Відео

Very informative and interesting.

3.

Megapixels aren't just about making big prints. They're about being able to move backwards and crop in to maintain depth of field

Another really helpful review/comparison - thanks for putting it together and posting it. I'd love to have a Rolleiflex but the Yashica provides a well priced starting point for those new to TLR cameras.

Always a pleasure listening to you review camera's and analog too , you do a great job and yes ... I am a film shooter , and digital.. 2 Rollei's , love them as indeed they slow you down , and when in Vietnam in 2017 , people loved my twin lens reflex camera , they even in USA come over to look at it , and yes you can get lovely portraits.

lovely looking camera I've never tried the Yashica, I have a couple of TLRs the Aireflex, and the Lubitel 2 they're fun to shoot. Great review as always Peter cheers. Nice sample images too,

I still have a Yashica 124G in storage somewhere, I really enjoyed using it, but I also owned a Seagull 4B and preferred the swirly bokeh of the lens in the Seagull. The Yashica was without doubt sharper though.

Great review- thank you

Very well explained! 👍 While I have enjoyed 102MP as well, there are also other advantages to bigger lenses etc - but in general I am quite happy with my 26MP Fuji XH2S😊

I would love to like this video twice! For the kind of work I do, 24mp is more than enough. I’ve never had a client tell me that my images didn’t have enough resolution. My Nikon D750 still delivers stunning images and partly because I get it right in the camera.

Why after every sentence the video is jerking...??

What a lot of nonsense. Fraught with contradictions to appear more clever than he is.

after dozens of blogs , videos and even some books , this is the CLEAREST and most digestible explanation ive ever hears of hyperfocal , zone , and pre focus. now i properly understand the three and have a deeper idea of when to utilize each one

Good Job.

Very interesting and helpful 👍👍 But I really do love my Leica M11!!

Excellent video, totally agree.

Grate subject thank you even replies , very useful.

Nice video I actually learned something

you brit?

The 24 megapixels on my Nikon D7100 are more than adequate and allow for a decent amount of cropping when shooting wildlife and birds. And these shots are normally viewed on a 32 inch HD monitor.

It's not how many I need, it's about how many I want 😂. Also sometimes when you less expect it, it'll come handy. Specially if you shoot action or wildlife and might have to crop and have no time to compose.

My first digital camera was a Nikon 1D with a 2.7mp sensor and I printed many 8x10 headshots that looked great.

I don't care what nobody say.. More megapixels means more details to punch and you actually see the difference between two photos. If it wasn't for my 42mp Sony, I wouldn't be able to have used my prime 85mm to get cars drifting at an event i did and needed to crop in. I was just far away to not be close but close to get details. Print, different story but this is 2024, nobody printing on anything bigger than a cell phone. Maybe a canvas for a wall picture but give me the mp details please. Video however yea I rather leave it low but for hybrids I want the mp and I'll let the camera determine pixel count thereafter.

My first digital camera was the awesome Nikon 1Dh at 2.7mp I have and use many digital cameras these days the highest count being the Q2 with 48mp. Most of my work is for newspapers and UA-cam content so imho 48mp is total overkill for me. I love the Q2 with its weather sealing but I’d be happy with the 24mp in the Q1 it’s plenty for my needs. Great video Peter cheers.

Thank so much! Picture viewing is what matters to me. Your explanation is wonderful. 👍

1

ARRI camera and lense company. Was using a 12 MP sensor for the longest time. On none blockbuster movies to major blockbuster movies. Which were perjected on many screen sizes.

7:49 what a load of bullshit. If you have a room of N x M dimensions and you cover the whole area with buckets, you capture the exact same amount of rain with small or huge buckets. It doesn't matter how much rain an individual bucket captures. How did this even make sense in your brain?

I find 20 megapixels is generally excellent for my needs and might actually be overkill.

They're photo sites and fewer photosites on the same size sensor means the photo sites are bigger to fill the void!! I have an Olympus E1 with 5 mega pixels and a long with the brilliant Olympus 14-54 lens, I get superb images up to A3 !

10 Megapixels is decent value for an A4 or A3 print, so if you have around 15 megapixels so you can crop the edges, it's a solid outcome.

It depends on the kind of work you’re dedicated to. A whole bunch of videos on this very same subject, none of them resolve anything.

I agree with you 100%. I have some higher MP cameras, that I rarely use. There is no benefit for me, and their files clog up my storage and slow my older Mac (Intel version). I'm mostly a enthusiast photographer who does professional work. A lot of what I do for clients goes onto their websites, and I always have to reduce the image to 2 MP or less. I also do portraits, and 8" x 10" looks great using my 12 MP older cameras. In fact, I think they look better because you don't see a lot of the subtle skin imperfections that higher MP cameras show. I have shot large group photos and events with cameras in the 16-24 MP with absolutely no problem. I certainly could have shot them with my D700 or D3S if I had wanted to (12 MP). Currently, my walk around camera is a Canon M6II. I love that camera, but not because it has 30 MP... I simply don't need that resolution. Many years ago we had a professional "all family" photo taken (around 20 people), and the photographer was using an older Nikon which was somewhere in the 6-7 MP range. I was just visiting my parents who have the photo on their wall. Honestly, it looks great...I would never had said "Oh that is a low resolution image." It looked perfect. For me it is all about having accessible buttons/dials that make a camera usable for serious work. Cameras have been great since the mid-2000s. Yes, they have advanced in all areas. However, a good ol' 5D or D700 can still take fabulous photos. For many of us the improvements in dynamic range in the last 5 years really doesn't matter, and even those older cameras had pretty fantastic low light performance (not like the "seeing in the dark" abilities currently available). However, the one area where I am envious of new cameras is their AI focusing ability. That blows me away, but since I'm not a nature photographer, I really don't need it. I know some are thinking "you need it for sport too." However, the only sports that I shoot are my wife running races, and my my kids playing sports. Believe it or not, I have gotten great shots using old cameras and super-zoom bridge cameras. Not every shot may be in focus, but many are, and they look great. Just my two cents.

Happy with my 20M Olympus EM1X 👍

Some large printed pictures are viewed at close distances... like a gathering of people, say in a group photo of school students. Would you not agree, that more pixels would be required for that situation?

How did you get such a clear photo in broad daylight. Do you mostly shoot in raw or just go straight jpeg

I take mostly 'street' photos, and am very good at seeing the composition I want from the scene. The problem is that the 'story' I want to capture could have dissolved before I'm near enough to frame it with a prime lens, and using a zoom can often be too slow. I've lost some good shots by just not being quick enough to compose the shot. For this reason alone, my ideal camera would be something like a Leica q3. I could get immersive, close-up street shots on it's 28mm lens, but also capture a more distant scene or a situation that I don't want to get too close to for fear of attracting attention/influencing the story by my presence. I'm currently not in a position to upgrade from my 16mp camera so cropping is generally unsatisfactory.

I take very nice photos on my 11mp ZVE1 (video low light beast). I just use them on social media, don’t crop heavily and cannot see any reduction in quality compared to say the A7Cii. I put some photos showing the quality in a video. There’s lots of comparison videos on UA-cam. Sure if you want huge crops etc it’s not as good, and it’s got no mechanical shutter but I never use a flash anyway. The camera has outrageous dynamic range and unbelievable noise in low light also. The sensor is still the best video sensor on the market IMO, they even filmed ‘The Creator’ with that sensor.

More pixels also over more room for noise reduction, the issue is not to do with individual cmos cell size but the effective coverage they have and any weird noise that might happen as you move away from classical physics. The reason for poor lowlite performyof phones has more to do with their tiny apature and total sensor size then the size of their individual CMOS cells.

…brilliant explanation, well done, thank you!

Your way of talking is quite robotic - Breathe once in a while - Slow down, unless you have a train to catch !

Background music is RUBBISH - Do you really need it ??? I tune into listen to what you have to say n not to b distracted by some piano music - Take it out !

On my wall I have photos taken with Fujifilm X-T2 what is 24 mpix. Still, those prints are taken from JPGs what was only 6 Mpix and the quality on A3 sized prints are excellent. Also the bigger the picture the further the viewing distance, so yeah, on paper bigger than 6 Mpix is quite useless to me. Nowadays I also move many of my Canon R50 photos wirelessly to my iPhone and those are only 1 Mpix sized and 99 % of times that is more than enough in average usage. By average usage I mean that I can share those easily to my friends who anyway watch those on mobile devices. Also I can print 10x15 cm photos (4"x6" in USA I think) with good quality and most of the times I print only Instax Mini photos where 1 Mpix is much more than what is needed. Of course I store my original photos to memory card on full size and then save those sometimes to my computer, but in all realism, 99 % of my use cases those 1 Mpix smaller photos are more than suitable in almost everything. To blog, to social media, to prints, to share to others :)

If you intend to view your pics on a modern 4K TV, you need 9.8 mega pixels. You can round this out to 10 MP. 2 times this gives you enough room to crop/zoom. Which implies that 20mp is probably more than sufficient. One could argue that to view on an 8K screen you would need 4 times these many pixels. But let's be honest, most of us are never going to use an 8K screen at the right size or the right distance as amateurs/enthusiasts. 8K TVs may become cheaper and mainstream but for home use, you will never be able to see the difference betweek 4k and 8K on these screens. We need larger pixels or pixels with a great dynamic range because we definitely can make out the difference on an HDR screen. As HDR and WCG displays become more ubiquitous, capturing, processing and displaying wide dynamic range and colour gamuts may become more important. Bigger pixels might be more useful there.