrorless camera. It borrows heavily from the existing 50S model but in a smaller body and at a lower price. How does it differ?
The instant camera market is heating up, and with four formats and 15+ cameras to choose from, we felt it was high time to examine them all and pick our favorite.
Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.
What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.
What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Celebrity photographer Manfred Baumann has been using a pre-release version of ACDSee Photo Studio Ultimate 2019, and in this article he shares his impressions of using the software.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
Photographer Peter Guttman was given some of Kodak's revitalized Ektachrome 100 film and took over Kodak Professional's Instagram page to share the images he captured.
We sat down recently with top Canon engineers to talk about the EOS R, and the delicate balancing act of experimenting with a new platform and the risk of alienating existing users.
Sony has updated its image sensor spec page and as expected, a few of the chips they make bear an uncanny resemblance to sensors found inside Fujifilm and Panasonic cameras.
This week Chris and Jordan are joined by renowned macro photographer Don Komarechka, who demonstrates a few simple techniques that can improve your macro photos in a big way.
The Pixel 3 represents another step forward in computational photography for Google's smartphone. We're just getting started with our testing – for now take a look at some sample images, including 'computational Raw' files available for download.
The Kickstarter campaign for Yashica’s digiFilm Y35 camera has produced a wave of complaints about delays in shipping product as well as cameras that don’t work.
Although Raw performance of the EOS R is very similar to the 5D Mark IV, Canon's done some tweaking on the JPEGs - take a look at our studio scene to see for yourself.
If you've backed one of the company's crowdfunding projects, the reward will not arrive and you won't get your money back either as Meyer Optik Görlitz's parent company, Net SE, is completely dead.
Google's Super Res Zoom technology uses pixel-shifting methods to achieve zoom results comparable to some optical solutions. Google has published an in-depth explanation on its AI blog.
Toy manufacturer Tomy has launched a no-battery-required smartphone printer that is remarkably like the one Holga has been promoting via a Kickstarter campaign but which is already available for $40/£39.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
After shaking up the Lightroom ecosystem with Lightroom CC last year, Adobe has released version 2.0 of the cloud-centric photo organizer and editor. We look at new features like People View, how far Lightroom CC has come in its first year, and where Lightroom is headed.
Comments