In this week’s episode of DPReview TV, Chris compares the Nikon Z7 II and Sony a7R IV for landscape photography, with a close look at their displays, image quality, lens lineups and more.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get new episodes of DPReview TV every week.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The post Comparing a 24mm Versus 50mm Lens for Photographing People appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Meredith Clark.
How does a 24mm lens compare to a 50mm lens when photographing people? Both are great options, given the low price point, but they do have slightly different strengths when it comes to people photography.
In this article, I’ll show you several different images of the same model, location, and pose, photographed with both a 24mm and a 50mm lens. This will provide a good visual of the difference between the two lenses, and should give you insight as to when you might want to reach for each option.
For continuity, all images in this post were taken with a Canon 60D and either the Canon 24mm f/2.8 or the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens.
The Canon 60D is an APS-C (cropped-sensor) camera, so you’ll need to multiply the focal length of each of your lenses by 1.6x in order to determine their effective focal length on this camera (though if you use Nikon APS-C cameras, your crop factor is 1.5x).
So on a cropped sensor camera, a 24mm lens functions roughly as a 38mm lens, and a 50mm lens functions as an 80mm lens.
When it comes to photographing people, a 50mm lens emphasizes the subject, whereas a 24mm lens shows the environment.
That’s why a 50mm lens is great for head and shoulders portraits, while a 24mm lens is great for photographing people in the context of their surroundings. In the above example, you can see that the 50mm lens provided a tight shot of these two sisters, with a blurred background that keeps all the attention on their faces.
However, the context for this session is also important – it took place at a family vineyard, and the clients wanted to be sure that the grapes were visible in the background of some of the images. As you can see above, the grapes weren’t visible in the portrait taken with the 50mm lens, nor would closing down the aperture really give the perspective of the vineyard that my clients were looking for.
So after taking a few portraits with the 50mm, I switched over to my 24mm lens in order to capture a few wider shots.
The shot above shows the same girls, the same exact location, and a very similar pose. The only real difference is that, with the switch to the 24mm lens, you can see more of the girls and the area around them.
In some instances, you may want to minimize the area around your subject, in which case the 24mm lens would not be ideal. However, in this case, it allowed me to capture images that highlighted both the girls and the vineyard, which was what the clients were after.
Bonus tip: Photographing sibling sets with a 24mm lens also allows you to see the height differences between siblings more easily (thanks to the wider perspective), which is something that a lot of parents really enjoy.
Another thing to consider, besides the contents of the background in your images, is the coloring of the background.
In the image above, the deep-colored wood background brings a moodiness to the image that could be appropriate for a musician. However, the interesting thing is that the overall feeling of the image changes quite a bit when you look at it from the 24mm angle of view:
The second image, though in the same location, feels a lot less moody and dramatic than the first. The lighter stonework around the door brings a sense of balance to the image that just wouldn’t be achieved as well with the 50mm lens in this location.
In my experience, this balance is especially important when it comes to converting images to black and white.
As you can see in the left image, the lighter stonework around the darker door serves as a frame for the subject and naturally draws your eye in toward him.
In addition, the increased contrast and texture provides some of the key ingredients for black and white images, which makes the image on the left more aesthetically pleasing than the image on the right.
Overall, while there may be instances in which the content or coloring of your background may cause you to reach for one of these lenses over the other, I’m very much in favor of using both of them whenever possible.
Here’s a quick example from my own life to explain why both are so great for their own reasons. I recently photographed my girls in their Halloween costumes. I started with the 50mm lens because it’s my favorite:
I love this image of both girls – the 50mm lens really lets you see their faces and expressions, and the bokeh of the 50mm f/1.8 helped soften the construction site in the background of the image. However, the closer crop also means that only a small portion of their costumes is visible.
So I switched over to my 24mm lens to take a full-length photo (below) of my little monkey and lion.
Now I can really see them from head to toe. I can see the little fake feet of the monkey costume that freaked out my youngest daughter so much that she begged her sister to switch costumes with her. I can see the height difference between the two of them. I can see the black flats that my oldest daughter is so proud of and wears to any event that she deems remotely “fancy.”
Those are all things that I want to look back on and remember. I love both images for different reasons and am so happy to have them both, thanks to my trusty 24mm and 50mm lenses.
I hope this has given you a good idea of how these two focal lengths compare when photographing people.
Have you tried a 24mm lens? How do you use it? Do you have a 50mm lens and do you use it for people photography? Which lens is your favorite? Please share your comments and images below!
The post Comparing a 24mm Versus 50mm Lens for Photographing People appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Meredith Clark.
The post Wide Angle Versus Telephoto Lenses for Beautiful Landscape Photography appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Will Crites-Krumm.
An easy assumption to make, when shooting landscapes, is to use a wide-angle lens. After all, most landscape photographers favor wide-angle lenses for a reason: They naturally give you the widest view and allow you to get the full landscape into the frame, from the foreground to the horizon.
Wide-angle lenses also have the widest depth of field, so you get the whole landscape in focus. And their distortion enlarges objects in the foreground, letting you show off close-up details. The same distortion also emphasizes leading lines, enhancing your compositions and giving your image a more dynamic feel. But when you default to wide-angle glass, you miss many hidden opportunities offered by telephoto lenses.
This is the most basic difference between the two lens types:
Wide lenses give you a wide view; telephoto lenses give you a narrow view.
And while landscapes look great in their entirety, it’s a good habit to take a moment and look for details. These details are beautiful elements of the landscape that might get shrunken or ignored in the expanse of a wide-angle image. This is where your telephoto lens comes in. Its narrow field of view is perfect for trimming the extra elements and for focusing on small, beautiful scenes like the curve of a mountain, a reflection in a far-off pond, or the silhouette of a tree.
In the two images above, you can see this in action. They were both taken from Olmstead point in Yosemite National Park, one with a wide-angle lens and the other with a telephoto.
In the first image, the wide-angle lens shows off the total landscape. It includes both sides of the valley, the up-close textures of the rocks, and the far-off peak of Half Dome. In the second image, the telephoto lens brings the eye right up to the mountains, showing off their shapes and the details of the geology.
Another pair of images (below) shows this effect even more dramatically. The first image is not just a wide-angle image, but an aerial shot as well, taken from a small airplane over the Okavango Delta in Botswana. From this vantage point, all of the individual elements of the landscape become incredibly small and your eyes pay more attention to their arrangement than their individual shapes. In the second image, also from the Okavango area but this time on the ground, a telephoto lens is used to draw attention to the beautiful curves of a single Acacia tree.
The second major difference between wide-angle and telephoto lenses is the innate size of their depth of field.
Put succinctly, the higher the focal length, the narrower the area of focus. In practice, this means that when shooting wide, it’s much easier for you to get everything in focus, from the grass at your feet to the ridge on the horizon. This is especially true when you’re trying to use your lens’s sharpest apertures (the so-called sweet spot).
However, a narrower depth of field is much better for isolating your subject from the background, and this is where your telephoto lens comes into play. Try shooting a close-up detail at a wide aperture, using the landscape as a nice, creamy bokeh backdrop.
The two images above are perfect examples of this effect. In the first image, the wide-angle lens brings the whole landscape into focus, from the close-up sunflowers to the far-off mountains.
In the second image, shooting with a telephoto blurs out the flowers and mountains in the background, turning them into a nice soft background for the main sunflower.
It’s no secret that wide-angle lenses expand the sense of depth in an image by enlarging elements in the foreground and shrinking those in the back. This is great for creating images that make you feel like you could step right into the frame.
On the flip side, you run the risk of making towering, awesome mountains in the distance look like puny hills. Telephoto lenses, on the other hand, compress depth, causing objects near and far to appear more similar in size. A compressed sense of depth is great for abstracting a scene and bringing out its graphical qualities. Colorful forest canopies, layered mountain ridges, and curving sand dunes are all great subjects for this kind of shooting.
In the left image above, notice how the wide-angle lens exaggerates the size of the flowers in the foreground at the expense of the mountains in the background. The mountains are so tall that they’re shrouded in clouds, but the lens keeps them from looking quite as grand.
Pull out a telephoto lens, and you can zoom straight in on the mountain, showing off the contrast between the rugged outline of the peak and the soft wispy form of the cloud (right).
Here are two more images, both taken at the same location in Big Bend National Park, that show off this effect. In the first image, you can see that the wide-angle lens increases the size of the plants and rocks in the foreground while shrinking the large desert mountains in the background. In the second image, a telephoto lens flattens out the depth of the many desert ridges, calling attention to their graphic patterns and outlines.
Have a hard time remembering all these details? Here’s an easy way to summarize it with a simple idea:
Wide-angle lenses show off space, telephotos show off objects.
The wide-angle lens’s big field of view, ease of uniform focus, and depth-distorting abilities are great at showing off big, expansive landscapes. However, they take focus away from individual elements within the landscape in favor of showing the whole. Telephoto lenses are naturally the opposite: they’re great at showing off the size, shape, and intricacy, of detail of individual elements within the landscape. But their narrow field of view, small depth of field, and depth-compressing qualities make it hard to capture the landscape as a whole.
You can analyze this pair of images to see exactly how all of these techniques work together. Starting with the photo above, you can see how the wide-angle lens fits the whole landscape into the frame, from close-up rocks to far off peaks and sky. Because of the lens’s large depth of field, the whole landscape is in acceptable focus as well. The lens’s depth distortion is readily apparent, as well: the foreground rocks look very large, creating a pleasing sense of depth, and emphasizing the leading lines that draw the eye from the edges of the frame to the center. Overall, you get a very good sense of the space and the expansiveness of the valley.
This image was taken in the same place, but the use of a telephoto lens captures it in a very different way. The photo brings out a single element of the landscape; look closely and you can see this peak in the previous image on the top right. It allows the viewer to appreciate its subtle details.
Because of the telephoto lens’s narrow depth of field, the sky is slightly out-of-focus while leaving the details of the peak itself perfectly sharp. And most of all, the compressed sense of depth flattens the image, showing off the rocky mass of the mountain, and calling attention to the beautiful curve of the ridgeline. Overall, you get a great sense of the mountain as a solid object, rather than a bounded space.
The best way to know which lens to use is to get out there, look, and think. What part of the landscape are you most drawn to? Does the landscape’s expansiveness give it its character? Are there stunning details surrounded by less photogenic elements? Are you shooting spaces or objects?
That said, my personal strategy is to just shoot both, because almost any landscape has enough beauty that just one type of lens isn’t enough to get to all of it.
The post Wide Angle Versus Telephoto Lenses for Beautiful Landscape Photography appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Will Crites-Krumm.
The post Equipment Versus Photographer – Which Matters More? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.
Flatlay image: Jeff Hopper. Photographer image: Alexander Andrews
It’s a common question without an easy answer. It’s one that pretty much every photographer has asked themselves at one time or another.
In this article, I’m going to start by identifying the ways in which the equipment matters. And then I’m going to cover the ways in which the photographer matters.
Finally, I’ll address the main question:
Which is more important?
So let’s dive right in.
Here’s the thing:
As much as photographers hate to admit it, equipment does matter.
If it didn’t, why would professional photographers spend $ 5000+ on a camera setup?
It’s not a question of whether equipment matters, it’s a question of how much it affects your photography.
So here’s a list of the key reasons equipment matters:
Cameras with high continuous shooting rates make it possible to capture amazing action photos without leaving much to chance. A camera that can shoot 12 frames-per-second is going to maximize your chances of getting a gorgeous image in the thick of the action.
Cameras with more autofocus points, greater autofocus coverage, better tracking, and better autofocus points (e.g., cross-type points) will make it easier to quickly lock focus on your subject and track them as they move. This is useful for any genre of photography that is fast-paced.
Metal cameras with weather-sealing can handle much more difficult conditions than cameras made of non-weather sealed plastic. You can shoot for longer in the rain, snow, and freezing temperatures without your camera failing, which increases your chance of capturing a once-in-a-lifetime shot.
Cameras with the most advanced sensors are able to capture noise-free images when shooting at high ISOs. This makes shooting at night without a tripod a much more feasible option.
The greater your camera’s megapixel count, the more you can crop your photos. This gives you additional flexibility in post-processing and helps you compensate for a shorter lens.
Cameras with a high dynamic range maximize the amount of detail you capture in a scene. This gives you more latitude when selecting an exposure. It also allows you to photography high dynamic range scenes without resorting to HDR techniques.
Mirrorless cameras with high-quality electronic viewfinders (EVFs) give you fairly accurate previews of your images before you press the shutter button. This allows you to get your exposure and depth of field correct, right from the beginning.
Smaller and lighter cameras are easier to carry on long treks and on travel expeditions. And the easier your camera is to carry, the more likely you are to have it with you when a once-in-a-lifetime scene happens right before your eyes.
Cameras and lenses with some form of image stabilization make it possible to handhold at low shutter speeds. This increases your shooting opportunities in low light and allows you to increase your depth of field during the day.
Higher-quality lenses are sharper and have fewer problems (such as color fringing and distortion). This makes it possible to get tack-sharp shots that look great straight out of the camera.
Lenses with different focal lengths allow you to capture different types of shots. If you want to capture sweeping landscape images, you’ll want an ultra-wide lens on hand. If you want to capture a detail shot of a perching eagle, you’ll want a 500mm or 600mm lens. Therefore, different lenses give you different photo opportunities.
Now that we’ve covered the ways in which equipment affects your photography, it’s time to talk about you, the photographer.
What impact do you have in the photo-making process? How do you make a difference in your photography?
Even if you have the best autofocus system in the world, it won’t matter if you don’t have the capabilities to use it. It takes serious skill to track fast-moving subjects, and it’s something that takes lots of practice to master. If you want to capture gorgeous action shots, you can’t just press the shutter and hope for the best. The autofocus system is part of the equation, but so are you.
Your ability to handhold is often the difference between a sharp photo and a blurry photo. You’ve often got to keep your hands steady while in the thick of the action, never an easy task. Image stabilization helps, but if your technique isn’t sound, you’ll end up with blurry photos anyway.
Cameras are pretty good at identifying the right exposure for the scene. But there are plenty of times when the camera’s choice just doesn’t look good. That’s when you have to step in, as the photographer, and take control of your camera’s exposure.
As great as modern cameras are, they still can’t tell you how to find good light, and they definitely can’t tell you how to use the light for great shots. That’s all up to you, and it’s something that photographers spend their whole lives studying. Expertly used light can be the sole difference between an amazing photo and a mediocre photo.
I’m putting this under a single header, but it’s a big one. Composition isn’t something that’s innate, and it’s definitely not something that your camera can control. It’s something that you learn through practice and hard work. And if you don’t bring composition skills to your photography, it’s going to look plain bad. There’s no way around it.
Choosing a composition is a skill. It’s also a skill to be able to pull off that composition – to be able to use camera settings to your advantage. That’s where you have to leverage your knowledge to choose the aperture and shutter speed you need to capture the perfect shot.
This is another huge factor as post-processing skills allow you to take a shot and really turn it into something incredible. Post-processing is how you put the finishing touches on your photos, and it’s how you give your photos that professional flair.
Now that you’ve read this far, you and I can surely agree that both the equipment and the photographer matters.
However, if you look over the two lists, you’ll notice that there are certain aspects of photography that the gear can barely contribute to such as working with light, choosing a composition, putting the final touches on a photo in post-processing, and more.
These are huge aspects of being a photographer. If you can’t do these things, your images will be consistently poor. There’s no other way to say it.
But if you can do these things well, you’ll get amazing photos. Yes, high-quality gear will help. It will increase your chances of getting beautiful shots – if you’re already very skilled. However, while the equipment is important, gear will never get you an amazing photo. At best, gear will get you ultra-sharp, well-exposed, in-focus snapshots – and that’s all. At worst, gear will get you blurry, poorly-exposed images.
In other words, you don’t need incredible gear to get incredible photos. But you do need to be an incredible photographer to get incredible photos.
So…
Which is more important, the equipment or the photographer?
The photographer.
No doubt about it.
What are your thoughts on equipment versus photographer? Do you agree that the photographer matters more than the equipment? Share your thoughts in the comments!
The post Equipment Versus Photographer – Which Matters More? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Jaymes Dempsey.
The post Spontaneous Photos Versus Staged Photos appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Bond.
This is a subject that runs to the very heart of what makes photography special for many people. The convulsions that many had when Steve McCurry decided he was in fact a visual storyteller show just how passionate people are about this subject.
Indeed, a more recent example of this occurred when a photography contest winner was found to have submitted an allegedly staged photo. To a certain degree, we’ve allowed photography to be romanticized by believing amazing photos are all about the moment of capture. That’s certainly an idea many travel or photography magazines have encouraged. In this article, you’ll learn about staged photos, spontaneous photos, and why learning both approaches will improve your work.
A shard of light was used to light this man’s face.
Getting the moment of capture is often what makes or breaks a photo. Landscape photography isn’t always about this, but a lone hiker in your landscape photo can add narrative. Of course, street photography is almost always about moment of capture. So what can you do that will improve your chances of adding that x-factor to your frame?
If you want to exercise your body, you go to a gym, visit the swimming pool or perhaps go for a run. If you want to get good at taking spontaneous photos, you need to visit places that have lots of decisive moments. These places will train your eye to be razor sharp and alive to the potential of a decisive moment before it happens. This is the opposite of a staged photo.
You’ll want to visit the following places:
An event such as the balloon festival is a chance to capture moments.
The majority of decisive moment photos you’ll take will be street photos. These will be on the street, or perhaps within a street market. The general rule here is to use a 50mm prime lens, though experimenting with other focal lengths can also give you good results. Using a longer focal length means you can stand in a less noticeable location, allowing the action in front of you to unfold naturally. You’ll also feel more comfortable at a distance, and can anticipate your moments of capture and build your skill for anticipation. Once you have a knack for this anticipation, use wider angles and see how your results turn out. Of course, as mentioned before, sports and often event photography require longer focal lengths to capture the action.
In this photo, a longer focal length of 135mm was used. Markets are great for interactions between people.
This is a little like staged photos, except it’s a natural moment. It could be argued that this is the very opposite of spontaneous, but it is nevertheless a moment of capture. When you take this type of photo you will have a pre-composed frame, and you’re waiting for a person to walk into the right position within your photo. You will need a lot of patience, as you could well be waiting for at least an hour.
In this photo, the scene was pre-composed. I then needed to wait for people to walk down the path.
Of course, there are times you’re just going to have to be lightning fast. You’ll need to have eyes everywhere, constantly alert to possibilities, and seeing things to the side of you as well. Having your camera setting already setup is essential in this scenario. A more forgiving aperture of say f/8 rather than f/1.8 will also help with quick focus.
In some cases, you will have to use a larger aperture according to the light levels you are photographing in.
If you’ve been practicing in the market where there are many chances to capture a decisive moment, you will get quicker at bringing the camera to your eye and getting the shot immediately – the same skill you’ll have used to capture people walking into a shard of light.
There are times you need to be aware and very fast. These monks crossing the street is a split second moment.
The opposite of spontaneous photos is staged photos. This style of photography will be what you practice regularly if you work with models, or perhaps take pre-wedding photos for people. Of course, the recent controversy surrounding these is centered on travel photography, which is all meant to be natural moments. If you want the most striking photo possible, though, the ability to control all aspects of the photo will give you maximum creativity. So what goes into a successful photo of this type?
Going on a photo-shoot with other members of a photography club can be a great learning experience.
The photographer who recently ran into trouble with their winning image allegedly used a staged photo from a group photography event.
Of course, it’s quite possible to make a staged photo look natural, and for it to carry a strong message. In fact, if it doesn’t, you need to go back to the drawing board.
The question is, however, when you’re photographing with a group of other photographers, how much are you in control of the creative process? How much is that photo really yours because you pressed the shutter?
Learning with the group is a great way to improve your work. However, to really allow your own creativity to come to the fore, it needs to be you (and only you) who controls how the photos are staged.
Organizing a photo session with a friend or model where you work one-to-one gives you much more control.
Control the narrative, and you’ll get the photo. To be a good visual storyteller, you need your photo to have that strong story as you guide your viewer’s eye through the frame. So you no longer need to capture the decisive moment. Instead, you’re going to create it.
To do that you’ll need to think of the following:
This photo has been staged. An off-camera strobe is placed left of the camera to light the ladies face, and the smoke from the cigar.
The management of the photo can go beyond what’s list above. You will want to really micromanage your photo. That means controlling all aspects of it from lighting to what people are wearing in the photo.
In this photo, the framing was created by sticking together pieces of rice paper using tape. The chef is making fresh spring rolls, using rice paper.
Unlike spontaneous photos, you can use creative techniques with your staged photos. In most cases, creative techniques take time to set up – time you only have when you stage the photo. There are many ways to be creative in your work. You don’t always need to use techniques like these. So take the following as some ideas you could use:
In this image, light painting has been used to highlight two monks who are standing still for the photo.
With staged photos, you are almost certainly aiming at the commercial market. You’ll be photographing with a model who it’s very likely you’ll pay. If you’re new to this type of photography, you might consider building a relationship with your model, where you both give each other time rather than money to build each other’s portfolios.
There is a temptation to say “I’m going to be a street photographer,” and not look to other types of photography. There is merit in becoming the master of your field and not diversifying. However, a model can transition to photography. They have the advantage of knowing what’s going on in front of the camera. Taking the time to take staged photos will allow you to see the potential for spontaneous photos in a different way as well.
Having staged the photo using off-camera flash, and seeing where things should be positioned in your frame is a skill that can be brought across to the more organic environment of street photography. That is to say; you should be a fashion photographer for a day, learn those ideas, and see what you can bring from that across to your street photography.
The desire for that perfect photo is always there. The purist is likely to want to achieve this organically, using honed photographer instincts to get that moment of capture. There is a lot to be said for learning the other side of the coin and getting in touch with your inner visual storyteller.
Which style of photography do you prefer and why? Would you consider photographing in a different way, even for a day? Here at digital photography school, we’d love to see your example photos.
Please let us know if you took them spontaneously, or if you staged the photo. You can even post an image, and see if the community can guess whether you staged the photo or not.
The post Spontaneous Photos Versus Staged Photos appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Simon Bond.
 |
The Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III are two very different cameras, but they’re broadly aimed at the same audience – camera-savvy enthusiast photographers who want a high-quality compact camera without sacrificing manual control or sensor size.
As you’d expect, the X100 and GR lineups each have a hugely loyal user base, built up over several years, and upgrades come slowly. But with the recent launch of the Ricoh GR III, and the continuing success of the X100F (with no signs of it being replaced any time soon) this seemed like a good time to compare the two models, to help you decide which one better suits your needs.
 |
Let’s deal with perhaps the most fundamental difference between these cameras first – the Ricoh GR III offers an equivalent focal length of 28mm, whereas the Fujifilm X100F provides a 35mm equivalent medium wideangle. Which of these focal lengths suits you better is of course down to personal taste, and your preferred style of photography.
As a very rough, casual comparison, 28mm is a loose proxy for a human being’s widest field of vision, whereas 35mm more closely matches your field of attention. As such, 28mm is great for images where you need to fit more in, or provide more context for your subject. Being slightly tighter, 35mm is more of an everyday ‘do everything’ focal length. It’s wide enough to make framing pretty easy for casual snapshots, but not so wide that your subject gets lost in the frame.
Verdict: Tie (depends on preference)
 |
But wait – it’s not quite as simple as all that. While the X100F and GR III offer native equivalent focal lengths of 35mm and 28mm, both can be paired with adapters to increase their lens’ versatility further. Fujifilm’s $ 349 screw-in WCL-100 II 28mm adapter is excellent, and increases field of view with very little image quality penalty. Another adapter, the TCL-100 II (also $ 349) can be used to magnify the lens’ effective focal length to 50mm. You might find that sharpness drops a little when the 50mm adapter is used (especially at close focusing distances) but if you enjoy shooting at 50mm, the added versatility might make the resolution penalty worth it.
Meanwhile, the GR III can be paired with the GW-3 wide converter ($ 149, plus adapter ring) to take its native 28mm equivalent lens all the way out to 21mm. We haven’t used the new adapter yet but performance of the older GW-2 adapter for the GR/II was excellent, which is encouraging.
The downside to adapter solutions for both cameras is that they add considerably to the size and weight of the cameras, not to mention additional cost.
Verdict: X100F wins for the added versatility of 28mm + 50mm equiv. converters.
 |
Aside from their native focal lengths, another key differentiator between these two cameras is the speed of their lenses, expressed in terms of their maximum apertures. The Fujifilm X100F offers an F2 maximum aperture (equivalent to ~F3 in full-frame terms) while the GR III’s lens is slower, at F2.8 (~F4.2 equiv).
The difference in maximum aperture has a couple of important effects. For one, you’ll have more ability to blur backgrounds and isolate your subject from the faster lens of the X100F, aided also by its longer focal length. You’ll also be able to shoot at lower ISOs in lower light with the Fujifilm without resorting to a tripod. On the other hand, the wider lens of the GR III, and its stabilized sensor (more on this in a minute) mean that the low-light disadvantage is somewhat mitigated (assuming static subjects) and you may not need a tripod except in very dark conditions.
Verdict: Tie. Too many variables.
 |
Ah yes – about that. Perhaps the most impactful upgrade to the GR III compared to its forebears is the addition of sensor-based image stabilization, which allows hand-held shooting down to at least 1/10sec without any trouble, assuming normal conditions (i.e., you’re not shooting from a helicopter or standing outside in a strong gale).
The addition of stabilization mitigates the limitations imposed by the GR III’s relatively slow lens when it comes to low-light shooting, and allows for creative options like creatively introducing blur (from flowing water, traffic, people walking by, asteroids striking the earth, etc.). The Fujifilm X100F has no such system, either optical or sensor-based, which is a major plus point in favor of the Ricoh.
Verdict: Ricoh GR III’s in-body stabilization means more options in low light.
 |
As a casual glance, the sensors in the Fujifilm X100F and Ricoh GR III look like they could be the same. And in fact, at a hardware level that might actually be the case. Both provide 24MP worth of resolution and on-sensor phase-detection autofocus pixels, and image quality is broadly comparable. Image quality is also in line with many of the best 24MP APS-C cameras on the market when it comes to Raw detail and dynamic range.
The difference is in the filter arrays. Ricoh uses a conventional bayer-type filter array, whereas Fujifilm uses its own proprietary X-Trans design. If you’re a JPEG shooter, there’s a definite – albeit subtle – advantage to X-Trans when it comes to critical detail retention, across most of the X100F’s ISO sensitivity range. And the X100F is well-suited to JPEG shooting, thanks to its suite of excellent Film Simulation modes, which replicate the look of classic Fuji film emulsions. We’re less enthusiastic about the JPEG output from the GR III, particularly in terms of color.
On the other hand, the more conventional design of the GR III’s sensor means that its Raw files play rather better with third-party Raw converters than those from the Fujifilm. While the difference isn’t massive, and Capture One deserves a mention as one of the software suites that actually does a great job. It might make a difference if you’re a Raw shooter with (for example) an established Adobe Raw workflow.
Verdict: Ricoh GR III’s more conventional Raw files are more flexible.
 |
The Fujifilm X100F is styled after the classic rangefinder cameras of the 1960s and 70s, and it’s around the same size as a Canonet or Yashica rangefinder (if you’re old enough to remember either). It’s a small camera, and will fit comfortably into a jacket pocket or handbag but it won’t slip into a shirt or trouser pocket. You’ll probably need either a hand strap or conventional neck strap to keep it secure when shooting.
On the other hand (no pun intended), despite having a sensor-based stabilization system built into the body, the GR III is an impressively small camera. Compared to the X100F, the GR III is genuinely shirt-pocketable, and when turned off it takes up remarkably little space in a pocket or bag. Annoyingly, the GR III lacks proper strap lugs so it won’t accept just any conventional strap, but the slim (included) hand strap is probably all you’ll need. Obviously if you enjoy shooting with a viewfinder attached, the GR III becomes a lot less compact, which leads me on to my next point….
Verdict: Ricoh GR III is genuinely pocketable.
 |
…the GR III does not have a built-in viewfinder, whereas the X100F does. And in fact, the X100F’s viewfinder is one of its best features. Unique to Fujifilm, the X100F features a ‘hybrid’ finder which can be switched between a high-resolution electronic view, and an optical view with exposure and focus information overlaid. Personally, I use the X100F almost exclusively in EVF mode, but a lot of photographers swear by the immediacy of the optical view. Impressively, the X100F can offer a version of the classic rangefinder focus aid by overlaying a portion of the live view feed in the optical finder. It’s hard to describe in words, but works well if you’re a fan of manual focus.
With the GR III, on the other hand, you don’t have the same options. While simple optical finders can be attached (and Ricoh will sell you one, for quite a lot of money) you miss out on in-view focus or exposure information, and there’s no option to add an external EVF.
Verdict: Fujifilm X100F’s built-in hybrid optical / electronic wins by a mile.
 |
Another thing missing from the GR III compared to the X100F (and in fact previous GR models) is a flash. Possibly for internal space reasons, possibly for battery life reasons (or a combination of both) Ricoh deleted the internal flash on the GR III, and own-brand external flashguns add considerably to the size of the camera. The Fujifilm X100F on the other hand features a small built-in flashgun. It isn’t the most powerful in the world, but is useful for low-light social photography and fill-in purposes when shooting in daylight. And both cameras have leaf shutters, allowing flash synchronization at very high shutter speeds.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F wins.
 |
What Ricoh’s engineers took away with one hand, they gave back with the other – in a significant upgrade compared to older GR models, the rear screen is touch-sensitive, and can be used to quickly place the AF point, and scroll through / zoom in to captured images. Some traditionalists might be tempted to disable the touchscreen (and the camera’s physical controls are there to take over if you’d prefer to go that route) but we’ve found that the addition of touch sensitivity makes a positive impact on the GR III’s handling experience.
The X100F is a more control and dial-heavy camera, and offers a conventional, non touch-sensitive screen. Whether this makes a huge difference to your purchasing decision is as much about personal preference as anything else, but with the camera held out away from your eye, it is easier to quickly position a focus point by touch on the GR III than it is with the AF joystick on the rear of the X100F. If you’re typically a viewfinder shooter, the lack of touch-sensitivity on the X100F might not bother you all that much.
Verdict: The Ricoh GR III’s touch-screen does make some key operations easier.
 |
The Fujifilm X100F is the fourth in a line of X100-series cameras which really set a template for the X and G-series mirrorless cameras that came later. A key part of the appeal of the original X100 was its (for the time) novel ‘retro’ styling, and every subsequent model in the lineup has shared a consciously old-fashioned hands-on design philosophy, with physical dials for key exposure settings, alongside the usual modal buttons and rear controls.
Arguably, you don’t really need all those dials, and personally I think the X100F is over-endowed with control input points. I haven’t used a physical shutter speed dial since the Nikon F4, so when I shoot with the X100F, mine stays locked to ‘A’, but some people swear by it. And they look great, which I suspect is part of the point. The downside to the X100-series’ distinctive styling is that the cameras do tend to attract attention. Be prepared to be asked, ‘is that a Leica?’.
 |
The GR III on the other hand offers a simpler, more subtle, less cluttered control interface which arguably better suits its specifications. A simple exposure compensation toggle on the rear doubles as a modal control for quick access to key shooting settings, and a dial on the upper right of the top-plate serves as the main input for exposure settings. Meanwhile, a lockable exposure mode dial provides a simple (and visually clear) means of moving between PASM and automatic exposure modes. As as already been mentioned, the touch-screen on the rear of the GR III helps to simplify some actions, like setting the AF point and navigating through captured images.
In the end, the choice comes down to two things – how you like your cameras to work, but also how you like them to look.
Verdict: Personal preference (but the Ricoh GR III is more streamlined).
 |
This one is pretty straightforward – while neither offer spectacular stamina, battery life from the X100F is pretty ok, whereas battery life from the GR III is decidedly less ok. Both cameras will probably get you through a day of shooting without any issues, but we’d be much less confident about leaving the house without a spare battery for the GR III. One of the most welcome upgrades in the X100F over its predecessors was a more powerful battery, and its CIPA rating compared to the GR III speaks for itself (390-330 shots compared to 200).
In reality, in a single shooting session with minimal image review, both cameras should be able to capture a lot more shots per charge than the CIPA figures suggest, but there’s no escaping the fact that the GR III’s battery is on the skinny side.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F wins with roughly twice the battery life of the GR III.
 |
Arguably, neither of these cameras is really suited to serious movie shooting, but of the two, the X100F is a far more convincing video camera. While not spectacular, its maximum video resolution of 1080/60p is fine, with a good degree of control over exposure. Focus is AF-C or manual only, but it’s still usable, and there is a socket for an external mic.
The GR III on the other hand offers a very thin video feature set. Although it also boasts 1080/60p resolution, exposure is locked to ‘P’ and there is no option for adding an external microphone.
Verdict: The Fujifilm X100F is the better of the two (but neither are great).
 |
So which of these two cameras is best for you? Aaaaaaall together now: It depends.
Obviously that’s the answer – that’s always the answer! You know how this works by now. If you value compact size over the convenience of a viewfinder, go for the GR III. If you’re one of those people that just doesn’t ‘get’ 28mm for some reason, go for the X100F. If you like to shoot a lot in low light but you don’t carry a tripod, the GR III is a better choice. If you want the camera to shoot video, frankly I think you’d be mad to consider either of them, but in a pinch the X100F is the less terrible of the two. Etc., and so on.
At the end of the day, both are excellent cameras with their own strengths and relatively few serious weaknesses. They’re just different. If you have the money, there’s actually a pretty good argument to made for buying both the X100F and the GR III, and using them alongside one another. Both cameras together will still take up less space in your bag than most mirrorless ILCs with a zoom lens.
Ultimately, you’re a grownup. You know what you like, and you know what you need. You’ve got this! Feel free, as always, to share your thoughts in the comments and let me know if I missed anything!
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The post Real Estate Photography: Artificial Light versus Natural Light appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Nisha Ramroop.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
This article is written by Nisha Ramroop and Ron Pepper.
Real estate interior photography can seem simple, but that impression can change when trying to capture a space that has big bright window views, and many areas of light and shadow inside. Often, it’s important to achieve balance amongst the bright and dark areas, whilst also capturing the view outside the window.
In this article, we’ll discuss shooting interiors using various lighting methods. These methods include using single and multiple Speedlight flashes, larger strobe lights, and using bracketed exposures for HDR.
The term ‘Speedlight’ refers to the kind of flash that can be connected to the camera’s hot shoe. These battery-powered flash units are very versatile and relatively inexpensive (often available used) because they can also be used off-camera. Nikon uses this term for this kind of flash, Canon uses the very similar ‘Speedlite’ and others might say ‘on-camera flash’ or other terms.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
Using only a single Speedlight flash with your camera to light a room can be a good way to capture interiors quickly with minimal equipment. This does require some practice and a powerful Speedlight.
Usually, you want to retain detail in the brightest part of your room (either the view through the window or in a light fixture) and build your flash lighting around that.
To achieve this, you need to establish a base shot which exposes for the window view. If the window is the brightest area in the room, the rest of the room gets underexposed. Thus you need to light the underexposed areas of your room with your flash. Experiment with your flash at different power levels to equalize the light in the room. You can also use a light meter to measure the light being thrown in a particular area. This helps you adjust the flash output deliberately.
Lighting equipment enables you to fill areas of shadow to capture details in those dark areas. A powerful technique is to “Bounce” your Speedlight flash off a wall or ceiling to fill your areas of shadow more evenly.
Note: While bouncing flash softens the light before it hits your subject and gives you non-directional light, you can use it to supplement any directional light, so that the shadows from your natural light source make sense.
Keep in mind the following technical details, when finding the perfect balance using flash:
Note: Using only one speed light can be tricky to achieve balanced light when window sources are large with bright sunlight.
Using multiple Speedlights on stands with a remote trigger can be handy when shooting larger spaces with overbearing natural light sources coming through the window. In some cases, you may need between two and four Speedlights to allow for enough internal light to equalize strong external window light – especially if shooting with direct sun outside the window. Shooting with multiple flashes allows you to get the right shot with a single image, rather than having to use bracketed exposures.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
Here a ‘strobe’ refers to larger, more powerful lights. Modern strobes are powered by batteries. In the past (and lower-end current strobes), strobes needed to be plugged into electrical power or large battery packs.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
Strobe Lights can be great to use for interior real estate photography, particularly if there is a large window light source. The greater power brings flexibility. For instance, adding a light modifier makes the light softer, avoiding harsh shadows that happen with smaller flashes.
Set your strobe light/s for the darker areas of the room. Depending on your shooting angle, you could set the strobe behind your camera line and bounce flash off the wall or ceiling above or behind you to fill any shadows in front of you.
There is an alternative to using artificial lighting to capture a room with bright and dark areas. Perhaps using Speedlights or strobes isn’t possible because the photographer doesn’t have this equipment, doesn’t know how to use it, or simply prefers the technique below.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
We face the same challenge that the camera can see either the bright area, or the dark area, but not both. This can be solved, not by adding light, but by adding more exposures from the camera.
When using natural light for real estate interiors, there is some level of post-processing involved. One of the most common processing techniques used is High Dynamic Range (HDR) processing. The HDR technique means that you’ll take bracketed exposures using the camera, then they are combined using HDR software.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
So where do you start to capture the dynamic range of your interior (what your eyes see)? Since you may be working with a scene of high contrast, start with a process called “Exposure Bracketing.”
Exposure Bracketing is where you take (a minimum) of three identically composed images at different exposures. The first image uses the settings recommended by the camera. Then one or more images are intentionally overexposed, and one or more get deliberately underexposed.
One of the challenges with getting that first image (where the camera recommends settings for as properly exposed) is that the camera can choose the shutter speed based on the bright window light. This selection can leave the rest of the image too underexposed. A good solution for this underexposure is to lock your exposure on an area that is neither too bright nor too dark and use that as your baseline shot. When taking bracketed images indoors, use a tripod. Keep your aperture constant, ISO low, and vary your shutter speeds to achieve your different exposures.
Most DSLR cameras now have built-in bracketing called “Automatic Exposure Bracketing” (AEB), making it an easy, one-click process. If you are unfamiliar with this term, your camera manual is an excellent source for learning about this cool feature, and videos showing how to set AEB on many popular cameras are here.
If you are familiar with AEB, go ahead and set the exposure compensation values to plus and minus 2 EV (+/-2EV) or the maximum exposure increment (EV spacing) your camera allows. Your camera display should now show three exposure markers: one underexposed by 2-stops (-2EV), one correctly exposed (0), and one overexposed by 2-stops (+2EV). These represent the three shots that the camera takes.
Important note: The example above is for a three-shot HDR image. If your camera is capable of taking more pictures for HDR merging (some take 5 or 7), you can use the maximum number of shots available to you.
Put your camera into its Continuous Shooting Mode, compose your image and take your shots. Minimizing shake is highly recommended, so use a remote shutter release or timer where possible. Your bracketed images are now ready for the next step.
As expressed previously, combining these bracketed images ensures you get a properly exposed image. This method is especially useful when you have challenging lighting situations and is a popular processing method for real estate photographers. Photomatix Pro is one of the top software used by professionals for the merging process.
One of the unspoken rules of real estate photography is that the vertical lines must, well, be vertical. Also, the horizon must be level. This is easy to achieve by leveling the camera. However, if you find that the image isn’t quite level, The Finishing Touch Panel in Photomatix Pro allows you to correct perspective issues with ease.
Architecture: Michael Vail Design. Photo: © Sallie Moffatt.
As noted, there are pros and cons to each lighting method when photographing real estate interiors. When deciding which method is best for you, consider the needs of the shoot you are undertaking.
If you are a beginner, it is also good practice to experiment first with natural light. Doing so helps you understand how light works before you move on to adding artificial light to your room.
If you are comfortable adding light, remember to keep it soft and be aware of your light direction at all times. If you are shooting with available light, master your processing techniques. Use HDR software such as Photomatix Pro to combine your Exposure Bracketed photos and achieve a nice exposure balance.
No matter what technique you use, some key things to remember are: show details, balance your well-lit areas against those in the shadows and show the space in the most flattering way – just as you see it as you walk in the room.
Disclaimer: HDR Soft is a paid partner of DPS.
The post Real Estate Photography: Artificial Light versus Natural Light appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Nisha Ramroop.
 |
With ‘Deep Learning’ autofocus, crazy-fast burst speeds and refined ergonomics, the Olympus E-M1X is the most focused action and sports shooting camera that Olympus has ever made. And though it retains a Four Thirds sensor like the E-M1 II, Olympus is touting the X as a credible alternative to the flagship Nikon D5’s and Canon EOS-1D X II’s of the world: in the right circumstances.
We’ll look at comparisons against the D5 and 1D X II in a future article, but for now, we wanted to take a closer look at how the E-M1X stacks up against other Four Thirds and APS-C cameras with sports-shooting chops. It’s true that the E-M1X is the only camera in this comparison with a true double-grip chassis, but its competition is fierce nonetheless.
 |
Olympus has been clear that the E-M1X does not replace the existing E-M1 II, and both will live alongside each other in their lineup. But since the E-M1 II was already such a capable camera and you can get one at a steep discount compared to the X, we figured we’d start with a look at how these two stack up against each other.
The most immediate change is obviously the body. Not only in terms of size, but also battery life (doubled on the X, since it has…double the batteries). There are also significant differences between the two in terms of their controls. By and large, there are more buttons on the X that are dedicated to a single purpose, and the dual 8-way joysticks free up the four-way controller to act as four distinct custom buttons.
 |
Another benefit of the larger body on the E-M1X is that it makes room for an all new in-body image stabilizer, now rated at up to 7 stops without a stabilized lens, and up to 7.5 stops with certain lenses such as the Olympus 12-100mm F4 Pro. The E-M1X is also officially rated to IPX1 standards; the E-M1 II is certainly a well sealed camera, but Olympus makes no claims regarding formal ratings for it.
Both cameras have the same viewfinders, the same rear screens and the same
(or very similar) sensors
Olympus also doubled the processors in the X relative to the Mark II, enabling not only the ‘Deep Learning’ autofocus that detects motorsport vehicles, aircraft and trains, but also the hand-held high-resolution mode that spits out 50MB files. And Olympus has told us that it’s tweaked its C-AF algorithm in the X (note, this is not the C-AF + Tracking algorithm) to allow for better autofocus performance when you keep an AF area over your subject.
As for the rest, well, there’s not much to tell. Both cameras have the same viewfinders, same screens and the same (or very similar) sensors and very similar menu systems. For all intents and purposes, unless you need a tougher camera, want a beefier camera to use with bigger lenses or are in love with the Olympus ecosystem and want the best possible autofocus performance your bucks can buy, it’s probably best to just stick with the E-M1 II for now.
 |
Let’s start with Panasonic’s Four Thirds stills-shooting flagship, the G9. Although at first glance there doesn’t appear to be much between the two in terms of core specs, the experiences of actually using each of them are more disparate than you might expect.
But let’s start with those specs, just ’cause. While the E-M1X shoots at 18fps with autofocus, the G9 ups the ante with 20fps. But they both have 20MP Four Thirds sensors with native ISO ranges of 200-25600, they both have fully articulating rear touchscreens, AF joysticks and in-body image stabilization.
But whereas the E-M1X has an on-sensor phase detection autofocus system that is able to recognize subjects like aircraft, trains and automobiles, Panasonic has stuck with its Depth from Defocus technology in the G9’s contrast-detection autofocus system. The result is that there is ‘flutter’ in the G9’s EVF when shooting moving subjects, as the lens rapidly wobbles in and out of focus to reconfirm critical focus. The ‘keeper rate’ of in-focus shots on the G9 is actually quite good, but it can be difficult to see while shooting if your subject is in focus at all. It’s a bit disconcerting until you get used to it.
 |
There are other considerations, such as the G9’s top-plate LCD that displays shooting settings, something missing on the Olympus. Both cameras have high-resolution modes, but only the Olympus lets you hand-hold the E-M1X to get those extra pixels. The G9′ s video spec is rather more impressive too. It shoots 4K/60p, while the Olympus tops out at 4K/30p. Missing a built-in battery grip, the Panasonic is of course smaller, and with around half the rated battery life of the Olympus.
Both cameras give great results from their Four Thirds sensors given enough light. In the end, we lean towards the Olympus for outright autofocus performance, but the Panasonic is the stronger option for those who also dabble in video.
 |
Okay, with the E-M1X’s main Four Thirds competitor out of the way, let’s look at how it stacks up against Nikon’s APS-C flagship, the D500.
With a resolution of 21MP, the D500 is only slightly above the E-M1X in this regard – but the larger sensor will come with less noise, more dynamic range and better low light performance than the E-M1X. Physics is physics, simple as that.
The larger sensor in the D500 will have less noise, more dynamic range, and better low light performance
And while the D500 comes without any form of ‘Deep Learning’ in its autofocus system, it does have a highly capable 3D Tracking mode to track moving subjects. So it won’t automatically detect, say, a car, but if you manually tell the camera what to track, the D500 will stick to it with remarkable tenacity. By contrast, Olympus’ non-subject specific tracking is nowhere near as ‘sticky’ as the Nikon.
 |
The viewfinder experience differs from one camera to the next, and not just because one is optical (Nikon) and one is electronic (Olympus). The Olympus’ viewfinder is noticeably larger than that on the D500, but because it uses LCD technology, contrast is lacking and blacks can appear somewhat ‘washed out.’
The D500 also tops out at 10fps, slower than the E-M1X but still respectable. Despite only having a single battery, the D500 is rated for more shots per charge than the E-M1X, in part because it doesn’t have to power its viewfinder. But the Olympus has incredible image stabilization, and Nikon’s lens lineup offers limited solutions for getting near the reach of the Olympus lineup without spending more money and carrying more weight.
In the end, both cameras will reward you with an insane number of in-focus ‘keepers’ and good image quality – but the Nikon will handily beat the Olympus as light levels drop and ISO values rise, while Olympus gives you more reach in a smaller overall package.
 |
Aha! You weren’t expecting Fujifilm to make an appearance, were you? But the X-T3 is a credible contender, offering further evidence that Fujifilm is quickly learning from both its past and its competitors. It wasn’t that long ago that Fujifilm offered dismal video and slow autofocus, yet now the X-T3 is a stills / video hybrid camera that is among the best APS-C cameras we’ve ever used. So how does the E-M1X look against it?
The X-T3 has the highest resolution of any camera in this slideshow
With a new sensor offering 26 megapixels of resolution, the X-T3 will have the highest resolution of any camera in this slideshow. It also reads out very fast, allowing for 20fps burst shooting using the electronic shutter, and 30fps with an added 1.25x crop that yields 16MP images.
But what good are burst speeds if your subject is out of focus? Good thing the latest autofocus system in the X-T3 is really good, with a solidly capable tracking mode that works similarly to Nikon’s 3D Tracking. Also like the Olympus, there’s no top-plate LCD to check your settings, but that may not matter if you make use of the analog dials. And one last small-but-significant distinction: the E-M1X has a large AF-L / AE-L button that can be assigned to AF-ON for back-button shooters, and the X-T3’s AF-L and AE-L buttons are comparatively small and placed less conveniently.
 |
Despite its relatively large sensor, the X-T3 will also be the smallest camera in this comparison – but that portability comes with compromises. The Fujifilm’s smaller grip is less well-suited to large lenses than the Olympus, and battery life is comparatively poor. But build quality is excellent, even if Fujifilm won’t commit to an ingress protection rating like Olympus will. Despite having excellent video capabilities, the Fujifilm has no in-body stabilization, limiting video shooting possibilities for some users, though it has a much nicer electronic viewfinder and zero-blackout shooting in those electronic bursts.
Like Panasonic’s G9, the Fujifilm X-T3 may be best seen as a more appropriate all-rounder for most people. But Olympus should be concerned about the little Fujifilm, particularly as the system has some excellent lens support that signals how seriously the company is taking sports and action shooting (see the XF 100-400mm zoom and the 200mm F2 prime). Fuji also offers – arguably – some of the best JPEG color in the business, which is not only an Olympus strong suit but also very important to action shooters that don’t have time to process thousands of Raw files.
 |
In looking at the E-M1X in comparison to these excellent crop-sensor cameras on the market today, you can’t help but wonder if Olympus really has their work cut out for them.
It occupies an interesting niche in the market. Olympus is clearly catering to users that may either aspire to own a professional double-grip DSLR, or perhaps already own an SLR of some sort but are tired of carrying it around. These users must be shooting in pretty decent light to avoid ultra high ISO values compromising image quality on the Four Thirds sensor and yet, these users must not want to compromise at all on autofocus capability.
There’s no denying that the E-M1X is an amazing piece of technology wrapped in what is perhaps the best-built camera body any of us have laid our hands on. In the right hands and in the right circumstances, it’s capable of astounding imagery. We’ll continue to put the camera through its paces as we press on with our final review.
What do you think of the E-M1X? Do you own any of the other cameras mentioned in this comparison? Do you want to pick up a copy of the Olympus for your very own? Let us know in the comments.
Articles: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
The post Fujifilm X-T3 versus Fujifilm X-H1: The Best Mirrorless Camera for You? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Suzi Pratt.
Fujifilm was on a roll this year releasing a slew of gear including two very popular mirrorless cameras: the Fujifilm X-H1 and Fujifilm X-T3. Released a mere 7 months apart, these two cameras have amateurs and professionals alike wondering which is better suited for their needs.
One of Fujifilm’s most popular cameras to date has been the X-T2, so it’s no surprise that many loyalists to the X-T line were awaiting the third generation. The Fujifilm X-T3 is the newest Fuji camera to date, using a brand new sensor and processor. As a result, it has quite a few advantages over all other Fujifilm cameras, including boosted battery life. It continues to enhance photography features with its larger sensor resolution (8% more pixels), 100 more focus points, faster continuous shooting (6 fps faster), and the inclusion of a flash sync port. Fujifilm also added a slew of video features such as 4K60p, higher bit rate (400mbps), and a headphone port. All in all, the X-T3 is made to entice today’s hybrid photo and video shooters.
Brand new to the Fujifilm X-Series lineup is the X-H1. It is the first X-Series camera to have in-body image stabilization (IBIS), which is essential for shooting more stable handheld video and lowlight photos. This is the main advantage that the X-H1 has over the X-T3.
As mentioned above, the X-H1 is the only Fujifilm camera to offer in-body stabilization. This means that even your lenses without Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) will be stabilized by the camera. With that said, if you use an OIS lens on the X-T3, you can still get a degree of stabilization even without IBIS.
The X-H1 physically resembles DSLRs in several ways, namely via its top LCD. This can be helpful for viewing and changing settings in the dark, and also for seeing your battery levels without turning the camera on.
Overall, the X-H1 is physically larger than the X-T3 and is closer in looks to the Fujifilm GFX camera line. The X-H1 is about 134 grams heavier and has a noticeably larger right-hand grip. While many people purchase mirrorless cameras with the idea of having a smaller, more compact camera, you may prefer the X-H1’s larger size if you have big hands or tend to use Fujifilm’s large red badge lenses.
Fujifilm made significant autofocus improvements to the X-T3, now offering 425 hybrid autofocus points. That’s 100 more autofocus points than both the X-T2 and the X-H1. Additionally, both face and eye detect have been enhanced and they are much more responsive and accurate on the X-T3 than on previous Fujifilm cameras. I will say, however, that Sony still leads the pack in terms of face and eye detect in particular.
The X-T3 also ups the ante in continuous shooting. Now able to shoot 11 frames-per-second (fps) with the mechanical shutter, 20 fps with the electronic shutter, and 30 fps in 1.25x crop mode with the electronic shutter. In comparison, the X-H1 also shoots 11 fps mechanical, but only 14 fps with electronic. If frames per second and continuous shooting are of importance to you, the X-T3 is your best bet.
Despite the X-H1 being intended as Fujifilm’s video-oriented mirrorless camera, the X-T3 doesn’t skimp on video features. In fact, the X-T3 outperforms the X-H1 when it comes to bitrate (400mbps vs 200mbps), and its ability to shoot at 4K60p (compared to the X-H1’s 4K30p). Also, the X-T3 has a headphone jack to monitor audio–this is a feature you can only get on the X-H1 if you use the accompanying battery grip.
In addition to a new processor and sensor, the Fujifilm X-T3 also boasts a lower price point of $ 1499 versus $ 1899 for the camera body only. That’s a $ 400 difference that could be put towards a new lens or camera accessory.
Both the Fujifilm X-H1 and X-T3 have many features to make them viable competitors in today’s hot mirrorless camera market. Here’s what they have in common:
As a newer camera with more photography and video features AND a lower price point, the Fujifilm X-T3 will probably be the camera of choice for most people. Even Fujifilm seems to have realized this as the X-H1 has dropped in price to be very competitive with the X-T3. However, if you’re a serious videographer who isn’t in a hurry to get a new camera, it is probably worth waiting to see what Fujifilm does with the next generation of the X-H1: the X-H2. Although nothing official about the X-H2 has been announced yet, Fujifilm is famous for taking customer feedback seriously and many Fuji enthusiasts believe the X-H2 will be the ultimate video camera. We’ll wait and see!
Most comparisons were done in video form, so please check out the video below to see X-H1 and X-T3 sample video and photos.
The post Fujifilm X-T3 versus Fujifilm X-H1: The Best Mirrorless Camera for You? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Suzi Pratt.
The post So You Want to Make a Website? Part 1: Squarespace versus WordPress appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Carl Spring.
Welcome to the first of a 5-part series of articles on how to create your website. The series examines which platforms to consider using, through to SEO (how to get your website to rank better on search engines). While the focus of these articles is on the DIY aspect, a specialist web designer can be a worthwhile investment in many situations. Some are also cheaper than you think.
As with the discussion of Apple versus Android, the discussion of the better platform to build your website on has staunch supporters on both sides. While there are other service providers, this article focuses on two of the leading site builders used today; Squarespace and WordPress.
Choosing which web platform to use can be a hard decision. Both are excellent, used by many companies and individuals and both platforms have their strengths & weaknesses. There are pro’s & cons to each system. However, you can create a great website using either platform.
The Apple versus Android arguments transfers well into discussions over which of these two platforms you should use. Squarespace is a closed system that “just works,” whereas WordPress is a much more customizable system, with a multitude of plugins to use. However, WordPress requires a slightly higher level of knowledge to get the best results.
Let’s look at each platform in a little more detail.
WordPress may look complicated, but it isn’t as scary as you think.
WordPress is insanely popular. The WordPress website states that 32% of the web runs using their platform. Moreover, the website you are reading this article on uses WordPress too.
In reality, WordPress has two different platforms: the self-hosted version (you host the website on your own choice of servers) and WordPress.com, (the hosting gets managed for you). Web hosting is the space on the web that stores your website. When visitors type in your website address, it retrieves your website from the server so that the visitor can view it. Hosting costs can vary depending on your needs, but you can find reliable hosting for your WordPress site for under $ 5 per month.
The key appeal with WordPress is its flexibility. Many people tend to go for the self-hosted version because of the ability to add more plugins and themes. Whereas wordpress.com limits the plugins and themes you can use, which is in some cases for good reason. However, I shall get to that in a moment. The ability to use these relies on you choosing a more expensive monthly plan.
Although it may seem daunting for the uninitiated, self-hosting is more simple than you may think. If you purchase your domain name (the website address), and the hosting with the same company, things are even easier. Many hosting companies have one-click WordPress install, which means your hosting service installs the latest version for you at the click of a button. Using self-hosting also means you can set up a professional email address associated with your website (name@yoursite.com).
The main reason people love WordPress is its flexibility. As an open source platform, WordPress has thousands of templates to create the perfect style for your website. Their style and prices range from free to hundreds of dollars. Generally, the paid themes come with more features. However, there are some fantastic free themes to get you started.
With some coding knowledge, you can tweak your website design to achieve a completely custom look. However, that means learning how to code or employing a developer, which may not be something you wish to do.
As well as an almost infinite number of themes, there are also a multitude of plugins available. These plugins can help with everything from improving your SEO, through to creating beautiful galleries or adding purchasing options to your site. Whatever you want to do with your site, chances are there is a plugin out there to make the job more simple. These plugins (like themes) range in price from free through to around $ 50 (US) for premium plugins from high-end developers.
While also a strength, the main issue with WordPress is its open source nature. Many of the themes and plugins out there are well created, but there are some that are created by amateur developers. These plugins may have issues that can range from content not displaying correctly on your site through to taking your whole website out with an error. You also need to be mindful of security. You do not want your website to get hacked via a rogue plugin. When choosing your hosting, always make sure you look at the protection they offer you and your website.
The learning curve with WordPress is steeper than a platform like Squarespace. For those with little technical knowledge, it can be daunting. However, there is a vast online community to help and thousands of hours of training if you have the time to invest. As no-one strictly owns WordPress, there is no specific customer service option like you get with Squarespace. So, if you run into a problem that you cannot fix, you have to be reliant on your knowledge, Google searches, and the kindness of others through the forums.
So many design choices can be made without any need for coding knowledge.
Chances are, you’ve heard of Squarespace. They have a slick advertising campaign that’s all over the media. While there are other website builders out there (Wix being the main alternative), Squarespace is considered by many to be the best.
Squarespace is a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) website builder. The design works around a style editor, where you can change the design of your site. While it’s not as customizable as WordPress, you can make a lot of changes to your pages without any coding knowledge.
The key to Squarespace’s success is simplicity. Squarespace takes care of hosting your site, and you can register your domain through them too. These options make the whole process more straightforward than the WordPress option. However, this comes at the expense of the vast range of customization options available with WordPress.
Squarespace has many beautifully designed templates. To the untrained eye (nearly all of the general public) the templates look like you have spent much money on a beautiful website. In general, the style is quite minimal, with the focus on photography to make the template shine. All Squarespace templates come optimized for viewing on mobile devices. You can also preview your website on a computer, tablet, and phone with the simple click of a button. These templates are all tried and tested and guaranteed to work across devices, which is gives peace of mind.
Within each template, there are several page designs to get you started. You can tweak these using the tools within the software to create a personalized page. You can change the position of text, image sizes, colors and fonts, all without needing to learn a single line of code. That isn’t to say there is no learning curve with Squarespace, but it won’t be long before you feel confident using it. There is also a vast support network online.
Plugins with Squarespace are limited. However, they all work seamlessly and make the process simple. By now, you may be sensing a theme here?
Something that is helpful for many users is the dedicated customer service available. You can email your issue, and one of the Squarespace team gets back to you personally, addressing your specific issue. This feature is awesome for the less technically minded. Squarespace is quick to respond and always provides you with the official information to fix the problem.
If you’d like to get a little more creative with your Squarespace site, you can write custom CSS into pages and inject code. However, most people choose Squarespace, so they don’t need to bother writing code. You probably want to concentrate more on what you do, which is take photos. Rather than learn how to code and spend much time learning how to work a website platform.
Concerning small business, Squarespace has features to sell products through their platform. Moreover, they are now adding email marketing to their platform too. So, Squarespace is becoming a one-stop shop for small businesses.
The final thing to factor in with Squarespace is the cost. Prices start at $ 144 per year or $ 16 per month. For the top e-commerce package (which many of you won’t need) comes in at $ 480 per year or $ 46 per month.
To sum up, Squarespace is a more expensive option, as the costs are ongoing. However, when you compare it to the price of paying for hosting, purchasing a nice theme and a couple of decent plugins for a WordPress site, there is little difference over the first 12-18 months of ownership. After that first year though, WordPress is a cheaper option.
However, if you want a new theme after 18 months (which many people tend to), the price comes back to being even (if the theme is not free). Also, you have the benefit of tried and tested designs and plugins as well as customer service.
That depends on your needs. If you’re a technically-minded person and have the time and inclination needed to get the best from it, then WordPress could be the ideal platform for you. However, if you want a website that looks great and is easy to set up and use, Squarespace is for you. Although, just like iPhone and Android, once you get into a system, you tend to stick with it.
Me? I’m a Squarespace guy (and an Apple guy). The reason is simple. Squarespace is pretty much hassle-free.
Although I have a grasp of coding and consider myself technically minded, Squarespace has everything I need. It is simple for me to work with now that I know my way around its features. There is support on hand should I need it, and the pricing difference isn’t big enough to make me move over.
I have had WordPress sites before (and am looking at it for a project I am working on right now), and I know lots of successful companies who use them (DPS for a start). I like the minimal hassle and if that comes at the expense of customization, then so be it. However, that’s me. What do you guys think?
The post So You Want to Make a Website? Part 1: Squarespace versus WordPress appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Carl Spring.
You must be logged in to post a comment.