Vlogging is more popular than ever. In response, manufacturers have introduced specialty cameras for vloggers. But do you really need a dedicated camera to vlog? We compared the Sony ZV-1 and Panasonic G100 to an iPhone to find out.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV every week.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 |
The Nikon Z5 is the second camera to be launched explicitly as an entry-level step into the world of full-frame mirrorless. Its launch price isn’t quite as low as that of the Canon EOS RP, but it’s clearly got a similar audience in its sights.
And, because Sony seems determined to leave all its previous models on the market, it’s also likely to sell at a price that’s roughly comparable with the a7 II. The Sony was originally aimed at a higher price point (and audience) but is available at entry-level prices now that nearly six years have elapsed.
 |
The Nikon Z5 is based around a 24MP full-frame sensor. Nikon is clear that this isn’t the same chip used in the more expensive Z6 and is based on the older front-side illumination technology rather than the BSI tech that helps boost the Z6’s image quality.
Noticeably, this is the same distinction between the a7 II and the newer Mark III model, which is likely to give a reasonable guide to how much difference in quality we can expect to see. The Canon also uses conventional construction but utilizing an innovative dual pixel structure that underpins its autofocus system. The 26MP chip in the Canon isn’t a great performer in terms of dynamic range, so you’ll quickly encounter noise if you try to expand beyond what’s in the JPEGs.
 |
We haven’t yet had a chance to test whether the Z5’s autofocus is an exact match for the Z6, but it possesses all the improvements Nikon has added to its Z cameras since their launch. That means eye detection AF and the easier-to-initiate subject tracking that came to the Z6 and 7 in mid-life firmware updates.
In previous testing we’ve found the Canon tracking and eye detection to be a little more precise than the Nikon (getting the focus exactly on the eye more often), but there’s not a lot in it. The Sony, although good when it was launched, looks much less impressive now: subject tracking tries to identify the subject as a whole, rather than letting you specify a part that you want to focus on, and eye detection requires that you hold down a custom button (the results are the most dependable of the three cameras, though).
 |
None of these cameras are exactly speed demons. They all use older (slower readout) sensors and the RAM required to act as buffer is an obvious thing to skimp on, if you don’t want the entry-level model to completely cannibalize sales of the mid-range models.
As you might expect, then, the erstwhile mid-level Sony a7 II posts the highest figures, with 5.0 frames per second. This is going to be sufficient for a lot of day-to-day shooting but sports and wildlife enthusiasts will have to dig a little deeper to buy the next model up.
The Nikon isn’t far behind, with the promise of up to 4.5 fps bursts and the Canon claims four shots per second. It’s unlikely that difference is going to be meaningful for most photography.
 |
None of the cameras in this price is especially strong on the video front. The Nikon and Canon can only read out a small region of their sensors fast enough to capture high-res video. So, while the Nikon does enough to say 4K on the box, it has the same 1.7x crop that we criticized on the Canon.
This is still more than the Sony manages: it tops out at 1080/60p: a spec the Nikon will happily match. Likewise the Nikon matches the Sony in offering both mic and headphone sockets. We’ve not had a chance the Nikon’s autofocus yet, but we’d expect the Z5 to do a reasonable job in this regard.
 |
The Z5 has a larger and higher resolution viewfinder than the EOS R (shown here) or the a7 II.
Despite being Nikon’s entry-level full-framer, it uses the same viewfinder panel as the company’s range-topping Z7. The 3.69M-dot OLED viewfinder is a distinct improvement over the 2.36M dot panels used in both the EOS RP and the Sony a7 II. Given how much of the Z5’s handling comes straight from Nikon’s DSLRs, the EVF is likely to be the primary way of interacting with the camera, so it’s nice to see Nikon resist the temptation to cut corners.
In terms of rear LCDs, the Z5 has a tilting 1.04M-dot touchscreen, which isn’t quite as flexible as the EOS RP’s fully articulating arrangement of a similar screen. However, there are plenty of photographers that prefer a screen that tilts on the optical axis, rather than flipping outward as the Canon’s does. The only objective disadvantage is that the Nikon’s screen can’t be turned in towards the camera for protection.
The Sony uses an older panel with a white dot at each location, so is fractionally lower in resolution (640 x 480 pixels, rather than 720 x 480) than the other two cameras. The more significant difference is that the Sony’s screen isn’t touch-sensitive, which has
 |
The Nikon comes out on top when it comes to battery life. It uses a new, higher capacity version of the EN-EL15 used in the mid-range Z6 and is able to squeeze a creditable 470 shots per charge out of it. The Canon uses a smaller battery and its endurance suffers accordingly: it’s probably our biggest gripe about the camera, as it quickly impacts on your shooting.
The Sony falls between the two: it uses the company’s older, smaller NP-FW50 battery to achieve a respectable 350 shot-per-charge rating using the LCD. All three cameras can be charged over USB but the Canon demands you use a high-current USB-C charger.
 |
Another potential advantage for the Z5 is the availability of a kit zoom designed specifically for an entry-level audience. We’ve not had a chance to put it through its paces yet but a very compact, retractable, 24-50mm F4.0-6.3 zoom is a really handy companion to this camera. It’s unstabilized but the body has 5-axis stabilization to make up for it. There’s also a rather less-compact 24-200mm F4.0-6.3 zoom if you’re after a do-everything lens.
The Canon also offers a do-everything zoom in the shape of the RF 24-240mm F4.0-6.3, but there aren’t any small ‘kit’ zooms to pair with the RP’s smaller body: the RF 24-105 F4.0-7.1 is more versatile than the Nikon zoom but its size, while not unreasonable, it not nearly so slight. The Sony, belying its more enthusiast roots, makes fewer concessions to portability and is often kitted with the 28-70mm F3.5-5.6. It has a slightly brighter aperture range than the others but it bigger and doesn’t go as wide. It’s not exactly blessed with the best build quality.
 |
New cameras always look expensive, especially if they’re squaring up against competition that’s been on the market for a while. Both the Canon EOS RP and the Sony a7 II are now selling for around $ 1000, body only, it’s worth remembering that they were launched for a lot more than that, if you’re trying assess the Z5’s launch price.
Given it’s being launched at a price $ 100 higher than the EOS RP (the lowest launch price of any full-frame digital camera) and $ 300 lower than the a7 II, it looks likely to be competitive once it’s been on the shelves for a while. The Sony, now entering its dotage, is regularly sold for $ 1000 or less, but being the least expensive doesn’t necessarily make it the best value.
 |
What should be clear is that you now have a choice of very capable full-frame cameras for under $ 1500. The Nikon will look more expensive at first but its MSRP suggests it’ll settle to a price around that of the EOS RP if you can be a little patient.
Our initial impression is that the Nikon looks like the strongest choice: unlike the Sony it benefits from all of Nikon’s latest UI and performance improvements, but its specs haven’t been quite as aggressively pared-back as those of the Canon.
That said, this is a decision that should hinge on lens systems rather than individual bodies. So it’s worth looking both at the lenses bundled with the cameras and the options available if you look beyond that before you make pick a team. Sony has the most extensive selection of lenses but what matters most is whether the lenses you want are available. Things will look even more competitive once Nikon introduces its promised ‘S-Line 24-105mm’ zoom, as these lenses can make excellent additions to entry and mid-level bodies.
There’s enough that’s familiar in the Nikon that we’re not expecting any nasty surprises, but we’ll look at this comparison again once we’ve had a chance to fully review the Z5.
| Nikon Z5 | Canon EOS RP | Sony a7 II | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $ 1400 | $ 1300 | $ 1000 (originally $ 1700) |
| Pixel count | 24MP | 26MP | 24MP |
| Sensor tech | FSI CMOS | FSI Dual Pixel CMOS | FSI CMOS |
| Image stabilization | In-body (5.0 stops) |
In-lens only | In-body (4.5 stops) |
| Storage | Dual UHS-II SD | Single UHS-II SD | Single UHS-I SD / Memory stick |
| Burst speed | 4.5 fps | 4.0 fps | 5.0 fps |
| Flash sync | 1/200 | 1/180 | 1/200 |
| Max shutter speed | 1/8000 | 1/4000 | 1/8000 |
| Viewfinder (Magnification) |
3.69M-dot OLED (x0.8) |
2.36M-dot OLED (0.7x) |
2.36M-dot OLED (0.71x) |
| Rear screen |
3.0″ 1.04M-dot |
3.0″ 1.04M-dot fully articulating touchscreen |
3.0″ 1.23M-dot tilting |
| Video resolution | UHD 4K/30p | UHD 4K/24p | 1080/60p |
| Video crop | 1.7x | 1.7x | 1.0x |
| Mic/Headphone? | Yes / Yes | Yes / No | Yes / No |
| Connectivity | Wi-Fi + Bluetooth | Wi-Fi + Bluetooth | Wi-Fi (+NFC) |
| Battery life (CIPA) |
470 / 390 | 250 / 250 | 350 |
| Weight | 675g | 485g | 600g |
| Dimensions | 134 x 101 x 70mm | 133 x 85 x 70mm | 127 x 96 x 60mm |
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 |
| The move to mirrorless by some of the industry’s biggest players put the focus on their new lens lineups. |
In our recent look at ~$ 2000 full frame mirrorless cameras, we said that choosing between them is as much about buying into a lens system as anything else. In this article, we’re going to have a look at the four full-frame mirrorless systems to see what they offer and where they might yet go.
This article isn’t a question of ‘which range is biggest,’ it’s to help show which lineups have the lenses you might need for your photography.
As well as the lenses currently available, we’ll consider the degree of support provided by third-party lens makers and briefly discuss some of the technologies involved.
When it comes to full-frame lenses for mirrorless, Sony has the biggest head start. Sony introduced its full-frame ‘FE’ range alongside the original a7, back in late 2013, and already had several years experience of making APS-C E-mount lenses by that point.
Sony has also taken the unusual move of allowing third-party lens makers access to its lens mount specifications and communication protocol. This has allowed companies such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and Zeiss to expand the range of available lenses for Sony photographers. In the case of Sigma, these include existing DSLR optical designs as well as new, dedicated optical formulations for mirrorless.
 |
||
|
Primes |
Zooms |
All |
In addition to covering most of these bases, Sony has had time to add specialist lenses, such as 600mm F4, 400mm F2.8, 100-400mm and 200-600mm telephoto options, equivalents to which aren’t currently available for other systems.
 |
| Starting earlier has given Sony time to provide a wider range of lenses, including less obvious options such as the 135mm F1.8 GM |
Sony says that the years it’s spent making large lenses for mirrorless camera has allowed it to develop expertise in the types of motors best suited for full-frame mirrorless lenses (the need to drive lenses smoothly for video, as well as quickly means the requirements aren’t the same as for DSLRs). However, while it’s true that Sony’s adoption of technologies such as linear motors and piezoelectric drive provides its more recent lenses with impressively fast, smooth focusing, be aware that some of the company’s earlier lenses don’t always show this same performance.
Canon’s RF lens lineup thus far has shown a distinct focus on the needs of professional users, with many of its first lenses belonging to the premium ‘L’ range.
Canon hasn’t opened up its lens mount to other makers, so there’s limited third-party support available at the moment. If the RF mount gains anything like the popularity that the EF mount did, it’s extremely likely that other companies will find a way to offer autofocus lenses, but widespread third-party support for RF may be some years away.
 |
||
|
Primes |
Zooms |
All |
Canon currently uses a variety of motors in its RF lenses: primarily using the company’s fast, smooth ‘Nano USM’ technology and the ring-type USM motors that underpin most of its high-end DSLR lenses. These ring-type motors appear to work pretty well with Canon’s dual pixel AF system but aren’t always the smoothest or fastest, especially given that they tend to be used in the lenses with large, heavy lens elements that need to be moved.
The RF 35mm F1.8, meanwhile, uses a small stepper motor, which makes it noticeably slower and noisier to focus than the best of Canon’s other mirrorless lenses.
Like Canon, Nikon has not yet opened up the Z-mount to third-parties, which currently limits your autofocus choices to Nikon’s own lenses.
However, Nikon’s initial build-out strategy looks very different from Canon’s: Rather than starting with exotica, Nikon has provided a range of comparatively affordable/portable F1.8 primes, alongside a set of F2.8 and F4 zooms.
 |
||
|
Primes |
Zooms |
All |
In terms of focus motors, Nikon seems to primarily be relying on the use of small stepper motors for its lenses so far, which offer decent performance but don’t appear to match linear motors or Canon’s Nano USM technologies for either speed or smoothness. Twin focus groups help to give accurate focus even close-up, in some of Nikon’s zoom lenses, which can also improve on the often modest speeds of single-motor designs.
Panasonic, along with Sigma, has aligned itself with Leica by adopting the ‘L’ mount for its full-frame mirrorless cameras. This instantly gives it access to an established lens range (though, like Sony’s, one that is built around a mount originally focused on APS-C). Sigma’s inclusion in the alliance should ensure a wide range of third-party L-mount lenses become available.
All Panasonic cameras so far have been based around the company’s Depth-from-Defocus (DFD) AF system. The degree to which lenses from other members of the L-mount alliance are optimized to this system is not clear at this point. We’d expect Leica’s lenses, which are designed around a distinctly DFD-like approach to work well but we don’t know how closely Sigma has yet embraced the DFD concept. For now we wouldn’t expect the same consistency across native L-mount lenses that we’ve seen from the single-maker systems, but we’d expect Sigma to be working to maximize compatibility.
 |
||
|
Primes |
Zooms |
All |
Panasonic’s lenses primarily make use of linear focus motors, but use a combination of linear and stepping motors for lenses such as the 50mm F1.4 and its 70-200s that require more glass to be moved around.
If you already own a selection of DSLR-mount lenses, then you’ll find that with the right accessories, you can mount them on any of these camera bodies. Since the mirrorless mounts are all shallower, this leaves plenty of room to put an adapter between the lens and body. The performance you get will vary, though.
Canon frequently bundles one of its EF-to-RF adaptors with its RF-mount cameras, and it makes three variants (a simple pass-through tube, another with a control ring around it and a third that lets you drop a choice of filter between the lens and the camera). The dual pixel AF system, combined with Canon’s knowledge of its communication protocol means EF lens users will get probably the best adapted lens experience when using Canon RF-mount bodies. That said, we still wouldn’t necessarily expect DSLR-level performance from all EF lenses when adapted.
 |
| Unsurprisingly, you tend to get the best adapted performance if you use DSLR lenses on the same brands’ mirrorless bodies. Don’t expect DSLR levels of performance, though. |
Various companies also make EF-to-E adaptors, allowing EF lenses to be used on Sony bodies. And, while not quite as consistent as Canon-on-Canon combinations, we’ve had good experiences with this combination, though generally only with shorter focal lengths. Meanwhile, Sigma makes the MC-21 adapter for using EF lenses with L-mount bodies but, without phase detection AF in any of those cameras, continuous AF is not available.
Nikon also offers kits that include its ‘FTZ’ F-to-Z mount adaptor with some of its camera bodies. This provides a decent level of support for existing lenses but does not contain a focus drive motor, so can only autofocus lenses with their own motors (AF-S, AF-P and AF-I lenses and their third-party equivalents). F-to-E adapters are available, but performance can vary, lens-to-lens, making it more of a gamble.
As you’d probably expect, then, older lenses tend to work most reliably with the cameras made by the same brand. However, they can be used on other systems, so depending on how extensive your existing lens collection is, you may find you can make do with lowered performance, rather than having to sell-up and start again, if you don’t want to remain bound to the whims of the maker of your DSLR.
As you’d expect, Sony’s nearly five-year head start and openness towards third-party makers has let it build up a significant advantage over its rivals, but all four mounts are already starting to see key holes in their respective lineups being filled.
In the long run, it’s likely that all four systems will be extended to offer a range of mid-range, as well as high-end primes and zooms, but it’s pretty clear that initially, Nikon and Canon are focusing on different sets of users.
 |
| Third-party support provides more options in young lens systems. |
Nikon and Canon’s decisions to keep their mounts closed to competitors means they can control the consistency of experience for their users (with no risk of a third-party lens offering sub-standard AF speed or smoothness, for instance), but with the downside that you’re entirely dependent on that company’s development priorities, unless you’re happy to take your chances with simple manual focus options.
It’s the third-party makers and their ability and willingness to produce fully-compatible lenses that will be interesting to watch. The adoption rate of Sony E-mount cameras and the availability of the lens protocols is likely to mean most future third-party lenses will be designed around this mount but it’ll be interesting to see which other systems this support gets extended to.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
This week Chris and Jordan compare four popular mid-range APS-C mirrorless cameras: the Canon M6 II, Nikon Z50, Sony a6400 and the Fujifilm X-T30. Which one is right for you?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV every week.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The post Speedlight vs Monolight on Location: See How They Compare appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Caz Nowaczyk.
In this video from Adorama, Gavin Hoey compares speed light vs monolight on location.
In the test, he does three very common lighting scenarios. He uses the flashes as fill flash, overpowering ambient light, and high-speed-sync flash.
He uses model, Charlotte, for the demonstration.
Gavin uses the following gear for the shoot:
View this post on Instagram
First up, in the Speedlight vs Monolight comparison, Gavin uses the monolight.
Before taking any shots, he takes a meter reading of the ambient light. Then to get his flash to match those settings, rather than use trial and error (which you can do), he uses a light meter to take an accurate reading from his model’s chin. He then uses that to set the flash.
Settings: f/3.5 1/250th Sec ISO 200
Next, he uses the speedlight flash. He sets it up using the same light modifier that he uses with the mono light and puts it in the same position.
He takes another light meter reading of his model’s chin, and set’s his speedlight flash.
When comparing the photographs, it is difficult to see the difference between using the monolight and using the speedlight.
Settings: f/16 1/250th sec ISO 200
In this scenario, Gavin runs the flash at full power to see what sort of aperture he can get out of the flash.
When doing a light meter reading, he gets an aperture of f/22 at the flash’s full-power setting.
Because he doesn’t want to waste the flash battery power and have a longer recycle time, he drops the flash to half power, which gives him an aperture of f/16.
He tests the camera settings without flash first to see how dramatic the sky looks. Then he turns the flash on to get some dramatic shots.
Gavin then swaps the flash over to the Speedlight, again using the same modifier and distance. The meter reading with the speedlight gives f/11, and the speedlight is set to full power.
In the side by side comparison, Gavin prefers the speedlight version over the monolight (what do you think?). But he prefers the flexibility, faster recycle times, power usage etc. of the monolight.
High-speed-sync flash strobes the light rapidly, meaning you get less power out of the lights. It is used for a shallow depth of field, so Gavin switches to a 25mm f/1.2 lens and shoots at f/1.2.
Firstly, Gavin turns off the flash and dials in f/1.2 and his flash sync speed of 1/250th of a second and then takes a picture of his model, Charlotte, to see what he gets at those settings.
While his model is quite well exposed at those settings, the background is overexposed, so Gavin tries 1/4000th of a second shutter speed, which gives him more detail in the background.
Most light meters won’t work with high-speed sync, so Gavin uses trial and error to set the flash to light Charlotte. He settles with 1/16th power.
Settings: f/1.2, 1/4000th sec, ISO 200.
He then tries the same settings with the speedlight flash with the flash at half-power.
While the flash does well to light the model, it struggles to keep up when shooting a number of shots in quick succession. He managed to get 18 photos in a row before the speedlight stopped working. This was actually the recycle time getting much longer.
If you have lots of high-speed-sync photos to take on location, you are better off with a monolight.
Variables: how far flash is from the subject, amount of ambient light, and softbox.
What are your thoughts on the comparisons? Which do you think wins in the speedlight vs monolight comparison? Share in the comments!
The post Speedlight vs Monolight on Location: See How They Compare appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Caz Nowaczyk.
 |
Many smartphones today take great images in broad daylight. That’s no surprise – when there’s a lot of light, it doesn’t matter so much that the small smartphone sensor doesn’t collect as many photons as a larger sensor: there’s an abundance of photons to begin with. But smartphone image quality can take a nosedive as light levels drop and there just aren’t many photons to collect (especially for a small sensor). That’s where computational techniques and burst photography come in.
Low light performance is a huge differentiator that separates the best smartphones from
the worst
Low light performance is a huge differentiator that separates the best smartphones from the worst. And Google’s Night Sight has been the low-light king of recent1, thanks to its averaging of many (up to 15) frames, its clever tile-based alignment to deal with hand movement and motion in the scene, and its use of a super-resolution pipeline that yields far better resolution, particularly color resolution, and lower noise than simple frame stacking techniques.
With the iPhone 11, Apple launched its own Night Mode to compete with offerings from Android phones. It uses ‘adaptive bracketing’ to combine both long and short exposures (to freeze any movement) to build a high quality image in low light conditions. Let’s see how it stacks up compared to Google’s Night Sight and Apple’s own previous generation iPhone XS.
‘Low light performance’ is difficult to sum up in one number or picture when it comes to computational imaging. Different devices take different approaches, which ultimately means that comparative performance across devices can vary significantly with light level. Hence we’ve chosen to look at how the iPhone 11 performs as light levels decrease from evening light before sunset to very low light conditions well after sunset. The images span an hour-long time frame, from approximately 500 lux to 5 lux. All shots are handheld, since this is how we expect users to operate their smartphones. The iPhone 11 images spanning this time period are shown below.
 |
 |
| 7:00 pm, evening light 1/60 | ISO 100 485 lux | 7.6 EV |
7:25 pm, late evening light |
 |
 |
| 7:50 pm, low light 1/4 | ISO 640 5 lux | 1 EV |
8:05 pm, very low light 1/8 | ISO 1250 <5 lux | <1 EV |
Note that Night mode is only available with the main camera unit, not the 2x or 0.5x cameras. And before we proceed to our comparisons, please see this footnote about the rollovers and crops that follow: on ‘HiDPI’ screens like smartphones and higher-end laptops/displays, the following crops are 100%, but on ‘standard’ displays you’ll only see 50% crops.2
Now, on to the comparisons. In the headings, we’ve labeled the winner.
Before sunset, there’s still a good amount of available light. At this light level (485 lux, as measured by the iPhone 11 camera), the option for Night mode on iPhone 11 is not available. Yet Night Sight on the Google Pixel 3 is available, as it is in all situations. And thanks to its averaging of up to 15 frames and its super-resolution pipeline, it provides far more detail than the iPhone 11.
It’s not even close.
Take a look at the detail in the foreground trees and foliage, particularly right behind the fence at the bottom. Or the buildings and their windows up top, which appear far crisper on the Pixel 3.
 |
|
|
iPhone 11 (Night mode unavailable) |
Pixel 3 Night Sight |
As the sun sets, light levels drop, and at 25 lux we finally have the option to turn on Night Mode on the iPhone, though it’s clearly not suggested by Apple since it’s not turned on by default. You’ll see the Night Mode option as a moon-like icon appearing on the bottom left of the screen in landscape orientation. Below we have a comparison of the iPhone with Night Mode manually turned on next to the Google Pixel 3 Night Sight (also manually enabled).
 |
|
|
iPhone 11 Night mode (manually enabled) |
Pixel 3 Night Sight |
There’s more detail and far less noise – particularly in the skies – in the Google Pixel 3 shot. It’s hard to tell what shutter speeds and total exposure time either camera used, due to stacking techniques using differing shutter speeds and discarding frames or tiles at will based on their quality or usability. But it appears that, at best, the Pixel 3 utilized 15 frames of 1/5s shutter speeds, or 3s total, while the iPhone 11 indicated it would use a total of 1s in the user interface (the EXIF indicates 1/8s, so is likely un-representative). In other words, here it appears the Pixel 3 used a longer total exposure time.
Apart from that, though, the fact that the iPhone result looks noisier than the same shot with Night Mode manually turned off (not shown) leads us to believe that the noisy results are at least in part due to Apple’s decision to use less noise reduction in Night Mode. This mode appears to assume that the longer overall exposures will lead to lower noise and, therefore, less of a need for noise reduction.
However, in the end, it appears that under these light levels Apple is not using a long enough total exposure (the cumulative result of short and long frames) to yield low enough noise results that the lower noise reduction levels are appropriate. So, in these conditions when it appears light levels are not low enough for Apple to turn on Night Mode by default, the Google Pixel 3 outperforms, again.
 |
|
|
iPhone 11 Night mode (default) |
Pixel 3 Night Sight |
As light levels drop further to around 5 lux, the iPhone 11 Night mode appears to catch up to Google’s Night Sight. Take a look above, and it’s hard to choose a winner. The EXIF data indicates the Pixel used 1/8s shutter speeds per frame, while the iPhone used at least 1/4s shutter speed for one or more frames, so it’s possible that the iPhone’s use of longer exposure times per frame allows it to catch up to Google’s result, despite presumably using fewer total frames. Keynotes from Apple and personal conversations with Google indicate that Apple only uses up to 8-9 frames of both short and long exposures, while the Pixel uses up to 15 frames of consistent exposure, for each phone’s respective burst photography frame-stacking methods.
 |
|
|
iPhone 11 Night mode (default) |
Pixel 3 Night Sight |
As light levels drop even further, the iPhone 11 catches up to and surpasses Google’s Night Sight results. Note the lower noise in the dark blue sky above the cityscape. And while overall detail levels appear similar, buildings and windows look crisper thanks to lower noise and a higher signal:noise ratio. We presume this is due to the use of longer exposure times per frame.
It’s worth noting the iPhone, in this case, delivers a slightly darker result, which arguably ends up being more pleasing, to me anyway. Google’s Night Sight also does a good job of ensuring that nighttime shots don’t end up looking like daytime, but Apple appears to take a slightly more conservative approach.
We shot an even darker scene to see if the iPhone’s advantage persisted. Indeed, the iPhone 11’s advantage became even greater as light levels dropped further. Have a look below.
 |
|
|
iPhone 11 Night Mode On (Night Mode Off) |
Pixel 3 Night Sight On (Night Sight Off) |
As you can see, the iPhone 11 delivers a more pleasing result, with more detail and considerably less noise, particularly in peripheral areas of the image where lens vignetting considerably lowers image quality as evidenced by the drastically increased noise in the Pixel 3 results.
Ultimately it appears that the lower the light levels, the better the iPhone 11 performs comparatively.
Neither camera’s night mode is meant for photographing moving subjects, but that doesn’t mean they can’t deal with motion. Because these devices use tile-based alignment to merge frames to the base frame, static and moving subjects in a scene can be treated differently. For example, on the iPhone, shorter and longer exposures can be used for moving and static subjects, respectively. Frames with too much motion blur for the moving subjects may be discarded, or perhaps only have their static portions used if the algorithms are clever enough.
Below we take a look at a slightly moving subject in two lighting conditions: the first dark enough for Night mode to be available as an option on the iPhone (though it isn’t automatically triggered until darker conditions), and the second in very dim indoor lighting where Night mode automatically triggers.
 |
|
|
Night Mode |
Standard Mode |
Although I asked my subject to stay still, she moved around a bit as children are wont to do. The iPhone handles this modest motion well. You’ll recall that Apple’s Night mode uses adaptive bracketing, meaning it can combine both short and long exposures for the final result. It appears that the exposure times used for the face weren’t long enough to avoid a considerable degree of noise, which is exacerbated by more conservative application of noise reduction to Night mode shots. Here, we prefer the results without Night mode enabled, despite the slight watercolor painting-like result when viewed at 100%.
We tested the iPhone 11 vs. the Google Pixel 3 with very slightly moving subjects under even darker conditions below.
 |
|||
|
iPhone 11 |
iPhone 11 |
Pixel 3 |
Pixel 3 |
Here you can see that Apple’s Night mode yields lower noise than with the mode (manually) turned off. With the mode turned off, it appears Deep Fusion is active3, which yields slightly more detail at the cost of more noise (the lack of a smeary, watercolor painting-like texture is a giveaway that Deep Fusion kicked in). Neither iPhone result is as noise-free and crisply detailed as the Pixel 3 Night Sight shot, though. We can speculate that the better result is due to either the use of more total frames, or perhaps more effective use of frames where the subject has slightly moved, or some combination thereof. Google’s tile-based alignment can deal with inter-frame subject movement of up to 8% of the frame, instead of simply discarding tiles and frames where the subject has moved. It is unclear how robust Apple’s align-and-merge algorithm is comparatively.
We tested the iPhone 11 Night Mode vs. the iPhone XS, which has no Night Mode to begin with. As you can see below, the XS image is far darker, with more noise and less detail than the iPhone 11. This is no surprise, but it’s informative to see the difference between the two cameras.
 |
|
|
iPhone XS |
iPhone 11 |
iPhone 11’s Night Mode is formidable and a very welcome tool in Apple’s arsenal. It not only provides pleasing images for its users, but it sometimes even surpass what is easily achievable by dedicated cameras. In the very lowest of light conditions, Apple has even managed to surpass the results of Google’s Night Sight, highly regarded – and rightfully so – as the industry standard for low light smartphone photography.
But there are some caveats. First, in less low light conditions – situations you’re actually more likely to be shooting in – Google’s use of more frames and its super-resolution pipeline mean that its Pixel 3 renders considerably better results, both in terms of noise and resolution. In fact, the Pixel 3 can out-resolve even the full-frame Sony a7S II, with more color resolution and less color aliasing.
Second, as soon as you throw people as subjects into the mix, things get a bit muddled. Both cameras perform pretty well, but we found Google’s Night Sight to more consistently yield sharper images with modest subject motion in the scene. Its use of up to 15 frames ensures lower noise, and its align-and-stack method can actually make use of many of those frames even if you subject has slightly moved, since the algorithm can tolerate inter-frame subject movement of up to ~8% of the frame.
If you’re photographing perfectly still scenes in very low light, Apple’s iPhone 11 is your best bet
That shouldn’t undermine Apple’s effort here which, overall, is actually currently class-leading under very, very low light conditions where the iPhone can use and fuse multiple frames of very long exposure. We’re told the iPhone 11 can use total exposure times of 10s handheld, and 28s on a tripod. Google’s Night Sight, on the other hand, tends to use an upper limit of 1/3s per frame handheld, or up to 1s on a tripod. Rumors however appear to suggest the Pixel 4 being capable of even longer total exposures, so it remains to be seen who will be the ultimate low light king.
Currently though, if you’re photographing perfectly still scenes in very low light, Apple’s iPhone 11 is your best bet. For most users, factoring in moving subjects and less low light (yet still dark) conditions, Google’s Night Sight remains the technology to beat.
Footnotes:
1 Huawei phones have their own formidable night modes; while we haven’t gotten our hands on the latest P30 Pro, The Verge has its own results that show a very compelling offering from the Chinese company.
2 A note about our presentation: these are rollovers, so on desktop you can hover your mouse over the states below the image to switch the crop. On mobile, simply tap the states at the bottom of each rollover to switch the crop. Tap (or click) on the crop itself to launch a separate window with the full-resolution image. Finally, on ‘Retina’ laptops and nearly all modern higher-end smartphones, these are 100% crops (each pixel maps 1 display pixel); however, on ‘standard’ (not HiDPI) displays these are 50% crops. In other words, on standard displays the differences you see are actually under-represented. [return to text]
3We had updated the iPhone 11 to the latest iOS 13.2 public beta by the time this set of shots was taken; hence the (sudden) availability of Deep Fusion.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The current crop of 1″ sensor compacts offer varied lens ranges and a suite of attractive features fit for an unobtrusive, carry-everywhere camera. We’ve just added the Canon G7 X Mark III to our studio test scene comparison, making possible to compare the likes of Sony’s latest RX100-series cameras against Canon’s latest entries in the advanced compact market. See for yourself how they stack up against each other.
$ (document).ready(function() { ImageComparisonWidget({“containerId”:”reviewImageComparisonWidget-8390180″,”widgetId”:714,”initialStateId”:null}) })
Note: As of September 26th 2019 the skintone targets in our test scene have been removed and replaced temporarily by fresh prints drawn from our archive. Of the four cameras in this widget, only the Canon G7 X Mark III was shot after this change. As such, these targets should provide an accurate way of assessing the G7 X III’s color response, but should not be used to compare it against previously-tested cameras. This is an interim measure, and we’re working on a permanent solution.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
One of the key new features of Apple’s latest iPhones is the ability to adjust the ‘bokeh effect’ on portrait images, after they’ve been taken. But, as well as letting you adjust the intensity of the effect, the function has been enhanced to more accurately represent the bokeh characteristics of a real lens, rather than just trying to blur the background.
Every time you shoot an image using the 56mm-equivalent F2.4 portrait camera on the iPhone XS you have the choice of editing the bokeh effect. This brings up a scale marked in F-numbers. This may sound like Apple just borrowing an interface from the real-world (a process called skeuomorphism), but it goes beyond this: the company says it’s modeled the bokeh characteristics to mimic the behavior of a Zeiss lens.
We thought we’d put this to the test: how convincingly does the iPhone XS resemble a real-world lens? Is the F-number scale anything more than a pastiche? To find out, we shot the XS alongside the Nikkor 58mm F1.4, mounted on a full frame camera.
 |
|
| iPhone XS image processed as ‘F1.4’ | Nikkor 58mm at F1.4 |
Scaling the Nikon image down to the same width, you can see the bokeh is around the right size:
Then, when you look at the bokeh off-center, you’ll see it develops an elongated ‘cat-eye’ effect.
 |
|
| iPhone XS image processed as ‘F8’ | Nikkor 58mm at F8 |
Just as with the real lens, the cat-eye effect diminishes as you ‘stop down.’ And Apple has given its bokeh a smooth, fairly gaussian look, rather than the slightly bright-edged bokeh that Nikon has produced, being constrained by the limitations of things such as glass and physics.
Unlike the ‘real’ camera, the iPhone’s sharpness doesn’t always drop-off smoothly: for instance it’s blurred both shoulders and the subject’s scarf, despite the nearer being in a similar plane to the face.
However, while this doesn’t always looks natural, the phone is intentionally ensuring that the subject’s face remains entirely in focus, which is usually a good thing. And, unlike the $ 1600 Nikkor lens, it doesn’t become a little soft and dreamy when set to ‘F1.4.’
Equally, because the iPhone isn’t actually changing its aperture, you don’t find yourself with less light if you want more depth of field (the iPhone portrait camera’s actual depth of field is F15 equivalent, so there’s plenty that’s in focus in the underlying ‘native’ image), so you don’t have to worry so much about camera shake or subject movement.
The end result isn’t going to convince anyone if they look too closely (the processing has cut-off some of the fine hairs, for instance), but for social media use, it’s hard to deny that the effect is impressive. And we have to assume this technology will only get smarter and more powerful in future generations.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 |
Developer and photographer Christopher Kalafarski has created a free tool that enables users to compare and preview various aspect ratios with their own images. Unlike comparisons in an application like Lightroom, Kalafarski points out that his ratio.party tool is simple to use and offers a wide range of sample ratios.
Users can add their own image to the tool by dragging and dropping them onto the Web page. Ratio.party features an input format box at the bottom, which can be clicked to cycle through multiple format options. Users can enable and disable horizontal and vertical lines, and click lines to crop the image at them.
Though the tool works on mobile devices, Kalafarski explained in a Reddit post that he designed ratio.party for desktop browsers. The tool operates locally in the browser, meaning user images are not uploaded to a server.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
To compare your images in Lightroom, you can either use Survey View or Compare View. In this article, I will focus on Compare View in Lightroom Classic CC.
Comparing images allows you to choose the very best image or images to edit in the Develop Module. Compare View is used to compare two similar images, whereas Survey View is useful for comparing a series of similar photos to narrow down your favorite choices.
I personally use Compare View often because as a still life photographer, I am often filtering through many images that are very similar to each other. Compare View allows you to do this efficiently. Grid View in the Library Module is where you can find and utilize Compare View.
With the images of the Brussels sprouts below, my goal was to select the best composition. Although the pictures look really similar, some of them are better than others in terms of the placement of the knife and the Brussels sprouts, and how they lead the eye through the frame. I wanted the cut Brussels sprout to fall in one of the focal points according to the Phi Grid, and the other small pieces to look random and well balanced.
This is how some of the unedited images look in Grid View.
To compare your images, start in Grid View. The keyboard shortcut to get to Grid View is G.
Then enter C to go to Compare View. You can also hit the X/Y icon on the left-hand side of the toolbar.
Choose the first image you would like to compare. This will appear in the left-hand window and is labeled Select in the upper right-hand corner. The next image in the Lightroom filmstrip appearing on the right is the Candidate.
If you hit the letter I on the keyboard, you will be able to see the date and time you shot the image in the left-hand corner of the image, as well as the pixel size. If you hit the “I” key again, it will display your camera settings and lens information. Hit it for the third time and the info overlay will disappear.
File date and size.
Camera metadata and shooting information.
If you select only one photo and then switch to Compare View, Lightroom Classic CC uses that photo and either the last, previously selected photo, or an adjacent photo in the filmstrip.
When you look at your filmstrip, the white diamond in the upper right-hand corner of the image is the Selected one, whereas the black diamond is the Candidate. The Selected image is brighter as seen here (thumbnail on the left).
The difference between the Selected image and Candidate is that the Selected image will remain where it is on the left, while you can choose different photos in the Candidate window. You do this by clicking on the right or left arrow in the toolbar, or using the arrows on your keyboard.
Here is the toolbar in Lightroom’s Compare View.
The cool thing about Compare View is that you can zoom in on your image, which you cannot do in Survey View. You can access the zoom at the bottom left of the tool panel, as shown in the photo below.
You can also use Cmd/Ctrl+ to zoom in, and Cmd/Ctrl- to zoom out. While you are zoomed in you can click on the image and drag it around to inspect it closer, to see if it’s in focus, or if there was dust on your sensor, etc.
The link focus icon looks like a lock. When you’re scrolling through a zoomed-in image, both of the images will move. If you click on the lock icon to “unlock” it, it will allow you to scroll around only on one of the photos.
This is good if you’re comparing images with a slightly different composition. It’s a great tool when you want to check that all of the people in a group photo have their eyes open, for example.
If you click to unlock the Link Focus tool, once you want to go back to viewing the same parts of your image at the same time, you simply need to click on the Sync button next to the zoom. This button controls the zoom sync ratio.
Use Swap to change the image that shows up in the Select window. It swaps it out with the image that is currently in the Candidate window.
Take care that when you are choosing photos in the filmstrip that you actually click on the photo itself, and not the frame. If you click on the grey part, not only are you choosing the photo as a Select but also you are choosing the photo next to it as the Candidate photo.
You can also swap photos by clicking on the images individually in the filmstrip.
When you click on this icon, it will move to the Select Window and use the next photo in the filmstrip as the Candidate. Swap simply reverses them.
Then you can click on the arrows to toggle through the images in the Candidate window.
Photographers all have their preferred way of rating their photographs, whether that be by flagging them, adding a color label, or star rating. You can do this in Compare View.
I personally find flagging is the easiest way. After I have finished going through my photos and am in the Develop Module, I will use star ratings to signify where I am in the editing process. For example, four stars need further editing, while five stars indicate that I have finished editing and exported them to the appropriate file.
I use color labels to separate my personal photos from client work and stock images. Currently, this is what is working for me. You may have a very different system.
Flag the photographs you are potentially interested in editing by hitting P, which marks it as a “pick”. To mark one as a reject (for later deletion), hit the X on your keyboard. If you keep your CAPS lock on, you can simply hit the arrow keys. You can later delete all of those rejected images in bulk.
Compare View is a bit more difficult to use than Survey View. However, you can also cycle through your images very quickly, once you get the hang of it.
Take advantage of Lightroom’s powerful features to quickly filter through tons of your photos. You can immediately get rid of images that don’t work and you’ll never use, or images that are very similar but miss the mark. This will free up space and make your life a lot easier when it comes to searching for photos and going through Lightroom’s filmstrip.
The post How to Find Your Best Photos Using Compare View In Lightroom Classic CC appeared first on Digital Photography School.
You must be logged in to post a comment.