I jumped from a7cii to xt5. and I don't regret it. I only use RAW. this camera itself takes a lot outside to take pictures. pure pleasure. sony is boring. I'm sick of this sharpness, speed etc. I had everything that was the best and newest in sony. I experienced this bottom. I lost the pleasure of photography. since I have fuji I only think about taking pictures
What I meant was that if you’re photographing for fun, Fuji is definitely a good choice because they make excellent cameras. However, if you’re working commercially and need a low autofocus error rate, Sony is the better option. I also bought an X100VI again because it's much better suited for street photography and travel.
Believe me, I've tried every possible combination of AF-C settings to make sure I wasn't making a mistake. I also tried other things and settings, like different shutter modes, performance modes, and different lenses, but it always led to the same poor result. Meanwhile, with Sony, I didn't even touch the AF-C settings and got almost perfect results every time.
Ich bin gerade auf dein Video gestoßen, weil ich auch überlege meine XT5 für eine Sony7iii zu tauschen.... Ich bin ebenfalls Hochzeitsfotografin und, obwohl ich meine XT5 und Fuji liebe, hab ich oft das Gefühl, dass die für die schwierigen Bedingungen einer Hochzeit nicht gemacht ist. mir gefallen die high iso Bilder überhaupt nicht. Es ist so matschig und die Hauttöne verschwimmen mit den Augen. Eine kurze frage: Hat deine xt5 auf lange gebraucht, um sich zu "erholen", wenn man ganz viele shots hintereinander gemacht hat?
If you want to get a Sony, you might as well go for the A7IV; they’re often practically given away during Black Friday. The reason your X-T5 takes a long time after a series of shots could be that your SD card has too slow write speeds. This would result in a longer writing process.
@@Elchy_gamer found it somewhere then I copied it then went over to my iPhone settings then general then keyboard then text replacement then i put apple then when ever I type apple it will show this apple logo but there is a way of not showing the logo but if you got predictive text if you see the apple on the predictive text just press the apple spelling then it won’t do the apple logo icon
Electronically speaking, the M11 was the most immature and unstable camera I've ever held in my hands. Bugs and freezes non-stop. So yeah, the title is justified, at least in this case.
Great video and confirms my findings as well. I feel Sony has no soul like Fuji but the final image is what counts. And then there is the price difference but that is another video... Great channel!
Thanks, when you're working commercially, it doesn't really matter if the camera has "soul." Yeah, the price difference for "pro" gear is actually cheaper with Sony, especially if you use third-party lenses. Lol.
Just dumped all of my Fuji gear and doubled down on Canon. The autofocus was a no go and left me very annoyed with my travel photos. I tried for years, Fuji!
Thank you for the video and the added humour. With most European airlines and even Asian airlines placing a limit on hand carry luggage , how would you approach packing ?
It's currently overflowing with video presentations on this topic, but of all the ones I've watched, this one in the clearest and most well organized. Not out of sympathy for using similar equipment and technique, but simply because the attention to the most important supporting points is there. As to compensation - one can debate here. The +⅔ or +1 is a question that depends on the density of the negative. In coarse grained films, for example with a +2 / +3 push process, care should be taken because the situation is very sensitive after the negative is inverted into a positive. Of course, I'm only talking about black and white photography, because I have no interest in colour negatives, as they are much easier to work with and get it right the first time, although attention to colour balance is necessary. Just to add - I don't use external software like Negativ lab pro. For white balance - I first convert the negative to positive, and then in PS mark a small area of the film board - apply avarige blur even before I have proceeded to balance the light and dark areas. This section is used to accurately determine the white balance, and then also serves as a starting point for the darkest part. There are other tricks as well, which each person in turn prefers. Once again, thanks for the video!
I’m so tired of seeing the same old tired tricks. Using hard shadows and glass partitions and reflections. Street photography is the most unimaginative genre of photography.
I think you can say that about many photography genres. However, I still have to agree with you. The modern street photography tropes have been established since the '60s. It's all just a mix of the same things. But it's still fun to take photos, even if I'm not bringing anything new to the table.
The idealogy of a digital M still doesn't make sense to me, the M cameras were designed as perfectly nice film cameras, and digital Ms just don't have the soul in them. It's like those vintage cars converted to electric, I just can't see the reason especially with their high price tags. Back in the days Leica Ms were designed to be field tools, function over form. That's why it's so iconic despite being so simply designed. But if you just swap the function without touching the form, it's missing the point isn't it. And the thing is, it's not like film cameras are extinct, in fact they are getting attractions, so the reason for getting a M11 with 3x the price as a mint condition M6 just, baffles me. Sorry I seemed harsh on this topic that I shouldn't have strong opinions on.
Everything's okay, I understand your line of thought. In my architecture studies, we were always encouraged to rethink things until they made sense both functionally and aesthetically-anything else wasn't acceptable. The digital M really doesn't feel like a film Leica. You're missing that drive to be good because you have film loaded. But it also doesn't feel like a conventional digital camera. That's what happens when you just put something in without adapting the function. I think the X100 or X-Pro series is actually the logical evolution of an M. However, the people who buy an M want exactly what Leica gives them: a rangefinder film body with a sensor. There's definitely a certain appeal to buying an M, but I also think Leica has far overshot the mark with the price, without delivering the quality you'd expect for that kind of money.
Leica didn’t have much to change with the Q3 since the Q2 was already so good. However, I agree that the tilting screen is a great addition, especially for taller people like you, so you don’t have to shoot blindly from the hip. :D
I've done my first wedding with Nikon F2 and 24 & 50mm lenses, plus a small flash. No autofocus, automatic of any sort, nothing. And that was 35 years ago. Nobody complained. All your remarks about Canon are true. I'd add to that s***ty colours. I know, some people love that colour palette, but I'm not one of them. For me, Canon's JPEG is crap, and I don't have the time to deal with RAW's, most of the time. Reason being that I've choose Fuji for colours and jpeg IQ, sooc. I'll rather deal with imperfect autofocus (if I'll ever use it) than s***ty files I have to post process for hours without end in sight. And I wouldn't pick Sony either. Not that Sony is making bad cameras, but my hate towards that company goes decades back. Nothing that I ever bought from Sony works anymore, period. I feel betrayed...
Before the existence of the internet, the neighbor or a newspaper was the only comparison one had for wedding photos. So, I would estimate that the expectations were quite low back then :D That's why I'd say it's hard to compare. If you need SOOC JPEGs, Fuji is definitely the best you can get. Your dislike for Sony is confirmed by my experience. My A7RV had a pretty annoying defect after not even 2 months. However, the repair was so disastrous that I have to make a video about it...
Its the IBIS that rattles and is completely normal. It's not just a 28mm.. crop mode gives 35 and 50mm which are both capable of printing huge. The 90mm is a bit too much of a leap but for smaller prints up to A4 its still good enough.
The rattle comes from the OIS. I know it’s normal, but it doesn’t feel very high quality, even though it’s unavoidable. I think an IBIS would be better, but it wouldn’t fit in the Q.
It’s really nice when you can take your time for photography and compositions. Unfortunately, you don’t always have that luxury. I photograph many weddings, and I would be completely lost with a medium format camera for documentation. :D
@@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel I agree. If I was into wedding photography I would most likely go with the R5 ii. I used to use a 5D iv but the new mirrorless are just amazing for the job.
Testing 3 tiny digital sensors vs 35mm film is an unfair fight to start with. And obviously those tiny digital sensors are going to have limitations on them due to their age and physics. You should have tested APS-C CCD sensors vs 35mm film. It's a more even comparison. And those APS-C CCDs have better DR and resolving power. Having owned several APS-C CCD sensor cameras from Olympus, Nikon, Sony, I can say that they do offer much nicer colour than CMOS sensors, but are obviously limited by noise issues above 1600 ISO.
Yes, that was actually unfair, but a lot of people who have no idea also buy these small CCD cameras because they've heard that they're film-like. I just wanted to show that you should either use film or LR Mobile if you want the film look.
Panasonic was definitely the most color-accurate, except for the white balance at the end. But yeah, you could interpret the white balance as Panasonic's artistic freedom. :D
CCD is not filmic! I don't know who the first one to start this trend :)) but older ccd look so ass. the only ccd camera i use is hasselblad h4d and the iso performance is so bad,only at 50 or 100 it does give it a paintery feel if you look it long enough but that is.
Good point, when you watch old M9 and M8 videos, people swear by that filmic look. :D But on RU-vid, people do tend to exaggerate to justify their Leica cameras. Lol.
I know ccd can't do film look but it's far better in look than film for sure. That super ccd on the f20 is magic and i'm glad you showed how good it can be. more organic even. Film and your iphone preset looks too washed out and lifeless but that's okay that could be great for shooting other subjects to punch in for drama.
That's true. However, Classic Chrome doesn't look particularly different from the standard profile. I probably could have made a comparison image for that.
Basically, I'm comparing the integrated color profiles of the manufacturers. Essentially, you can make CMOS look like CCD and vice versa. However, people specifically buy CCD sensors because of the "legendary" film-like color profiles. The in-camera processing is, however, heavily limited in terms of dynamic range, especially when the cameras don't have RAW.
snappiness shot some great pictures with an old fuji digicam tho. maybe classic chrome is bad on it? if i understand right u used that for all the pictures.
Yeah, I only used Classic Chrome for everything. However, the standard mode doesn't differ fundamentally. It's probably more due to this specific camera. Snappiness usually picks cameras that have larger sensors and are more likely older professional models.
Impressive how deeply you are immersed in the subject! And honestly, the performance of the iPhone in combination with your preset is the most impressive 😅, at least for my noob eyes 😅. Fascinating how you managed to recreate the grain part 👍👍👍.
Thanks, it wasn't that easy to figure out how to get the best quality out of such a tiny iPhone sensor. :D But with LR Mobile, you can really get an astonishing amount of dynamic range. It's rather surprising that Adobe hasn't managed to update the grain feature yet so that you can do it without tricks. :D
I don't think it's that bad if cameras only have 10 megapixels. It always depends on whether the lens is sharp enough. I mean, iPhones have screens that are "only" 3.6 megapixels "big". :D
CCD does not have better color. It's just old color science that people notice that they like. A company called Cobalt Image sells a Leica and the Pentax medium format CCD look with your CMOS camera.
Damn how come you've uploaded this yesterday. I'm currently studying the working principle of CCD sensors in a MEMS devices lecture and wondered if there's some comparison around so I searched for exactly this lol. CCD sensors are denser and feature less noise in theory.
Here’s a video just for you. XD I find it a bit unfortunate that CCD wasn’t further developed; it would be nice to have more options in the grain characteristics for different cameras. X-Trans is still the exception.
@@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannelDespite CMOS being less costly to manufacture CCD would have been very difficult to advance further due to it's inherent design. They had to split the sensors into taps just to get any speed out of them and the four tap CCD sensors were the last made before switching to CMOS. I have a Sony ICX694 CCD industrial camera that is four taps and max speed of 27fps full sensor. It has it's strong points such as global shutter and raw latitude that makes pulling details out of shadows easy. Definitely protect the highlights on these as when they're gone they're not coming back. They would be good candidates for cinematography at least with enough speed to shoot 24fps in a super 16 size format.
This might be an unpopular opinion based on what the rest of the comment section says but I kinda like the digital Fujifilm camera more even if the highlights are blown out sometimes. It had a warmer and more interesting feel compared to the rest…at least that’s how I feel
Many, of course, prefer film. But this is mostly a film photography channel anyway. In the end, it's all a matter of personal taste, and of course, the image from the Fuji F20 is very good considering the limitations of the camera. The people at Fuji already knew what they were doing back then, but they were just held back by the technology.
Right??? Colors from Fuji are just gorgeous! They suffer a bit from scenes with big light variation, but when you need a burst of color, that's you go to! This Fuji SuperCCD are something special!
I've been shooting on film for many years, and for a couple of years on old CCD cameras, and I really like all of that. But this video proves that you can get great results shooting on an old iPhone, so it's just a matter of taste and shooting preferences. Great video, thank you 🤝
You're welcome. I think the older the CCD cameras are, the more they resemble film. Before smartphones, that was the only way to take pictures cheaply at all.
This was a really interesting and fun comparison! Rarely do we get to see all these side by side... I've been shooting so long that my first Nikon DSLR's were CCD's lol, I then had some CMOS Nikon's, and now I shoot Fuji. But I still have my D200 and busted it out recently, and compared it to a D7200 and X-S10, and frankly there was much less difference than I expected. They all had different colour science of course, and while the CCD oversaturated some of the warm tones comparatively, with editing I could achieve an identical enough aesthetic result regardless of the sensor type, etc. So yeah I don't buy into the hype that CCD's are 'filmic', as only film looks like film. So digital bodies, even going back almost 20 years lol, are all still essentially 'good enough' to me, so then it really comes down to the lens...
I think that nowadays, with any RAW-capable camera, any color profile can be recreated. There are companies like Cobalt Image that specifically sell old CCD profiles for modern cameras. As you also mentioned, the lens is even more important than the sensor for a vintage look.
@@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel Yeah sensors are so good now, with huge dynamic range and bit-depths etc, that RAW's are super malleable. And I had heard about Cobalt somewhere else and it sounded interesting, like they really took care to dial in the profiles. I find the Fuji profiles in Lightroom to be pretty good, but definitely not identical to the real filmsims. The other thing I forgot to mention was the ISO performance and noise, which had differences. The D200's CCD had a 'nicer' looking high iso grain, which could be due to the smaller 10MP sensor and larger photosites, but it also suffered more from color rather than luminance noise. Granted it was unusable above iso 1600 haha. And while the X-Trans sensor can struggle with demosaicing and 'worms' from oversharpening, I think it also had a much less 'digital' noise pattern. So maybe that's a reason why both sensors might lend themselves to be considered more film like. But the experience of shooting Fuji, the colour science, creating filmsims, etc., definitely helps achieve a look straight out of camera that I think is unmatched by other companies right now.
I need to learn more about DX code hacking. I have a few point and shoot cameras with auto coding and woild like to try it. To the interwebs! Also, #asscrhrome 😂
DX code hacking from 200 to 100 is quite simple. You just take some black electrical tape and cut out a small rectangle. Otherwise, there are even stickers that you can simply stick on the film if you don't feel like fiddling around. :D
