A channel that is dedicated to helping people to develop skills for their own Photography Toolkit. This channel is here to support others and enable them quickly and easily find their inner creative photographer.
😊 I think one of the coolest things about the OnePlus 12's XPan mode is how the picture starts as a negative and then 'develops' into an image. I have to say that I really love the 65:24 aspect ratio. Thanks for the comment.
Great video on a great lens. I'm playing with the idea of picking one up myself but not really sure If i can justify since I already have the 105mm Micro-Nikkor along with both the 1.4 and 2x tellies. Any input? lol And how are you making out with doing hand held stacks with this? Some have said how a rail is necessary but that's very difficult when doing bugs.
Thank so much for the comment. The first big difference is that the 105mm Micro Nikkor with a 2x teleconverter would get you 2x magnification and the Laowa lowest magnification is 2.5X so you are getting much closer with the Laowa. Before I got the Laowa, I used older manual focus 24mm and 28mm Nikkor lenses mounted backwards using a BR2A (www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37171-REG/Nikon_2657_BR_2A_Lens_Reversing_Ring.html). I have also added extension tubes to get more magnification.The great thing about the Laowa is that I can adjust the magnification really easily by extending the lens which I really like. I bought my Laowa lens second hand which saved me a bunch of money. Otherwise, you could look into getting an older 20mm, 24mm or 28mm manual lens and a reversing ring to get you beyond 2x magnification. I haven't tried handheld stacks but that is definitely something I will be trying out.
Do you want me to pronounce it the way that Nikon Japan pronounces it ("Nee-kon") or the way that Nikon USA pronounces it ("Nigh-kon")? Do you think that Nikon Japan tells Nikon USA to pronounce it their way?
If you use a smaller camera with a cropped sensor you might not get as close to the object as you would if you had a full frame because the subject is already large enough. But getting closer often gives better bokeh. If you want to go small and lightweight there is a good chance that you also have a smaller lens (for example: 55mm vs. 85mm / 135mm vs. 200mm / 400mm vs. 600mm) and then you have to get closer, which gives you better bokeh. So even if you can get very similar shots if you know about all this you probably will get way different results out in the wild than when you compare images with a setup like in this video that is far away from how a camera is actually used. If you are a beginner and try out different setups it's important to know about these things or you might end up wasting money on something that doesn't do what you want.
This video was uniquely informative, and I have noticed similar background blur effects. I purchased the OM 4/3 system for a trip to Africa because it minimizes weight and provides superior focal length gain. Now, you tell me I could just use a full-frame camera and crop the image? The only downside I see is the accuracy of focus. With the crop sensor, I was able to generate very sharp images with the OM camera and lenses because of the field-magnified vision of the animals thanks to the crop sensor magnification effect. Not sure I would get the same focus accuracy with a full frame that was later cropped. Thoughts?
That is a fair point Scott. I haven't tested focus accuracy with a smaller sensor compared to a bigger sensor. I am wondering if that has more to do with the camera's focusing system and if we could even make a fair test. If you have 2 different cameras with different sensor sizes and focusing systems, there may be too many different factors to do a test. I am also wondering if while focusing with a larger sensor, I could just zoom in and then focus and if that would make my focusing any more accurate. Thanks for the comment and question.
Great question! There is a 0.55x crop factor when comparing the xpan to full frame. The 45mm lens is around 24mm-25mm (24.7mm to be exact). Jonas Dyhr Rask gives an explanation on his blog if you are interested: jonasraskphotography.com/2023/11/05/the-future-of-the-elusive-6524-format/
UPDATE! So I managed to get my hands on an adapter for Hasselblad xpan lenses to Nikon Z mount. I put the 30mm xpan lens on my full frame Nikon Z9 and put it on a tripod and took a picture. I took it off the tripod and replaced it with a Nikon D850 with a 24-70mm lens. I zoomed the lens until it was as close to the same framing as my first image and the 24-70mm lens was just past the 28mm mark. Based just on this, it looked like the 30mm lens was 30mm on a full frame camera. I made sure the Z9 was set to Full Frame (FX) and not crop sensor (DX)
One question I have is: If I put a f-2.8 full frame lens on my APS-C camera will I be able to set the aperture in my APS-C camera to f-2.8 or will it not go below 2.8x1.5 = f-4.2 ? Thanks in advance.
Great question. You will be able to set your lens to F2.8 on your APSC camera. However, when you capture an image it will look like you were using an F4.2 lens on a full frame camera.
So same amount of light....better DOF.. Interesting...I know that JK Adams shoots aviation photography....particularly The Blue Angels and uses a full frame lens on a cropped camera and the results are amazing.
If I don't move and I use the same focal length on a APSC (cropped) sensor and a full frame sensor, the bokeh circles will be the same. Just crop the full frame image to the same framing as the APSC image and they will be identical because an APSC sensor is just gives a crop of the full frame sensor.
Excellent video! However, I believe ‘f’ stands for focal length and not for fraction. That’s why the brightness of a lens is always written as a fraction of the focal length divided by the aperture number. For example f/4.0. With a 200mm focal length, the actual lens opening is 200/4 = 50mm. Although nowadays the division sign is often omitted.
Thanks for the comment. Fair comment about the 'f' standing for focal length. I was taught that 'f' was f-ratio and a ratio is a fraction. I liked f-ratio (fraction) better and focal length because it made sense to me. So an aperture of F4 on a 200mm lens is 1/4th of 200mm which is 50mm. Calling 'f' focal length never really made sense to me but you have explained it well. Thanks again!
@@thephotographytoolkit Well, the whole formula is *diameter of the lens opening = focal length/number.* (hence, the reason it's typically written as f/number. I prefer it written this way as the division sign shows it's a fractional value right off the bat). So it makes more sense than "fraction" when you know what the f represents in the formula. You can see why it stands for "focal length" and not "fraction." And Fraction/4 wouldn't make sense anyhow lol.
Sorry. Good idee but your test is not correct. Without a film inside, the Shutter of the F4, F5 and F6 do not operate, only the mirror mouves. It would have been better to have à film in all the cameras and a lens also.
Really great point! I will have to redo the test with film in the camera. Why do you recommend a lens on the camera? I like to see the mirror moving for each camera.
So I made an updated video with film in all the cameras: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f2nDCKP6KUk.html Thanks again for the comment.
I think the 105mm f1.4 is a gem. The background compression is unbeatable. Nikon should make a new version native for z mount and with even better optics.
The new Nikon Z 600mm f4 TC is out of my price range. But with people upgrading lenses, you can get this FL version for really good prices. If you can find it, I would definitely recommend it. I haven't tried out the 6.3 version so I can't speak to that. A monopod would definitely work.
It's a bit confusing, but I get your point And also can you explain to me that ttartisan have some f0.95 lens, which is not make any sense to me right now. Thanks again for your sharing
So the aperture of a lens is connected to its focal length. If you have a 100mm lens and you set the aperture to F4 (this means 1/4), that means the size of the opening of the lens is 1/4 of 100mm. So 100 divided by 4 is 25mm. If you set the aperture of the same lens to F2 (meaning 1/2) then the opening is 1/2 of 100mm. So 100 divided by 2 is 50mm. If you could set the lens to F1 (this means 1/1) then the opening of the lens is 1/1 of 100mm. So 100 divided by 1 is 100mm. If the aperture is 0.95 that means that it is 1/0.95 of 100mm. So 100 divided by 0.95 which is around 105mm (105.26). There isn't such a lens but Nikon does make a 58mm F0.95 Noct lens. So the size of the opening is 58 divided by 0.95 which is 61mm. Does that help?
You can get it at a number of places including Amazon. Here is an affiliate link if you are interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2zsvdTmEDpg.htmlsi=u7fFeLB5aLTyUApZ&t=106 It is around $160. I got mine second hand so that is another option. btw, I LOVE my Fujifilm Mini Evo!
Great little video! Something worth mentioning though - for all "new" manual shooters, is that "correct" exposure can be a confusing and rather misleading turn of phrase, that we are so used to hearing. There is no such thing as correct exposure. There is what we could call "balanced" exposure, by which we mean exposing in a balanced way that keeps detail visible in shade and in lit areas, and then there is over exposure and underexposure - which are not "incorrect" exposures, they are creative choices, and that is the absolute beauty of shooting manually. You get to fully control the light in your image. In a sunny situation like this, I almost always under exposure as I really like to see harsh contrasts between light and darkness, so I love to crush the shadows. A handheld meter is indispensable, whether you're shooting with film or digital. It is so much better to target exposure as you did here, rather than rely on a cameras internal meter pinging a reflected result (which is rarely if ever accurate if the sun is out). By the way, what light meter is that? Worked great :)
Totally fair points and you are right that the photographer is the one making the decisions and creative choices about exposure. Thanks so much for sharing!
If you are going to capture wildlife images, I like the 1.5x crop APSC camera. That being said, I do like a full frame camera with a larger sensor if it is darker.
That is really interesting - I was under the impression that the app changed all of that. You can see how much the app changes the colour of the picture at this point of the video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2zsvdTmEDpg.htmlsi=u7fFeLB5aLTyUApZ&t=106 I will do some more experimenting before I create some mosaics with multiple sheets of polaroid film.
@@thephotographytoolkit Yea try that again with the phone at minimal brightness and maximal brightness (I just re-tested again). thats how I "discovered" that the phone's native brightness is not overridden at all by the app (it does alter the color profile tho as you pointed out). I would suggest you experiment with small mosaics, and then when you hate your wallet enough you can try larger ones bigger than 3x3!
@@see.prash.87 I wasn't able to reproduce your results. When I put my phone on the Polaroid Lab, the brightness level automatically adjusts. If I set the brightness level to a low setting, it gets brighter. If it is at full brightness, it goes down. When I take the phone off, it adjusts back. Which phone are you using?
Put the same lens on a crop, then a FF camera. Set same ISO and aperture on both. Take a picture with both, with similar framing. Shutter speeds will be the same on both cameras. Aperture and exposure doesnt change.
You are correct. The aperture and shutter speeds for my shots were exactly the same. But the resulting photos looked different on an APSC crop sensor and a full frame sensor. Thanks for your comment.
@@ajwan4531 Enjoy the camera! It is a lot of fun. If you are interested in my top 5 creative techniques with the Mini Evo, check out my video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fsDirWOgxms.html I also have a video which examines how using the Mini Evo or my iPhone changes how I approach a scene: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sjd_O5osyOM.html
12,800 is as high as I'd ever go and they both look great. Remember you're looking at 600% and it's just starting to affect the image. Noise is a by product of increasing iso. Some of the most legendary images were taken on super noisy 1600-3200 films. We can shoot at 12,800 and have similar or even better results. It's a non issue. Nobody is using 51000 lol, that's absurd.
Did you have high iso noise reduction on? Does that affect raw files to begin with? Yeah to be honest, the 850 files are much better at high iso, simply because they're sharper and the natural texture remains. Noise reduction smears images and I'd prefer to see noise.
The high-ISO noise reduction was set to Normal. Someone made a really good point that when I am capturing images as jpegs, it isn't really a fair comparison because each camera has their own processor that deals with jpegs so that comes into play. That is why I did the RAW file comparison: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g3EcGbDPh9M.html
@@thephotographytoolkit yep I saw that in the comments after I posted mine! I watched it and commented. Still think 12,800 is very very usable on both, yes the d850. My first interchangeable lens dslr was poopy at iso 1600 so shooting 6400 all day without worrying is pretty epic. 💪🏻
@@sonofnothing The improvements in high ISO are incredible. I remember the ISO of the Nikon D700 at 1600 wasn't amazing and everything after that was pretty awful.
@@thephotographytoolkit yep. I loved my d700, and it was touted as one of the greatest nikon bodies. Same sensor as the d3, right? But shooting indoor basketball with f2.8 and iso 3200 was rough
Outstanding explanation - best on YT! 👍 Sadly, some folks will still put their head in the sand and argue because they don’t come from the pre-digital era and don’t have the 24 x 36mm film frame understanding as their reference base…
Thanks so much Paul! I do get surprised with some of the angrier people out there. When I started to look into this, I honestly didn't know what the results would be. It was such a great experience to test and learn.
Very impressive, I am about to get mini evo so I am looking for some tips and tricks with it. So lucky that I see your video, this is very awesome and crazy ideas 😁 even though I am a type of person who loves original photos more, but sometimes I still want to try new things and yea, your ideas are great, Imma try it when I got my Mini Evo
@@thephotographytoolkithey there, Mini Evo is so good, and you made it even better with these tips. Could you please share more tips and tricks and the ideas of taking photos with it to us?
I've been curious about the 180-400mm F4. This lens feels like a "destination lens" because I'd prefer to be stationary with it. I'm interested in the 500mm F4E FL.
You can definitely pick up a used 500mm F4 FL for a great price. Especially when compared to the 180-400mm. I tend to see quite a a number available. I just really love the flexibility of the 180-400mm but it does come at a price.
I prefer the 105mm. The subject isolation and background blur are more appealing to me. If you have to shoot wide open, the 105mm will provide a better results, but NO lens will give sharp eyes (on multiple subjects) when they are not on the same focal plane.
The first video which I know of that addresses the perspective changes. Nice on that. I wish/try to add a bit more here. The perspective difference is more noticeable if the subject distance is very close or shorter than the focal length. This is because the 1.5x focal length, which is actually an approximation, only works on the assumption that the subject distance is much larger than the focal length in the magnification ratio equation. This whole approximation breaks down if subject distance is very close to the focal length. Look at the comparison of 200mm on crop sensor vs 300mm on ff and you won't notice that much difference compared to the 14 vs 21mm case. I've learned the maths, I know the phenomenon, but this is the first time I saw it. Nice.
This is incorrect. Since the actual focal length of the lens never changed, the aperture never changes either. It doesn't matter what body you put it on. It's still a 300 f/4. You're disseminating misinformation.
When it comes to equivalent focal lengths and apertures, I find this video helpful: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zmlmhrXVfeU.htmlsi=EeYcDBSupY7KK7fr&t=64 As Chris states, “Focal lengths need to change with different sensor sizes to give us the same kind of field of view. Apertures also have to change with different sensor sizes to give the same depth of field”. This is also a good article: www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2
Great lens, you get fantastic wildlife pictures with the Nikon 600mm f/4. I was never close enough with the 500mm f/4 (it says home now). You don't even need VR (my 600mm f/4 is the first AF-S version) because this lens is so heavy that the use of a good monopod is mandatory. The AF-S 200-400mm VR is also an excellent choice, shorter lighter, and only 2m minimum shooting distance. A few times I found myself to close to the subject with the 600mm f/4 so I always bring with me the 200-400mm .
Thanks so much for the comment. I have recently upgraded my 200-400mm F4 to the 180-400mm F4 which has the built in 1.4x teleconverter and it is really versatile. It gives me a 180 (f4) to 560mm (f5.6) which I especially love for sports but also for wildlife. The 600mm is an amazing lens but I agree that sometimes I am too close to the subject - especially with some larger subjects.
I believe the biggest issue with the ES-2 is that live view only works for JPEG output. If you're outputting JPEG, any film lab can do it for a tenth of the hassle.
The ES-2 doesn't limit me to jpeg - the D850 does that when reproducing negatives. When outputting slides (positives), I can capture them in RAW. A couple of other things: I have had mixed results from film labs when they develop and scan my film. I have old negatives and slides that I would like to digitize and its much more expensive for a lab to digitize older stuff. Thanks for the comment.
The first comparison between the wide angle lenses is plain wrong. I'm a bit annoyed by it, because you want to educate people but didn't understand a fundamental basic. The perspective compression is not determined by the lens, but by your distance to the subject. I'm sure it wasn't the same for both lenses. Focal length of two lenses are never exactly the same. a) The focal length that manufacturers name are often off by a few mm. b) Focal length is measured at infinity, you are clearly not at infinity. Below infinity lenses differ even more wildly. You need to up your quality.
So... you're saying that you are sure that distance to the subject the wasn't the same for both lenses. I don't know what to say if you are not going to believe what I am showing. It was the same. The camera didn't move. The lens stayed on the camera. The focus was set manually and not changed between images. You are correct about one thing: I am not focused at infinity. I am focused on the subject. The only thing I can recommend is doing it yourself. I can't have a conversation with someone who will say that I am lying because we won't get anywhere.
@thephotographytoolkit In that case, it's likely a factor I hadn't yet considered as an option, but looking again at the images it makes sense: different amounts of barrel distortion. Which lenses did you use exactly? Did you use optical correction for both? In body or in the raw converter?
@@maggnet4829 I used the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lens. No adjustments or optical correction. Everything in body. I wanted to reduce the possible number of factors that could affect the image so I used the same lens. The point of my video is that you can't just multiply the focal length of a full frame lens when you put it on a APSC camera and you will get the same image as you would on a full frame sensor. A 14mm FF lens on an APSC camera will look different than a 21mm lens on a FF camera.
@@thephotographytoolkit I was wondering if you used that lens. My reasoning that it must be barrel distortion gets a lot more substance with that. Let me quote lenstip: "the widest angle of view the Nikkor 14-24 mm has noticeable barrel distortion, which level we measured as -2.2%. It is an average result, and, taking into account the wide field of view, it is by all means acceptable. [..] With the increase of the focal length the problem of geometric deformations practically disappears." Go to dofsimulator and try it out. You'll see there is no relevant change. The little bit you see is because the real crop factor for apsc is slightly above 1.5. They use 1.52 for generic apsc.
What do you mean not working? There is no picture on the back of the camera when you try to take a photo? Or does the lens capture wrongly exposed images? Or something else?
