Canon recently announced an EOS R6 firmware update to address overheating issues. Does firmware 1.1.1 improve the camera’s video performance? Quite a bit, it turns out.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV every week.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
 |
| J. David Ake, Director of Photography at The Associated Press. |
One of the world’s largest and oldest news agencies, The Associated Press, has just announced that it is switching to Sony for all of its photography and videography equipment. We spoke to AP’s Director of Photography, J. David Ake, about why the agency decided to make the switch, why it chose Sony, and what it means for AP staff photographers and videographers.
The following interview has been edited lightly for clarity and flow.
I’m the Director of Photography at The Associated Press, I’m responsible for stills photo reporting worldwide. That’s a team of a few hundred staff photographers, fifty or so photo editors, and we produce about 3,000 images a day from around the globe. I’ve been at the AP for 20 years, and previously I was a photographer for UPI, Agence France-Presse, and Reuters.
Actually, yes, this just happened to be when we could get the dotted line signed! COVID-19 slowed things down a little bit, we were actually hoping to do this a little bit earlier.
The AP has been thinking about switching to mirrorless on the stills side for a couple of years. We like the advantages [like silent shooting] which means we can be whisper-quiet in places where a DSLR shutter sound is disturbing. We like the super-fast autofocus and we like the light weight of the cameras.
We tested cameras from several manufacturers in really harsh zones from the Arctic to the rainforest, to hostile environments, to hurricanes. The overwhelming response from the photographers was that they really liked the Sony equipment: the way it worked, the way it felt, and the image quality.
 |
| The Sony Alpha a9 Mark II is a camera that Sony says was made specifically to meet the needs of professional photographers in demanding environments, and at major sporting events. The relatively few major hardware updates from the a9 were almost all intended to cater to this demographic. |
Then we started talking to our video colleagues who were about ready to do a change-up of their gear too, and we started thinking “well if we went to Sony for video and stills, what would that do for our visual storytelling?” We liked the idea of having the color quality and the image quality being close to the same between stills and video equipment. So if a stills photographer helped out a video colleague with a little filming, or B-roll, it would fit in the edit. And if we were to pull a frame grab from a 4K video camera it would have the same basic feel as a photograph from a stills camera.
And the lens mounts are the same, so if a videographer was working with a stills photographer, he or she could borrow a 600mm f4, or a stills photographer could try a cine lens to get a certain look. It just gives us some unique opportunities.
Yes, we have. We used one manufacturer for stills, and a different manufacturer for video. And we’ve been happy with those brands, we’ve used them for years, and they’ve supported us with their equipment. It was really the thought that we wanted to go mirrorless that took us down this path, and then we found that the synergy between video and stills could be really good, and Sony could support both of those at the level that we needed. And maybe that could open up some opportunities for visual storytelling in future that we hadn’t previously recognized.
It’s probably going to take us a little over a year to complete this switch
I’m excited, because both teams now can really work together well.
We have a few hundred staff photographers around the world, and about that many video cameras [in our equipment pool]. And probably into the thousands of freelancers, regular and occasional. This switch to Sony applies only to the staff photographers and videographers.
The freelancers are independent contractors, what they use is up to them.
Well if we’re kitting each photographer and videographer out with four or five lenses and a couple of camera bodies, that’s a large investment. It’s probably going to take us a little over a year, maybe a year and a half, to complete this switch worldwide. We’ve got photographers in some places that are very difficult to get gear to!
 |
| Sony is currently the only manufacturer to offer native mirrorless long-telephoto prime lenses. Lenses of this kind are a prerequisite for professional sports, although Canon and Nikon’s latest mirrorless cameras can accept EF and F-mount lenses via adapters. |
The vast majority of the stills photographers will get a9 Mark IIs. We will get some a7R IVs for the videographers, and a couple for some of our entertainment shooters who do a lot of portraits. But the standard kit will be an a9 Mark II.
On the video side there are six different cameras that might become part of the kit, from broadcast cine cameras all the way down to small palm-sized cameras, depending on the assignment. But we have six cameras spec’d-out on the video side.
Well Sony has committed to us that it will. And we have done some tests, we’ve done events where they did provide the level of support that we needed. This is not new for Sony. On the video side, Sony has been supporting its cameras in the field for a really long time. They’ve shown us that they’re committed to doing it, and so far we’ve been happy with the level of commitment.
The proof is in the pudding of course, once we’ve got this all rolled-out, but we’re confident that they can deliver.
 |
| Tokyo 2020 never happened, but by this time next year, AP photographers and videographers in Japan will be shooting the proceedings on Sony equipment. |
Yes. Our goal is to get photographers together, collect their old gear, issue them with new gear, and give them a day or so with Sony technicians to run through the menus, how to clean the sensors, how the cameras work and so on, before we put them out in the field.
The US elections in November, followed by the Olympic Games.
For me personally it was film to digital. I got one of the very first digital cameras in 1995. It was a huge shift, and very enlightening – there was a sense of freedom. It changed the world for photojournalism. And I think mirrorless is going to turn out to be a really big change, too. The fact that these cameras are very fast, very quiet and very light will allow us to go places and do things that we haven’t done before.
The news that The Associated Press – one of the world’s oldest and best well-known news agencies – is switching to Sony is highly significant.
For decades, whether or not a brand could be considered ‘professional’ has been defined in part by whether organizations like AP purchased its cameras and lenses for their staff photographers. While the number of salaried photojournalists working in agencies around the world today is relatively small, it’s hard to overstate the PR value for any brand of having its cameras and lenses appear in the hands of pros on the sidelines at events like The Olympic Games, watched by millions of people all over the world.
For at least forty years, Canon and Nikon have owned the sidelines, and along the way, both companies have developed a sophisticated systems to support professional photographers at major sporting events. Can Sony compete with these well-established companies when it comes to service and pro support (not to mention reliability)? Apparently AP is pretty confident in Sony’s (and its gear’s) performance so far, but as Mr Ake says, ‘the proof is in the pudding’.
Sony is still the only company to offer both a truly photojournalism-oriented mirrorless camera and a range of native mirrorless fast telephoto prime lenses
There is no doubt, however, that Sony is very serious about competing in the professional market. The a9 Mark II is arguably the best sports camera in the world right now, and two years after Canon and Nikon joined the full-frame mirrorless party, Sony is still the only company to offer both a truly photojournalism-oriented mirrorless camera and a range of native mirrorless fast telephoto prime lenses. Apparently, for AP, the cross-compatibility of E-mount lenses between a large number of Sony’s stills and video cameras was another point in the company’s favor.
From a sales and revenue standpoint, the fact that Sony just sold a few hundred cameras and lenses is probably not all that significant. But the AP contract is a huge vote of confidence in the brand from an agency synonymous with professional photojournalism, and one that Sony has been working for years to earn. Canon and Nikon just got put on notice.
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 post 8 Tips for Editing Stock Photos so they Pass Inspection appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Kevin Landwer-Johan.
Editing stock photos requires a little more attention to detail than you otherwise might give your photos. Stock photo agencies have standards to meet and rules to follow. If you want your photos accepted into their libraries, you must adhere to them.
You may have applied to a stock photo agency in the past and had your imaged rejected because they were not up to scratch. Each stock photo agency has its guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not. Learning what these are can save you a lot of wasted effort and time.
Over the years micro-stock photography requirements for image editing have shifted somewhat.
Camera technology has improved, so there are fewer imperfections caused in images when you take them. With the increase in megapixels and image quality, there’s less need for as much post-processing now.
With more and more stock photography sites coming online over the years, standards are not so tough as they used to be. Newer, smaller agencies want to attract photographers. Not being so strict on image quality makes it easier to meet requirements. Image libraries are populated more quickly because there are fewer rejections.
As stock photo libraries contain millions of photos, the parameters for what style of photo is accepted has changed. Many photo sales sites will accept photos for editorial licensing, whereas in the past most did not.
From one agency to another, the quality and style of photos they accept differ. In this article, I’ll go over some of the most common things to look for in your photos that might hinder them from being accepted.
When I started learning about stock photography, there were fewer agencies, and their quality standards were much higher. It was more challenging to have your photos accepted into the best agencies. And, when you had been welcomed as a contributor, you could not let your standards drop.
Each submitted photograph gets thoroughly checked. The team of inspectors works with a list of parameters and standards. Every photo must meet these before it’s included in the stock library. In some cases, inspectors will offer you feedback. There can be a provision made to resubmit rejected photos once they are fixed. But not all stock agencies do this. Sometimes if your photos are rejected, there is no opportunity to fix them and resubmit.
Learning to meet the standards will help you improve your image editing skills. The bar may not be so high anymore, but it’s always best to aim to present the highest quality possible.
Some of the most common things stock photography inspectors look for in photos that will get them rejected are:
Before you start editing, you can do a lot to ensure your photos will get accepted. For more of your photos to pass inspection, you need to think like a stock photographer as you are taking your photos.
Keep in mind the importance of attaining a good exposure. This is far more desirable than correcting your exposure during post-production. Start editing stock photos that are poorly exposed and you’ll run into other problems.
When your exposure is poor, correcting it during post-production can result in artifacts in your image. This is when the digital integrity of the image starts to break down. Stock agency photo inspectors usually reject photos with artifacts.
Modern cameras have an incredible capacity to take photos in low light. Raising your ISO too high can create an unacceptable amount of digital noise.
Cleaning up the noise is often not at all difficult. With the correct balance of noise reduction slider, you can eliminate it.
When you’ve used a high ISO setting, make sure you zoom into 100% and take a look at the level of digital noise. You may not see it clearly unless you enlarge your photo. Using the appropriate sliders, you will be able to reduce it significantly.
Chromatic aberration is sometimes called purple fringing. It’s a fault in digital images caused by contrast in a scene. When you’re editing stock photos, you must look carefully for this problem.
Check along the edges of objects in your photos where there’s a contrast with the background. When you notice a band of color along the edge you will need to correct this. The color is usually magenta or green. Sometimes it can be blue or yellow.
Most popular image processing software now has dedicated tools for eliminating this problem.
Sensor spots look ugly in photos. It’s best to keep your camera sensor clean, but this is not always possible. Other dust and blemishes also need to be removed so you can upload the cleanest photos possible.
Using clone tools is often the best way to clean these blemishes from your photos. Again, zoom into 100% so you can see these spots easily. Work methodically over the whole photo to make sure you don’t miss any.
Sensor spots are usually visible against a clear space in your photos. They are likely to show up in large areas of sky, snow, or other similar elements containing little or no detail.
Buildings, lamp posts, horizons, and other elements must look properly aligned. If you’ve taken your photo with your camera on a bit of an angle, the vertical and horizontal lines will not appear natural.
Cropping your photos, so elements in them are aligned correctly, will help them pass inspection.
Most of the time, I have my camera set to auto white balance. This produces the correct color in my photos most of the time. When the color in your photos looks odd, it must be tweaked so it looks natural.
Having your camera set to save RAW files makes all aspects of post-processing easier, especially color correction. If you have photos where the color looks too cool or too warm, use the eyedropper tool or color correction sliders to help you achieve the natural color.
This is the most frustrating aspect of stock photography for many people. So many things are copyrighted and branded. It’s best to avoid anything with a logo or branding when you are taking your photos. Sometimes you can’t, so you need to remove any instances of copyrighted material from your images.
If you are only uploading your images to sell under an editorial license, the requirements for copyright are different. You’ll need to check the terms and conditions for each stock photo agency as they differ from one to another.
Sometimes copyrighted material is in plain sight. Branding on a coffee cup. An outdoor advertising banner. Logos on shoes and clothing. All these are unacceptable when submitting photos to royalty-free microstock photo agencies.
Some of the more elusive things that contain copyrighted material are:
Text written in a language the inspector does not read will also often be rejected as they have no way of knowing if it’s copyrighted.
Cloning out any logos or branding can take a long time, so it’s best to avoid including these things in your photos when you can.
What’s allowed and what is not allowed is different for regular and for editorial licensing.
Images submitted for sale under a standard royalty-free license can be edited freely. Editorial stock images must meet higher standards. The most important thing to know is you cannot generally make use of the clone tool.
Any alteration to the content, other than sensor spots is not allowed. You must check the rules for each stock agency you submit editorial images to.
Become familiar with the requirements of each stock photo agency you want to upload to. Understand what is acceptable and what is not. This can take some time but ultimately will save you time and stress.
Take your time when you are editing stock photos. Look carefully at each one. Zoom into 100% to ensure your image quality meets the standards required.
I hope you find these tips useful. Do you have any other tips for editing stock photos you’d like to share? Please do so in the comments!
The post 8 Tips for Editing Stock Photos so they Pass Inspection appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Kevin Landwer-Johan.
 |
Back in October, Canon announced it was shutting down its cloud-based photo platform, Irista. Today is the final day the platform will be live, so if you have any photographs still on the platform that you would like to download, you will need to do so by the end of the day, as the platform will no longer be accessible after today.
As noted in our original coverage, all of your photos can be downloaded as a ZIP folder using the ‘Download Your Photos’ link on the Irista homepage. It’s worth reiterating too that none of the tags, photo ratings, titles or albums you have assigned to the images will be downloaded alongside the images.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The post Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Mark C Hughes.
In this article, we are going to look at whether micro-four-thirds cameras still have a place in today’s marketplace.
In the course of the last year, there have been changes to the photography landscape with the introduction of several mirrorless full-frame camera models, particularly from the big two manufacturers: Canon and Nikon. After a long delay, they finally entered the mirrorless camera market in a big way with higher-end full-frame (FF) cameras.
Beyond the big two, Panasonic (in conjunction with Sigma and Leica) also introduced a new mirrorless FF camera system and mount. This represents a sudden increase in competition in the mirrorless market for interchangeable lens cameras (ILC) and may indicate that the traditional DSLR is on its way out.
The new Full-Frame Canon EOS R mirrorless camera from Canon (image from Canon promotional material from canon.ca website)
Previously, the mirrorless camera landscape was dominated by Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus. Sony produced FF and cropped-sensor cameras while Fuji has produced medium format and crop-sensor cameras. Meanwhile, Panasonic and Olympus were only producing micro-four-thirds cameras with the smallest sensor of the bunch.
Although Canon and Nikon were also in the mix with some cropped-sensor bodies, these cameras were half-hearted efforts and certainly not an area of emphasis for either company.
Now, with Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Panasonic jumping in with both feet into the FF mirrorless market, is there still a market for micro-four-thirds cameras? Or, is the smaller sensor, micro-four-thirds camera systems basically dead?
Are MFT cameras dead? The Pen-F Micro 4/3s from Olympus
Some have postulated that Panasonic, one of the major manufacturers of micro-four-thirds (MFT) cameras, is moving out of these smaller sensor cameras. YouTube photography celebrities such as Tony Northup and other Podcasters have made this very assertion: that MFT as a format is dead. Is there any truth to this or is this just social media clickbait?
YouTube video bloggers have been suggesting that MFT is a dead format
There are a few assumptions embedded in the idea that MFT as a format is dead, assumptions that have been neglected or overlooked in the chase for likes by social media pundits.
Panasonic recently released its new S-series cameras that are all FF mirrorless cameras. Observers take this as evidence that Panasonic is leaving the MFT system behind.
Before jumping to conclusions, remember, Panasonic has released a lot of cameras and lenses over the years, all of which are MFT. In particular, the GH5 was clearly a game-changer for video. Compact and video intensive, it became the video standard for many vloggers and internet video shooters.
Most of the camera imaging revenue for Panasonic is from its large range of products in MFT formats, supporting existing Panasonic customers. In comparison, the new S-series format (there are three models) currently has only a limited number of native lenses as of November 2019.
To be fair, this new format will have offerings from Sigma lenses, and the new mount is compatible with Leica L-mount lenses. The Leica lenses, although available, are generally significantly more expensive than many other similar lenses.
This means that the S-series for Panasonic is a new territory and will not represent significant revenue until it becomes established. Until then, the base is in MFT. This imbalance between the two formats will likely remain that way for an extended period.
The new Panasonic S1R, FF mirrorless camera (from Panasonic promotional material from panasonic.ca website)
Users have been slow to adopt the new Panasonic format. While the new Panasonic cameras have some fantastic build qualities and features, it’s sensor design does not incorporate phase-detect autofocus. Instead, Panasonic designers chose to continue to use only contrast-detect and depth from defocusing DFD, the same system previously used on all their MFT cameras.
Consequently, the Panasonic autofocus system (both MFT and FF), while fast and great for still photography, has not been seen as good at continuous autofocusing (important for sports, wildlife and video) when compared to some of its competitors. This means that the move by Panasonic designers to retain this type of autofocus system into their new format FF cameras may cause some purchasers to think twice about a jump to their system.
It remains to be seen if this will eventually be a successful format for Panasonic.
Since the announcement of the Panasonic S-series, Panasonic has also released two new cameras and three new lenses for MFT. Clearly, the move to full-frame mirrorless cameras by Panasonic is part of a larger strategy. It is not the only product line that Panasonic is focusing on.
The new G95 MFT camera body from Panasonic, released after the announcement of the S-series from Panasonic (from panasonic.ca website)
The assumption goes something like this…
Panasonic and Olympus are the two major manufacturers behind the MFT Consortium. If Panasonic stops producing or developing MFT equipment, there would only be one major manufacturer left supporting the format.
MFT as a format was originally developed by a consortium of manufacturers that sought to provide an alternative product to what was being produced by the bigger manufacturers (Canon and Nikon at the time).
This is an open-source approach to manufacturing, one that is contrary to how most other manufacturers have approached sensor and lens mount formats. Most camera manufacturers have generally created proprietary lens mounts so that their cameras only accept their lenses.
The Laowa 17mm lens is specifically designed for micro-four-thirds cameras
When Panasonic and Olympus formed the basis of the original MFT consortium, it was to create an interchangeable open-source standard so that lenses on one brand could be used on the other, effectively doubling their manufacturing efficiency.
This was revolutionary at the time and still remains a successful strategy, allowing manufacturers to create lenses that fit on more than one brand of camera.
While it is difficult to find out the stats on how many people are actively using any particular format of camera, there is an extensive base of MFT cameras. In Japan, Olympus has remained in the top 5 for sales of ILC systems for many years.
For video, the GH5 is still seen as an incredibly capable camera and a go-to camera for videography with fewer limitations than some of the newer larger-format cameras.
Over the last 10 years, companies developed a large base of MFT cameras and lenses (over 100 including manual lenses).
Beyond the two founding companies (Panasonic and Olympus), there are a lot of other manufacturers committed to the MFT system. These include:
They may not have the same type of brand name recognition, but this list represents many companies.
As companies change, so do consumers. If no-one produces new micro-four-thirds cameras, then the format would no longer appeal and disappear. We live in a disposable age, so if manufacturers stop producing new cameras and lenses, no one will continue to use the old technology.
Both Olympus and Panasonic have recently released new MFT bodies and lenses. So for now, the format is still very much alive.
The new Olympus EM5 Mark III was recently announced (from Olympus promotional material at getolympus.ca)
While formats do die out, they can often take a very long time to die out.
Unlike some types of technology, for example, cellphones or some computers, cameras tend to have a relatively long shelf life. They are often still sold as-new long after they have been discontinued.
Beyond that, camera systems, particularly interchangeable lens camera (ILC) systems, have installed bases and lots of lenses/accessories to support these bodies and formats. So, the end of the base format doesn’t mean there isn’t a demand for the accessories to support the bodies.
Even after the main camera body stops production, third party manufacturers will often still produce lenses for them
Although formats for any technology can disappear and change, there are still markets for those formats long after announcing a discontinuance.
Some formats achieve an almost Zombie state (look dead for all intents and purposes but still moving) because, while they have not been discontinued, no new products are released for the old technology by the base manufacturer.
The Sony A99 rii is a formidable camera but likely the last A-mount camera (from Sony promotional material at Sony.ca)
An example of a Zombie format is the Sony A-mount system. This system is still available for sale as new, but the last camera released was the a99ii in February of 2017. It is still an extremely capable camera, but almost 3 years later, it is getting a little long in the tooth.
Sony produced around 46 lenses for the A-mount (formerly a Minolta mount), but the last Sony released A-mount lens was in April of 2015.
Prior to the a99ii, the last camera body announced was the a68SLT a year-and-a-half earlier.
Because there has been a lot of interest in FF mirrorless cameras, these are the only cameras that anyone is interested in. No one would be interested in any other type of format.
There are many camera types, sensors, and styles out there that will be with us for a while. There is currently a rush into the mirrorless FF market. This is really just a segment of the market and not a true representation of the entire photography market.
Other than point-and-shoot cameras, which are difficult to find anymore, other formats fill other niches. There has been a range of sensors and camera bodies for some time, with no real indication that will change soon.
You can use a number of MFT cameras in harsh environments due to their weather sealing.
Beyond high-end cameras, most manufacturers produce a range of cameras from consumer-grade to professional-grade with a bunch in the middle.
This is not just capabilities, but price-point too. Consumer-grade choices are mostly based upon price-point, whereas the professional-grade cameras are all about high-end features.
To be successful, any brand needs to have a range of choices. All MFT camera manufacturers provide products that cover the entire spectrum. In contrast, mirrorless offerings from some manufacturers, notably Canon and Nikon, still have limitations as far as product range and lens selection.
FF mirrorless cameras provide pretty high-end features for many consumers and tend to be more camera than the average consumer is looking for.
Everyone likes a cat portrait. This MFT image was taken using studio lighting
The surge in FF mirrorless cameras gives the appearance that the camera market is growing. The marketing would suggest that there are new and great things coming.
The market for new cameras has contracted significantly of late and has for some time. Camera sales spiked around 2010 with massive numbers that were truly unprecedented – partially caused by the growth in social media, and relatively poor image quality of cell phones at that time.
As well, digital imaging was really just starting to take off. Since then, smartphone cameras have really improved (and pretty much wiped out point-and-shoot cameras), and camera sales have actually been shrinking significantly. Prior to the mid-1990s, camera sales never exceeded 30 million units, and in 2010, there were over 121 million cameras sold. Last year the total number was under 20 million units.
These stats do not include smartphones and point-and-shoot cameras (a format of camera that has mostly disappeared).
You can achieve shallow depth of field with very fast lenses.
Mirrorless cameras are also declining in sales but not at the same rate as other types of cameras with interchangeable lenses. Also, as there are lots of newer mirrorless options, their growth in this market will slow.
Micro-four-thirds cameras are a format that has been around since 2007. More recently, because it has a smaller sensor, many have criticized the format as inferior simply because of the size.
You can still achieve a shallow depth of field with micro-four-thirds cameras – it is just harder to do.
The two main weaknesses of micro-four-thirds cameras are low light performance and depth of field. Their strengths, however, are size, lens selection, build quality, and features.
Although micro-four-thirds cameras do not perform as well under lower light conditions as some FF cameras, it doesn’t mean you can’t use them for this purpose.
There are lots of excellent examples of low light and night time photography taken with micro-four-thirds cameras, and shallow depth of field is only useful for a specific type of portrait image that is not for everyone.
You can spend a lot of money chasing a shallow depth of field.
MFT can be used for portraits
There have always been gear snobs in photography. Most people think their format is better than the other guy’s just as a way to justify their own purchases. We all do it to some extent, looking for reinforcement for the decisions we make.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the other systems are inferior; they just might be different.
Realistically, further improvements are not going to be in sensor development (except maybe global shutters). Instead, it will be in things like the incorporation of computational photography into camera bodies like those used in on smartphones and improved connectivity to social media and the internet.
Micro-four-thirds cameras are expensive so with the cost the same, why not just shoot FF?
Micro-four-thirds camera systems do not have the same cost base as a FF system and cost significantly less. It is difficult to compare different format/brand systems. However, earlier this year, an interesting attempt was made.
Terrance Lam of British Columbia, Canada, put together pricing for comparable pro systems to see how each system compared to have a complete set. You can look at the summary of his results here.
The bottom line is that you can get the equivalent pro line of cameras and lenses but that the least expensive systems were from Pentax (FF), Fujifilm (APS-C), and Panasonic/Olympus (MFT).
The Fujifilm and MFT cameras are crop sensors. These systems were roughly two-thirds the cost of similar systems from the other manufacturers. They won’t all perform exactly the same, but from a cost comparison, these less expensive systems deliver similar pro-grade equipment at a lower cost.
Fall leaf
Many MFT users are actually looking for smaller cameras. The smaller sensor means smaller lenses and better portability.
Some people think that mirrorless means small, but that is only for the bodies. Not all mirrorless cameras are small. You can’t cheat the optics, and a FF lens is large regardless of whether it is on a DSLR or a mirrorless body.
Using MFT also means that that you can get longer lenses that are significantly smaller and less expensive (less glass).
Does this mean that micro-four-thirds cameras are dead? Maybe, but certainly not for a long while. MFT is a long-established format with lots of manufacturer options, lenses and established users.
Will it be the next great thing? Probably not. But it does serve a particular niche that is not well-served by some of the other manufacturers. Specifically, a smaller form factor ILC that is better for travel or harsh environments.
Until there are other options, there will still be a market for this type of product.
You can use Micro-four-thirds cameras for all of the same purposes as FF cameras.
More importantly, if you look beyond the rumors and the hype, the underlying circumstances are a little more complex than the superficial answer that micro-four-thirds cameras are dead.
I do not think micro-four-thirds cameras will be dead for some time. Facts still matter in this post-truth era.
What are your thoughts? Do you think there is still a place for micro-four-thirds cameras, or do you think the format is dead? Share with us in the comments!
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.
The post Are Micro-Four-Thirds Cameras Dead, or Do They Still Have Their Place? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Mark C Hughes.
The post TFP Shoots – What They Are and When to Use Them appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Anabel DFlux.
Trade work (or TFP shoots) is probably the topmost contentious subject in the photography world, paired with the everlasting pricing debate. However, there are several big reasons to consider TFP shoots, just as there are some valid reasons to laugh at the suggestion!
Every artistic profession requires a level of ‘paying your dues’ so to speak. As is the catch-22, “you need a job to get experience, but you need the experience to get a job.” We are a bit luckier in the artistic profession as art is a more collaborative effort that can involve the trading of services. In photography, this is known as TFP, or “trade for print.”
Here is our guide to TFP shoots, when to use them, and when to avoid the inquiry.
Anabel DFlux on set with rock band Killin Candace
A TFP shoot is a photo shoot that is not compensated monetarily, but instead, as a trade of services. Everyone donates their time – models, stylists, and photographers – and all parties are welcome to use the resulting images for their own purposes or self-gain.
It’s just a fancy way of saying that the team will work for free but receive images they need for xyz reason with permission to use them.
The key to TFP shoots is that all parties receive an equal benefit within the collaboration. Most often, that means that the photographer can use the images to advertise their photography services. Stylists can add them to their portfolio and can advertise. The model can also use the images in their pursuit of more modeling work.
As a general statement, TFP shoots are good for portfolio-building, education, bringing a personal collaboration to fruition, and genuine exposure and resume addition and for increasing credibility.
Explaining how to do TFP shoots is a bit of a delicate matter. So to begin, here are the Pros of doing TFP shoots:
Model: Kevin Thrasher
If you lack a solid portfolio, or a portfolio at all, TFP photo sessions are an excellent way to build that book very fast.
Portfolios are of the utmost importance in this industry, and ensuring you have a solid body of work should be one of your top concerns if photography is to become your profession.
You will likely find yourself doing several TFP shoots when starting out for this very reason.
Model: Alex Crescioni
The educational aspect of TFP shoots goes hand-in-hand with portfolio-building. TFP shoots are a great way to learn, try something new, and experiment with your craft.
You don’t want to go into a client session unprepared, nor should a paying client be your guinea pig.
Model: Gaiapatra
As for bringing a personal collaboration to fruition, art is for yourself as much as it is for others. If you have an idea, and that idea jives with another person, a collaboration is a great way to keep yourself creatively motivated and inspired. These tend to be TFP shoots by nature.
Model: Luna Marie with Maksa from the JABCECC
Exposure has become such a deeply hated word in the artistic world. This is due entirely to abuse and misuse in the art world. I am in full agreement and stand firm with paying everyone their worth. Unfortunately, the world isn’t idealistic. There is a fine balance between encouraging the end of improper practices and looking out for yourself and your needs.
Looking at it from the perspective of marketing, branding, and other fundamental business concepts, there are certain TFP shoots that you should do for exposure. These shoots tend to involve a certain level of prestige, in which your participation really will put your work in front of a broader audience.
Also, partaking in higher caliber sessions will build a trustworthy reputation and your credibility in a highly competitive industry.
Now that we’ve covered the pros, here are the cons for TFP shoots:
Model: Brin Hamblin
There does come a bit of an issue if you get known around town as the TFP photographer who offers some exceptional work for no pay. You’ll get offers left and right, and all will end with “collaboration,” which translates to “do this work for free because I need it and don’t want to pay for it.”
If you give in to these pressures, you’re effectively devaluing your own work’s worth.
There has to be a limit to when you’ve well surpassed the need for TFP shoots. I stopped doing TFP many years ago when my resume far surpassed its need and have not looked back since. That is because photography is a career for me, not a hobby.
The public has taken hold of the TFP phrase recently, and decided they are entitled to them too.
TFP has, and should always be, a term for those within the industry looking for a mutually beneficial work opportunity.
Your neighbor begging online for a TFP family session for their nephews is not TFP – that’s “work for free.”
Your sister’s friend’s wedding inquiry should not be “TFP” – that is their wedding day! Not a styled shoot!
The public should not get TFP shoots – plain and simple. This goes back to the previous point of “devaluing work.”
TFP can be pet shoots too!
The key to keeping a happy medium for your own artistic pursuits and endeavors is to know when to say no. That’s really all there is. If you want to embark on TFP shoots for your own reasons, go ahead and organize one! However, if you aren’t looking to pursue TFP, say no.
Understand your worth when someone approaches you, and determine what course of action is the best one to take.
My general rules are:
“If someone approaches me unsolicited, I will send over a rate sheet.”
“If someone responds to a solicited TFP casting, then that’s a different story.”
Models: Spencer Hayden and Bina Monique
Despite no money exchanging hands, general business principles still apply.
Here are some quick tips for successful TFP shoots:
Models: Carrie Martinez with Nova the wolfdog
At the end of the day, how you run your business or your artistic craft is at your own discretion.
With that said, I did want to mention for the aspiring photographers out there: Just because a photo session is a trade shoot, doesn’t mean that your professionalism should fly out the window. You do need to treat this session like a job, which means being punctual, being on your best behavior, and delivering upon your end of the bargain.
Have you participated in any TFP shoots? What was your experience? Share with us in the comments.
The post TFP Shoots – What They Are and When to Use Them appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Anabel DFlux.
Researchers with MIT’s Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) have published a study detailing the use of cameras and artificial intelligence to recreate hidden actions based only on the shadows they cast. The method produces fairly low-quality results at this time but may be refined for future computational photography purposes that include helping self-driving cars ‘see’ hidden objects in their environment.
Shadows can reveal the presence of things a person may not be able to directly see; in the most obvious example, someone could, for example, perceive that a person is standing around a nearby corner because of the shadow they cast on the sidewalk. Though humans can perceive the movement of objects using their shadows, we cannot determine their colors and may not be able to determine their shape.
The newly detailed MIT AI can, however, recreate videos that include hints about an object’s color and shape based on the shadows it produces. As demonstrated in the video above, the AI was surprisingly capable of recreating the movement and general shape of hands and forearms in motion out of view of the camera. As well, the algorithm generated a video of hands moving large blocks and a small ball, recreating part of each object’s color.
This is the latest example of researchers combining cameras and artificial intelligence to produce seemingly magical results. This past summer, for example, experts with Facebook Research and the University of Washington unveiled an algorithm that can generate ‘living’ animations from individual still images.
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.
The post HEIF Files: Do They Mean the End of the JPEG Format? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.
During a recent meeting about the recently announced Canon 1D X Mark III with Digital Camera World, Canon product intelligence specialist David Parry dropped a bombshell:
“We’ve moved on to HEIF files,” Parry said.
While Canon later walked back the statement, claiming that they “have no plans to abandon JPEGs,” but instead wish to “give users a new image option” in the Canon 1D X Mark III, the comment got plenty of people talking. And the reason is clear: If Canon is adopting HEIF files alongside its JPEGs, might we soon see the company scrap JPEGs entirely? And what about Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, and Olympus?
In other words, does Canon’s move to HEIF files signal the end of JPEGs?
For photographers who have been using JPEGs for decades, this might come as a shock. While HEIF files have been in the media for the past couple of years, ever since Apple added them to their iOS devices and Macs, no major camera manufacturer has adopted HEIF files – until now.
And while some users may dismiss HEIF files as another overhyped “JPEG killer” which will disappear in a few years, there is reason to believe that HEIF files are here to stay.
To understand why, let’s take a closer look at HEIF files and what they offer over JPEGs.
The biggest difference between HEIF files and JPEGs is their respective file sizes:
JPEGs are small, but HEIF files are tiny.
In fact, HEIF files are often billed as half the size of JPEGs, but with the same (or better) quality. This means that you can store far more HEIF files on a device than you can JPEGs, without a loss in quality.
How is this possible?
Simply put, compression has improved. JPEG files debuted way back in the 1990s, whereas HEIF is a relatively new image file format. So when it comes to compression, what a JPEG can do, a HEIF file can do better.
And this results in smaller files with limited quality loss.
Compression isn’t the only area where HEIF files shine. HEIF files can also store more color information than JPEGs, which means that your HEIF photos will look better, and can avoid the unpleasant color-banding effects that sometimes come with JPEGs.
And what about compatibility? Surely JPEGs are far more established than HEIF files, given their universal popularity?
Back in 2017, when Apple adopted HEIF files, this was a real discussion. Some applications couldn’t deal with HEIF files, and that was a problem.
But now, two years later…
HEIF files can be used by pretty much any program you’d need. The compatibility issues are gone, and we’re left with a file format that just seems all-around superior to JPEGs.
So while JPEGs are the file format of the present and the past, HEIF files are likely the format of the future.
Now I’d like to know your thoughts:
Do you think HEIF files will replace JPEGs? And how do you feel about this change? Share your thoughts in the comments below! And respond to our poll regarding whether you’re happy about the shift to HEIF files:
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post’s poll.
The post HEIF Files: Do They Mean the End of the JPEG Format? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.
You must be logged in to post a comment.