My name is Dan Fox and welcome to my channel! I'm a hybrid photographer/videographer and creative entrepreneur from the Pacific Northwest (Washington State, USA, specifically).
This channel is primarily focused on helping you understand the how and why of photography and videography as well as encouraging you to get out and explore your world.
You'll find a mix of tutorials, vlogs, and a few gear reviews mixed in here and there. I like to nerd out when I'm in learning mode and this channel is an attempt to distill what's in my head into an easier-to-digest format for others. I'm also very interested in lifestyle design and personal development, so you'll likely find threads of those topics woven into the content (fun fact, this channel started out as a personal development channel). I hope that my experience can help you, and vice versa!
Oh, and I also love coffee, motorcycles, and am curious about way too many things, probably. ;-)
Got this video randomly recommended. Did really like it, especially about most people not making use of the "Digital" Part of a Camera. I suppose most people think that using a filter is more authentic than digital post processing, but I personally do not need to spend extra money and space to justify myself to others. If it looks good, it looks good. Subscribed.
am I the only one who buys stuff and then watches reviews for it, I just placed my order for a Canon R50 as a beginner and this is the first video that pops up.
Very nice video! 👏 On the next video can you please tell us about the best exposure by setting correctly between the shutter speed and the iso values. So our video or photo is properly exposed. Thanks in advance 😊
It seems odd to me that the ZV-E10 is not included on your list .... is there a specific reason for this? (my camera is a ZV-E10, that's why I'm asking)
@@DanFox Never thought to look at the date - thnx :) Great vid - I'll have to watch it a couple of times to grok it, but valuable stuff - thnx for that too!
Seems like you don't do videos any longer, but this one seems to have been a great success, deservingly so. I do see some other interesting videos that I am going to check. I think you could have a big YT channel, if you ever decide to go for it.
Sometimes I’ll see educational/tutorial videos, and people in the comments are going out of their way to express immense gratitude for how great of a video it is and how great the creator is. And even if I agree, 99.9% of the time, I’m not going to contribute yet another of those comments and maybe I’ll just give someone else’s a thumbs up, because I’d rather spend my time consuming more of the videos and learning things than communicating with the creator. Nah. Not today. Stumbled across your videos yesterday, watched a few, appreciated them all, got interrupted by kids’ swimming lessons and whatnot… but came back and started watching more of your just right deep dives. Just nerdy enough to teach me things in a way my brain likes to learn, just simple enough that my brain isn’t checking out and refusing to try to keep up. Just enough analogies and metaphors. Sir, your channel deserves my ultra rare endearing comment of gratitude. 😂 Really, though, your way of communicating is exactly what I’d hope for if I took some kind of college photography classes. Alas, I’m too broke for that, so I’m doing what I can here on RU-vid. I wouldn’t miss a single day, even if your classes were at 8am. And dude, I really like my sleep.
Agreed on all , i knew all of this when I was a beginner because iv watched probably a thousand hours worth of yt camera content 😂. I bought a gimbal tho but only because there was a scene in my short movie where we did a mini car chase and that really needed stability. The gimbal still serves me occasionally but I too prefer handheld , its just way less hassle and more organic.
You are right...adding on to what you said What I tell myself that me and my work are not the same because I COULDN'T EXACTLY CREATE WHATS IN. MY HEAD AS IT IS BUT ONLY 40PERCENT OF IT...therefore I am creative...it just wasn't going to materialize in this world exactly how I want it..at least not yet
Hello! I would like to use the hybrid mode. To keep the focus on the trigger button and use the BBF at the same time. More precisely, I press BBF, share the image and then press the shutter button on which I kept the autofocus. Thank you!...I USED GOOGLE TRANSLATION
Very, very interesting video that sheds a lot of light 😉 on this confusing topic. Many thanks for that! Unfortunately, the German subtitles are no longer available from about 26:50, which would have helped me a lot. But I think when I watch the video for the third time, I will understand everything.😅 Best regards from 🇨🇭
I find it interesting that you mentioned comparing down because that has been extremely helpful for me, and I didn't know it technically had a name. Comparing upward gives me direction and inspiration while downward helps keep me from wallowing in self pity. I appreciate your tips.
Hey man, I just recently got into photography again, I bought a 17-55mm 2.8 to replace the kit lens my T7 came with, it came with a up filter, is there any reason I should take it off of is it not doing anything i need to worry about?
Great video, a lot of it was over my head honestly tho. Im trying to understand noise performance in slog3 profile for photo. Ive noticed when I shoot raw + jpeg in slog3 that the jpeg looks like what i saw on the screen (an slog 3 image) the raw file defaults to a different picture profile that is not flat and the image is always grossly underexposed (even though the slog 3 jpeg was properly exposed). Im shooting video/photo w sony a6700 with an unofficial dual native of 800 and 2500 in slog 3. Unfortunately all other picture profiles render a unofficial dual native of roughly 100 to 500 and I find myself in environments where I need 6k to 12k iso values to achieve the exposure I am desiring. From my research and testing in slog 3 video 12800 iso is highest value with minimal noise when exposed properly that you can achieve. Im assuming that whats happening in photo mode is slog3 mode the noise levels would match video mode noise levels assuming same exposure values and that in Raw it defaults to no picture profile and a lower dual native iso value. I want to know limitations of my camera and limitations in low light environment. In an enviroment where my f stop is as low as possible and my shutter is locked in so I dont get too much motion blur would it be better to shoot raw when Im needing 6k iso or should I shoot jpeg in slog 3 and develop the image similarily to how I would on davinci resolve for video
Dude, this was such an informative video. You definitely made great points & honestly discussed concerns I’ve had in the past about certain products, and now I’m super glad I didn’t buy these things. Thanks a ton!
Dan, this is one of the best videos I've seen this year. Although it is very big nerdy subject, you have managed to scale it down and simplise it. Well done!
Sorry. You need to stop the waffle and just get to the point. You have some good knowledge to share. But 3 mins in and you were still waffling. Sorry. It broke me. Maybe later…
Your Sony Alpha zebras guidance for photography is super helpful. None of this in the user manual… I’d figured out that 100+ was not truly over-exposed when shot in raw and didn’t know what value to use.
Superb. I sort of knew the technical stuff (having read the patent, especially Figures 2B and 3), but for me the real value in this video is translating what this means into how you use this to best effect when taking photos. You manage to cover a huge range of issues with real clarity. My job now is to translate it all (into French) for my photo club, most of whom are ETTR , believe that ETTR demands ISO 100 and that ETTR revolves around those top 8192 values. But you have shown me the best way of doing that, so many many thanks.
Many many years BBF@dslr user hear ;). And personally not need more when move to Sony mirrorless which has tremendous and very effective tracking system that work like a charm! I prefer dedicating my thumb to the joystick rather than to af-on button and it is now work a lot better than separating focusing function from shutter button.
have to disgree about the drone i am a drone pilot since 5 year doing amazing shot and amazing video but MAN when i got a camera for the fisrt time it was hard time nothing to compare ABSOLUTLY nothing comparable drone are WAY EASIER
Hey, Dan. I know it's hard to come back after a break. I've been there. The best advice is to just jump in. Even a short chatty video is always welcome. 😊
WTF is a gorilla pod? That thing looks like a gimmicky piece of junk, I will take my $30 Zomie tripod over that thing. It is not the best tripod ever but it won't give from use and it's going on 4 years since I bought it and put a dent in a leg but no issues. With drones you also have to know your local laws, they are banned where I photograph.
I'd rather get it right in the camera. Yes I'm an old-school film photographer who has been using digital cameras for years now. The better source material you have the better the end product. And the less time spent in post production. Like audio recording I'm not a fan of fixing it in the mix. Why start out with lazy habits relying on Photoshop? And a filter on the front - I'll still use one. Why risk a lens element trusting what the manufacturer puts on it? I'd rather risk a filter than a lens that costs a small fortune.
People say a lot that high megapixel cameras will result in more noise than lower megapixel cameras, they say that a sensor with fewer pixels means that each individual pixel is physically larger and that means it can capture more light and therefore there will be less noise- besides the fact that none of the people who say that ever seem to know what a “pixel” really means , are the individual photo sites on the sensor of a lower megapixel full frame camera the same size as the photo sites on a higher megapixel full frame camera ?
This is partly where using the correct terminology matters and why I used the term "photosite" to explain rather than confusing things with the term "pixel". Pixels, as most people think of them (i.e. the final output that are the constituent parts of a final image) don't change in size depending on the resolution. I mean, you could change their size of you blew an image up for instance, but it's the quantity that determines the output size of an image. Pixels at the sensor level aren't the same thing and are comprised of multiple photosites, overlaid by the bayer filter pattern for color (this is where the term de-bayering comes from - it describes the mathematical process of figuring out what colors were "seen"). A "sensor pixel" is comprised of multiple photosites. A photosite will differ in size depending on the sensor, which means that the area of the combined photosites that make up a pixel will vary in size and and thus vary the pixel density. This is known as "pixel pitch". As far as the "higher megapixel equals more noise" claims: this is both true and false, but it depends on what you're comparing. If you're strictly referring to the signal to noise of an individual photosite, then it's simply physics that smaller photosites encounter less photons in a given time frame than a bigger one. So this affects the signal to noise ratio. However, none of us are looking at one photosite, or even one pixel at a time; we're looking at the end result. Furthermore, it's almost impossible to compare objectively because it's almost never the case that the only difference between two cameras is merely the pixel pitch. So this means that the perception of noise becomes relative. And this is where you'll notice much less difference, or none at all, when looking at an entire image, unless you zoom way in to start pixel peeping.
Hello there! at 11:20 you mention that Zebra lines are based on RAW data. I really want to believe this, because as you suggest, this would be so useful to control overexposure in RAW photography. However, I run a simple experiment and it looks like Zebras are not based on RAW data :( . I simply set certain exposure (fixed speed, aperture and ISO), and just by changing the creative look, the Zebra changed completely. This is frustrating since depending on the creative look or the picture profile I have to run a lot of tests to find the Zebra lower limit that indicates the true highlight clipping of the RAW data. Moreover, it can happen that the creative look clips the highlights at a value lower than the zebra's lower limit , and then you will never see the Zebra lines, even if you blow out everything in overexposure. Any light you could throw on this??
Don't ever use creative looks or picture profiles when shooting raw. They're not meant for that and they affect the jpeg preview you'll see on your camera and can also affect your zebras. The creative looks are only for jpeg, and the picture profiles are only for video. Plus, the clipping point changes based on the gamma. For instance, if you were using s-log 3, which is the linear data compressed into a logarithmic gamma curve, then the clipping point becomes 94. So yes, the zebras are based on raw data, but it sounds like the setting you're using are interfering with it.
great video but 10 mins in I'm sure most will be more misunderstood, when I teach people about ISO from a light meter perspective (no camera included) the conversation lasts 2 mins max. Engineers have a much harder job of making that 2 min chat work. You did a great job of showing that here.
