HIGHLY DEBATED PHOTOGRAPHY TOPICS (Nikon, phones, APS-C vs Full Frame, Instagram dead?) 

This is the kind of insight I don't get from a google search lol thanks for piecing everything together

@@tim.muangkeo Np. Where I think most people got suckered in was by viewing images on their LCD camera screen and on the computers. That still to this day confuses people. If modern day photographers actually printed, OMG they'd finally see they've been lied to for a very long time. I spent a decade from 2000 to roughly 2012 constantly in print labs for both graphics and photos. No one is using more than a 4mp file to print gigantic prints like billboards and even poster size prints were reduced. Right now 99% of online images are smaller than 2mp. I wouldn't be surprised if 90% were 1mp or smaller. The images they use on TV are tiny 😂 Like news channels. The video output is 720p so you can imagine the size of the little box they put up that's less than a quarter of the screen size. Most colleges and news outlets have image guidelines 🤣 I'm telling you, nothing goes above 4mp and that's usually for like LaserJet prints. Everything else is 2mp, 1mp, 1024px, 600px, and smaller. Files sizes be 200kb 😅 With those sizes, my old D200 set to Hi-3200 ISO has no visible noise shot in jpeg Large, Medium, or Small - basic, using Optimal Quality. My camera is set to High NR but even the hot pixels disappear. After a long time of shooting and times changing especially that I don't print anymore, all my files are around 1.9mb from Large Basic and they look just as good as the Z6, Z50, Df, and D3s I owned. Knowing what you need for the final output matters, and that includes the look. I think most folks suffer from Raw option syndrome, basically having endless options in post making people increasingly more indecisive.

@@tim.muangkeo Dude also, the video resolution/frame rate war of DSLR and Mirrorless. So Nikon fumbled. They had a very good reason to make cameras that shot 720p 30fps like the D3s, D90, D300s early on. This was and still is the industry standard of some 20-25yrs later for broadcast television. It's 2024 and "Ikegami USA" is about to show off a new camera in April 2024 that shoots 4K. April 14-17 2024 NAB Show in the Las Vegas Convention Center. What ended up happening was Canon took a lot of market share from Nikon b/c they had better video options for consumers, hobbyists, and most importantly camera review channels that had nothing of value to talk about beyond camera specs 🤷🏾‍♂️ Faster frame rates, higher resolution, codecs, etc. A lot of which was just smoke and mirrors. Why? Movies are still shot at 24fps and it's to this day the standard for film making. So 30fps is the broadcast standard, and 24fps is the cinema standard. Why does anyone need 60fps, 120fps, 240fps, 500fps, 1000fps? The answer is they don't for serious professional work. There's no one shooting slow-mo for the news 😂 Cinema does use 60fps, wedding and real estate photographers use 60fps for slow-mo. But again, Nikon was too slow in releasing upgrades b/c they're thinking Pro not Consumer hobbyists. The times they did go higher it was on smaller sensors. Anyway they changed that with the Z9 and now buying RED. Canon isn't in trouble but Nikon is going to eat away at that market share. Peter McKinnon had one of the biggest channels and he finally got burnt out with gear reviews not too long ago, so RU-vidrs played a big part in public opinion. So the point. Nikon lagged behind everyone on the specs sheet. What people didn't realize was they had higher image quality the entire time. IQ doesn't always matter especially if people don't know the difference between IQ and Res. Someone who picks up a Nikon D3s right now can still shoot professional videos for broadcast TV. It's going to be that way for the foreseeable future b/c until the networks change globally we can't actually process the higher resolution information. TV runs at 720p and 1080i and it's not going anywhere for a long time. Right now everyone is on the same level imo aside from Nikon with the Z9. That thing for the price is insane. It's the equivalent of $20k-$30k cinema camera for $5k 😱 yeah that's insane. Old Nikon pro bodies were $6k So all the gear stuff is cool but when you realize the most cutting edge camera in broadcast TV is less than 2.7mp 😅 it puts what the avg. photographer/youtuber knows in question. If there's anything to take from this babble. Photosites size is how you get higher or lower image quality or higher or lower gain. BSI sensors is how we got higher resolution without losing high quality, but smaller photosites still means lower image quality. That's why so many photographers keep saying they don't like this clinical look of mirrorless. It's the pixel density which is also why the whole Full Frame vs APS-C war happened. APS-C has higher pixel density therefore lower image quality than full frame, and full frame lower than medium format, and medium format lower than large format theoretically (large format digital doesn't exist). However it's not the size of the sensor, it's the size of the photosites that matters along with new tech like BSI, which is a lot better than FSI, but a low megapixel BSI sensor will have higher image quality than a high megapixel BSI sensor to a point. You can do more with higher megapixels in post production. But straight out of camera with minimal editing for sports, you want lower megapixels. That's why the D6 and 1Dx III are 20mp. The Z9 is being used at reduced resolution for sports, 11mp is the only way to get 120fps jpegs. So, we're back to the Nikon D3s which is 12mp and looks exactly the same 😅