Sponsor: coupon code ‘tony’
Win a camera at (seriously)
Chelsea and Tony discuss 5 “lies” camera companies use to sell cameras. Are megapixels that important? Does your camera have the fastest AF? Hear their theories behind why numbers are exaggerated, tests are not trustworthy, and what it means for you, the consumer.
Lots of marketing BS out there, and unfortunately, it's not just camera companies. We have to take everything manufacturers claim with a grain of salt. A BIG grain.
No ISO? I am surprised:)
And you wouldn't believe the lies that computer companies tell you. From Apple to HP… so many lies. Thanks for the tips. I can catch the computer lies but just starting out in photography!
thanks guys I think its really good for a podcast to highlight these issues however, NEWSFLASH Advertisers Lie! and therefore us "the users" rely on accurate independent reviewers .
ActüallY how Mü¢h FPS :Dü v Ge† in/on :D500 & :D850 if $übJe¢† is ConstantlY+Freqüen†lY Moving in 😀 FraMe ???
Pl replY.
†hank👍🏻Yoü..
Tony you have to much light on you))
Also, I'm not sure you guys fully understand how megapixels work. 24 megapixels is 24 megapixels and it has to do with the actual number of photosites on the sensor. The fact that a piece of glass is optically inferior will NOT give you "fewer" megapixels as you imply. You still have a 24 megapixel image — even if it's a crappy image.
It's also not accurate to say that not all of the megapixels "are being perceived." Again, that's not how it works.
If the glass is optically flawed and delivering distorted light to the sensor, that doesn't "reduce" the amount of megapixels recorded or somehow make some of the photosites "not be perceived." All of the photosites — therefore all of the megapixels — are used. What optically flawed glass means is that it's not delivering as "focused" (or sharp) of an image to the sensor as better glass.
It is still a 24 megapixel image. Just as a completely out of focus image is still a 24 megapixel image.
Also while you are correct in the array of color registration in the photosites (one red pixel and one blue pixel for every 2 green pixels), it's not fair or accurate to say that an image of a blue sky is somehow being delivered as fewer megapixels. ALL photosites record luminance data as well. If shooting, for example, a blue sky, the camera doesn't just ignore the data reaching the photosites with the red and green filters. For one thing, it would be next to impossible to record absolutely NO color information in those photosites. For another, the camera also has luminance data to know that there is color information there.
The processor is then able to take the color information it reads to create renditions of the full visible color spectrum (since the world is not just all red, green, and blue). This is a highly accurate process — as long as there is good luminance data. This is why boosting the ISO will often introduce artificial RBG noise into the image, because you are essentially giving artificially boosted information to the processor from the pixels.
But you are still getting a full 24 megapixel image.
I'm pretty sure the silent shooting feature of the Canon 5D Mark II was never advertised as being available in normal shooting. It is available in Live View only — and it is pretty quiet compared to the normal shutter. (However, getting in and out of Live View is shockingly loud.) Also, on the Mark II, Live View lacks autofocus, so in a dynamic shooting environment it's kind of useless.
True "silent mode" shooting was introduced with the 5D Mark III, and while there is still shutter noise, it is significantly quieter than the normal shutter. In a church setting, while the shutter can still be heard, it is not nearly as intrusive. Is it actually "silent?" No… but it is much, much quieter. And Live View shooting is still, for all practical purposes, almost actually silent (just way slower), and the Mark III introduced AF in Live View.
And I thought silent mode was the elimination of the focus-lock beep that Nikons have.
this couple are so funny to watch due to their lack of technical knowledge XD
Love the way you point out the lies. It's shocking, like goverments shocking.
Nerd alert lol
is it not the case that a camera sensor has photosites and not pixels. a sensor produces pixels?
get rid of Canon and use a fuji,.. they have real silent modes 🙂
But there are silent cameras. If I put my two Sony cameras in silent mode they don't make a sound. Just saying.
Perhaps Canon lies about it but it's not a lie for all companies.
Tony lies about 90% of the "info" on the damn channel lmao
An elderly couple in church one sunday morning…the man turns to his wife and remarks…" I just let out a silent one!" the wife turns to him and says.." you need to change your hearing aid batteries!"
My old Kodak Instamatic actually had the worlds fastest autofocus at 0.0 seconds.
9:27
Well MF+30fps it’s not kind of magic or some tough shit. Old time with film cameras professionals using MF on championats and over games with 2-6fps
Sorry Kevin
Canon EOS-R is silent zzzzzzzzzz in silent mode
Judging by the video you made previously, I would have thought at least one of those would have been ISO. And for me personally, I couldn't care less about 4K. Because from that video every single camera manufacturer lies about that too.
I'm surprised Fuji wasn't mentioned with their X-T100's 15fps 4k footage!
It is the same 4K problem with the Playstation 4 pro, you get top resolution, but the main fan for the 4 CPU'sis running all the time, making it sound like a helicopter… I'm new to your channel and loving it!
Haha, the people who don't like M43 laugh about silent modes they don't get. Maybe try a M43 camera and get actually silent mode where you will here NOTHING 😉
Your slack notifications make me think I have slack notifications
Chelsea, life is short. Don't apologize for any *.*ism. 🙂
Tony and Chelsea I need to know about Nikon D90, what is your take on what ever it claims? I dont see much real difference with other crop sensors. What is your opinion?
One of the biggest cons put forth by Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. is that digital 35mm is "Full Frame" and is somehow a huge format.
Back in the day of film cameras, 35mm was considered a small format compared to 4×5, 6×7, 56x70mm, etc.
Pentax never claimed to have the worlds fastest auto focus. They're just cool.
I recently saw an advertisement video for a 4k camera where the 4k pictures came from an Action Cam on a drone and the commercial kept switching back and forth between some guy standing in the woods shooting the camera and the video of the drone footage. Regarding 4k lies, I am just as confused and bothered when I hear people explain what 4k is. I sill don't understand and some pictures and video of what is touted as 4k look like crap, especially when someone's dog is running around with a GoPro on their back. Will more modern technology and higher megpixel count with better glass improve 1080p from my P530 camera for enlarging and making large prints of photos I can hang on the wall. I get very sharp pictures on y P530 but I have to be close up when shooting and I cannot enlarge them much. I see some videos showing the LCD screen when people are shooting on new APS-C cameras and the auto focus blows me away with how fast it is too. Anyone?
After this video, I feel that I should get a shoe box and pierce a pin hole in it, at least that way I'm sure what I have … I'm really laughing at my joke all by myself but did enjoy it. Thanks for all your good videos and this constant sharing of your knowledge, it's precious !!
https://youtu.be/LLeOu18lXTw?t=374 Not detracting from the gist of what you say on the Megapixel "lie", but would I be wrong to say the comment about skin would be accurate if skin were red on black, but surely red on white detail is variation in the green channel? Think of filters on a B/W film. Do not be too polite to tell me if I am thinking this through completely wrongly.
Gosh, you guys get to test before buying. I live in India where getting what you think you want is a dream. Then you get it and this is the truth. Awful. Fortunately at 68 and knowing what could be done with an ASA of 25, 64 and most often 100 which incidentally was what we used in our tranny films. I mean like Fuji Velvia was just between 40 and 50. But for mold, that my seaside, moist home provides naturally, those memories would still rival and beat the pants off many of the digital photos I have taken recently. I was in Texas incidentally after the burial of my son in Arlington, VA, a sad time in a beautiful country in 2006. Yes, my son got a hero's funeral with top honors and the military people treated us like kings and here I was with my Nikon N90s and a few lenses and not being in the mood for pulling it out of my everpresent camera bag. My children were having a ball with their 3mp tiny compact Sony's so I went out and not having deep pockets managed to pick up my first digital Panasonic Lumix FZ-7 I was thrilled. Its Elmarit, Leica lens was the reason I bought it anyway, did give me sharp photos at 8mp. For the money I spent then 500USD for camera, battery, charger memory card and Tamrac bag felt good. I did manage to take a lot of good photos with it. I guess not knowing digital methods saved me. I went back to Aperture, shutter-speed combos I was familiar with and knowing anything above ISO 100 in that little sensor was impossible saved me. Several years later, I bought the Nikon D7000 after Ken Rockwell declared it the best Nikon ever, ( I started with a Nikon FM2 a hard to beat film camera to date) I bought one. I dare not take anyphoto above 800 ISO and that too being brave, again the base ISO is the best. I have got good photos and some good reviews on Instagram (that size is a joke). But since I dont have a darkroom now could not pop in to make a print. I have not bought another digital camera since. I make do. Your article to old film camera guys like me makes us even more careful now. The next camera I buy will be hired, tested and then bought. Thanks Guys, this series is really classic. Hope you dont get too many brickbats. Keep up the good news even if its bad 🙂
write speed is the biggest lie!!!
A real lie from a lot of Sony Dealer: "You will pay less for the lens because the stabilizer is in the camera". Bulls…!
Umm I think you got the megapixel and the bayer pattern wrong. Yes there are more green sensitive pixels but that doesn’t reduce your pixel count they aren’t even a color they are all 256 shades of gray relative to their color. For example a blue pixel will be lighter gray then a near by red when exposed to blue color. The whole image is interpolated substituting the pixels with an interpolated color. To get yellow a “green” pixel is compared to a blue and the blue is subtracted from the green leaving the interpolated yellow. Orange is determined by subtracting the blue to get the yellow then comparing it to red. To say you don’t get the full megapixels based on the ratio of green to the other colors is just wrong that’s not how the camera works at all. Basically your camera has a grid in memory with the same number of pixels as your sensor each pixel color is interpolated. It blows my mind to think that all this happens in a fraction of a second.
this is fun
Chelsea is too cute!
Talking about pixels and not mentioning the sensor size? C'mon guys!
7:40 Question. According to Chelsea, if you were to paint your face with heavy grey makeup, put on a black suit and tie, and put on a pair of white gloves, you would have a sharper portrait.
Is my understanding correct?
Cracks me up 😂 best decode ever. moreover I learned new things…….. Cool
If only camera manufacturers lied. Even worse, those who don't like a camera but convince you to buy it 🙁
Good Video!
So how does the bayer sensor compare to sigmas faveon I think it’s called. I’ve seen sigma camera pics with vibrant colors they seem to defy the higher megapixel count of say a Nikon or Canon