Nigel, this is my idea for a video I think would be quite fun. As many people can't always travel very far to cool places to take photos, we find ourselves in common places such as the zoo, park or our neighborhood. I challenge you to find a popular/common, more highly trafficked area, and walk us through how you can capture great images even in places that aren't quite as interesting as they seem.
Hi Jake - congrats on being the most liked idea for a new video! Send me a DM on instagram or twitter and I will send you out the print. Awesome idea by the way!!!!
@@robertwarner3769 I used to live in Rugby. You could try the old railway lines converted into footpaths, or the country lanes going towards Coventry? Also the nearby canals and locks are great, especially with the right lighting. There are some interesting old buildings in Rugby I remember? Cheers, Steven
Hope you enjoyed this longer than usual video. Let me know your ideas for a future video and the most liked comment suggesting an idea will win the lighthouse print.
Nice video Nigel. I was guessing that using the same high end lens on the cheaper 24mp camera the difference is even less noticeable. With the lighthouse photo seems that for 90% or more of the use cases you can get away with a 24mp camera and invest a bit more in good glass. And then as budget permits upgrade the body.
Excellent video, thanks! For some reason I can not add comments although I am signed in and subscribed. Therefore I leave the idea for next video here, if possible it would be fantastic to share a video about prints selling options, many people speak about it but quite generally, not the way you approach your videos, thoroughly and with concrete facts and arguments. Thanks again!!
Many of us have to fit our hobby around normal family life. That means for many of us, we are in the best locations when on holiday, out for a walk with the family, in the middle of summer. I think the topic that could have the greatest impact is how to tackle amazing scenery in the middle of the day, with a bright blue sky. Golden hour and blue hour are great, but not everyone has that kind of freedom with other responsibilities taking priority.
I'd love to see a video on overcoming imposter syndrome and being accepting of your photos, especially when you view the raw unedited versions ie how to not dismiss your photos as bad
typically, i would go through them all and delete any out of focus or blurred ones. Then go through them again and get rid of any duplicates (and find the sharpest one) and that usually boils it down to 20-30 unique photos for me
It wasn't long ago that the question was "is 6MP enough?" Then was 12 enough, then was 16 enough, then 20, then 24. In each case someone proved each one of them was 'enough'...IF you are looking at a photo and not a 400% pixel peep. I suppose it will never stop. In a couple of years the same question will come up about the current 40-50MB sensors...are they enough?
I like to look at my photos at 200% zoom (new hi res monitors have so small pixels that 100% is not enough) - how else you can see all details. Looking at whole pic from a distance? Photos are not abstract art ;-)
This is actually not easy to answer (and will be long…), but it is definitely not a linear development that is just about new sensors and electronics. First of all: Is 6 MP enough? This depends on the size of the print. It really is enough for prints up until DIN/A5 or even A4 (~about letter size) - I did travel Photobooks with a D40 (6MP) 15 Years ago, that still amaze me when I look at them today, how good the pictures are - sharp, detailed, contrasted, even in complicated gradients (Shadows, darker Parts in the evening, Night Sky, …). But if you go beyond that size (A2 (Poster), A1 (Big Poster)) , you would notice subtile but visible differences - if you get close up to the printed picture. But normally, with print size you increase your viewing distance for a normal viewing angle, and that extra detail would be lost, because your Retina has not the resolution to resolve it from that distance. 24 MP is just double the detail-resolution of 6MP - it makes minor differences in Details when you crop, but not in the same shots uncropped in average size prints. Using a 6MP with the right lenses and picture composition during taking the shots, beats doing post-shot software cropping and composing with 24MP for a lazy shooter. So, now about going from 24 MP to 48MP - does it bring the same little advantages, at least noticable when going up close? No, in most cases not. First it is only 50% more Resolution, you would need a cool 96MP to double again from 24MP (and it would then only be 4 times the 6MP Resolution), but now the trouble really starts: Your standard lenses get to the edge of their physical line resolution, so you need heavier, faster and much more expensive Lenses. You need the perfect still shot on a Tripod-Setup, or any movement in the camera or the scene would destroy the perfect detail sharpness you need to see any difference to 24MP or even 6MP. It is very hard to really do a 48MP shot that preserves all that theoretical extra resolution sharpness in real life shooting situations, especially handheld. All your 48MP pictures double in size to 24 MP or are even 8 times larger than 6MP RAWs. That means bigger, faster, expensive cards for storage are needed, bigger harddrives are needed, a bigger and faster PC is needed, better Monitor-Setup, and on and on and on it goes - much more trouble and money for less an less real live advantage. So - will we see „is it enough?“ discussions for 50MP, 200MP or even 800MP in „normal“ photography (aside from super pro, astro-science, and the like)? No, we won‘t. At least not to any benefit to real life photos and prints for normal photographers. It all has a technical (physical) Border, and an end in practical use to our biological limitations. All difficulties, problems and costs quadruple each time you double resolution. And as with any exponential function, the end comes pretty quick after a few steps. The same is true for 4k Video, 8k Video that is not meant for theater-viewings on 12m-Screens… 8k on your 100-inch big TV at home is nonsense, if you do not sit with your face only 2 feet away from the screen, to be able to see all the technically possible details. And who does that? And which film would show that? Out of focus bokeh is not better in 8k than in HD… and thats 90% of every film scene… This stuff will probably go one or two iterations farther than today, but not to any real benefit for buyers and viewers, but only for demonstrating technological „progress“ and keep the industry alive that needs justification for new product generations. More and more expense for less and less real benefit.
Many thanks for this video Nigel. You have confirmed that I was right to go for the Z5 when I was looking for my first full frame camera. More megapixels would have been nice but I couldn't justify the extra cost just for that. The higher burst rates and better video of the Z6 and Z7 weren't a consideration for me so I believe I made the right choice.
Ha! Just bought the Z5 and the 24-200mm for now and been just walking around handheld getting used to the camera... Got to admit, I'm impressed so far. Hardly an "entry level" camera imho ;) Great video Nigel, glad you did something real world with the Z5.
I wish a lot of hobbyists who are on the brink of getting "more serious" would watch this video TWICE and realize what a lot of us older and experienced photographers have learned about gear. Too many folks buy the commercial quality stoves and still produce just survival food. Excellent technique, skill, understanding light, "seeing" compositions , and knowing how your camera works will always produce better images than flagship gear used carelessly. You touched on something that I think merits four or five minutes in a future video: upscaling. I'd like you to tell us your workflow, the things you consider, the degrees to which you employ it, and the kinds of scenes that benefit the most from it. Thanks for a good, thought-provoking video, Nigel.
A Very interesting video, mainly as I own Z5! My idea for a future video is you, travelling down to East Anglia where the land is very flat, no mountains or rolling hills to be seen and seeing what images you can capture!
A few months ago I used my D750 with a crop sensor lens for the range at an air show, and even with all that lost resolution, it still printed extremely well. I printed several 24x36 photos and it looked amazing. I just got a Z5 today and i already love this camera.
Nigel, that's a great video topic. I find people are hysterical regarding megapixels. The thing is there is one parameter that is almost never brought up: viewing distance! At home I have beautiful 75×50 cm prints from 8 Mp, at work a very nice looking 170×90 cm print from 20 Mp and the extreme case of a 6×2 meter print for a customer from 5 Mp!! What makes them work? Viewing distance! That 6x2 meter one is only viewed from quite far away and the scenery was without too many details, a seascape.
Thank you for the video. Just one small comment: I would not really call a 24 MP camera “low pixel”. In the real world most people cannot tell the difference between images taken with “entry level” and “pro level” cameras. You confirmed that the benefits arising from the more expensive equipment are marginal at best.
I’d like a “behind the scene” video of how you make a video with camera settings, drones etc and how you edit it. What are the pitfalls you can reveal and hints you may want to give as a videographer about photography.
Great video Nigel! Building on AC’s point regarding cropping, there is a 3rd reason many of us amateurs may need a high megapixel camera. Often, a lot of us travel to spectacular places with our families. When we see something photo-worthy, we only have a few seconds to formulate a composition, choose a lens/camera settings, and take the image. Most of the time, this leads to sub-optimal compositions. However, in post, I think it is possible to find good images hidden in a broader scene, and therefore, the need to crop. An idea for a future video would be to use the images you took in this video but add a 25% or 50% crop. It would be interesting to see how the images compare. The lower megapixel image would lose corner area softness. However, differences in center image quality should be more observable. Would be interesting to see how this plays out in a real-world, large print test.
I've heard before that the glass is more important than the body, and I think this is a good demonstration of that. The 24mp Z5 with the expensive lens took an absolutely spectacular shot of that lighthouse. Really neat comparison video!
Idea for a future video: I'd enjoy something along the lines of revisiting photos from the past, say maybe five or ten years ago and processing them again, or even re-taking and then processing them again, to reflect on how you have evolved as a photographer; what you would do differently, what you've held onto, what you cringe at now, etc.
I do a lot of remote wildlife photography with a micro four thirds kit. The results you can get if you know your gear's limits (and your own!) is always a bit surprising. Great comparison.
You can tell a LOT of work has gone into this 👏🏻 Idea for future video: What's the biggest print you can make? Chop a photo up into, say 24 boxes. Print each box on A1 paper, then re-arrange on the floor and see how it comes out! Great excuse to get the drone out too 😊
I love how the video has been up for less time than the length of the video, and there are still comments from 20+ minutes ago. It is astoundingly frustrating that people only look at videos like this as an opportunity to get on THEIR soapbox about the topic instead of watching the video itself.
It might not be that: to maximise viewing I watch all videos at double speed. Occasionally I watch at a slower speed if I think it is something that I really need to concentrate on. My time is limited and I want as much input from photographers as possible.
@@kerry5586 It may not be what I described for EVERYONE. But I can 100% guarantee you loads of people read a title and look at a cover image and go straight to the comments.
Great Video! 💙💙💙 For Future Videos I would love to learn more about your personal WORKFLOW. How do you select the top images of a trip? How do you decide how to edit the image? Do you edit all images with the same effort or you only spend more time for the very best shots? Do you print all your top images or keep them on your hard drive only? … 🤔
I appreciate you actually printing the images out vs just zooming in and comparing them on a monitor like other channels! It’s definitely more effort and money but it shows! Nothing like actually printing your photos.
As for my video suggestion: I'd love to see one talking about how to identify good long lens compositions, specifically when you're missing any kind of strong foreground interest when zoomed in. Thanks so much for taking the time to make this comparison! I love this kind of stuff!
Try using a low budget camera and lens which I am sure most of us use and a very expensive camera which you use, if all our pictures are for social media does it matter what you use. Sometimes i dont really see the point in comparisons only maybe to prove a point. The size of those pictures wow how much would it cost to print one of them, it looks like you had half a dozen printed there! Thank you for all the hard work you put into this blog.
Nigel, I really appreciate all of the time and effort you put into this video. As someone who shoots 24MP full frame with intermediate F4 glass, it was helpful to see the difference. I certainly expect the larger megapixel Z7 to show more detail, but I am pleased to see that the difference in an every day world scenario is not as significant as I thought. Your note that the difference in the increased megapixels translates into more detail, but not increased sharpness was helpful. I always thought the increased megapixels meant the image would also be more sharp. I also found the print out comparison interesting since I print fairly large images of my work (20 X 30 inches and 24 X 36 inches). Last, I was intrigued to hear about the photo shop resolution tip you gave, I look forward to trying it very soon. Thank you for this video!🙂
Great video Nigel, from a newbie who hasn’t printed any images yet. Idea for a future video: Understanding landscape light. I use apps to see the direction of the light, but I’m unclear on where to stand to capture the light on subjects, especially where hills and moorland is concerned.
Dave, this only comes from practice practice practice. Don’t rely too much on technology (apps), learn to ‘see’ the potential in a shot. Also there is too much hype about megapixels etc and ‘gear’. I have printed a 5 MP shot to A3 size and it looks amazing. Indeed a friend has blagged a copy off me and had it professionally framed! Just enjoy the photography and don’t get hung up on gear. Happy shooting!😀
New video idea: Planning a photography trip (using tools like google earth etc in a real world example). Kind of a step by step guide to the target image.
Love this video. Would like to see a very similar comparison of the 24-200 mm against the 70-200 mm f/2.8 at the long end. Also with images printed large. Thanks for all the great content.
My suggestion for a future video would be on editing tips for those of us who are colorblind, not monochromatic (b&w) but dichromatic. But obviously, these tips would still be of value to all you weirdos with normal vision. Many UA-cam vloggers, such as yourself, will sometimes intentionally push color values to an extreme to demonstrate the error in getting carried away with certain editing features. Most the the time, we (or at least I) can see the difference between good and not good. But there are many times when we can't discern any difference between what you would identify as normal vs what you would identify as blown out or unnatural. While the histogram is helpful, it is not a be all and end all, ...because sometimes rules have to be broken. I realize that in the end, there is a great deal of subjectivity in the creative process, so even with my deficiency I have quite a bit of wiggle room. However, it would be nice to be able to stretch beyond my conservative editing and be confident that I'm not completely screwing up an image by pushing values too far. By the way, I have a 45 x 60 cm (had to break out my American to 'rest of the world' translator to get that measurement, I hope you're properly impressed) image of one of the old barns on Mormon Row in front of the Grand Tetons, that I took with a pre-DSLR 10MP Sony 15 years ago. It looks pretty decent, even close up. As many people have already responded, many factors affect the presentation - subject, composition, framing, matting,, viewing distance. Great video, and thank you for the tip on upping the resolution in Photoshop!
A great idea for a future video is: "The Benefits of Landscape Photography for us individuals". Most channels talk too much about the technical aspects of Photography, and they never touch the actual benefits the photographer gets for just being in the outdoors. I have a big list just in case my idea is pickup, I will be happy to share it with you, Nigel. Love the sincere way you talk to us on your channels. Thanks.
Very interesting Nigel, especially for those of us who only print occasionally or up to A3 or A4. It would be good to have a video on filter usage - when best to use, how to use and which types. Thanks.
Hello! Here´s an old guy from germany. I love Wales and been there 5times since 1973 (16years) hoping to travel next year (2023) for nearly 4 weeks to Wales and England. Yes, i´m also a Digital Nikon Photographer since 2009, but started with Photography 1972. So, that´s a perfect Video for me, using a D610, Z50 and since 2 weeks a Z5. And I hope to make a lot of photos next year in North-Wales/Anglesey. Finally: I love this video! Tschüß!
This summer, before leaving (finally) on a vacation we found a great deal for the Z5 with the 24-70 f/4 lens included for around 1200 euros. It was about time to upgrade my old D7000, so after a bit of hesitation we decided to go for it, since the deal is rare and usually just the body costs more than that. So far i find the camera very nice. I know Nikon is getting all the shit from basically every "pro" on YT, but i think they are still good and the Z5 is a great option for an amateur like me. This video reassures me of the choice to go for it! I do feel bad costing my family 1200 euros for a hobby, but it seems like we got a very good quality for the money. Hope 3rd party lenses come out soon for the Z system so i can get a native zoom. I currently have my old 70-200 Tamron with an FTZ, but honestly it doesn't work perfectly.
Most of the "pros" on UA-cam are professional UA-camrs and do photography on the side. You can really tell the difference with someone like ND or Steve Perry, who make amazing photos and also have a focus on in-person instruction. The 24-70 f/4 just looks amazing. It will definitely be in the cart the second I go mirrorless. Your path (D7000 --> Z5) is very similar to what I'll be going through (D7500 --> maybe Z6III). (I'd get the Z6-line because I also like to do wildlife and some shooting that is photojournalism-style and requires some speed, like certain street photography situations.)
@@gyozakeynsianism It's all about budget, when you are a pro-summer :) I got the Z5 cause the 1200 offer with a 24-70f/4 lens was honestly unbeatable, and even today you can't find that. Otherwise i would have waited and gotten a Z62 or something else... Hope you find a decent offer this blackfriday! :)
@@DobromirManchev Exactly! That's why I'm sticking with my D7500 for now. No more purchases this year (my last was the exemplary AF-S 85mm G) even though I'm itching for FF dynamic range and noise levels! Best of luck to you too and congrats on your excellent purchase.
Like others have said it is all about viewing distance. If you had one of those cameras you will not be comparing it to the other cameras images. The 24megapixel camera will mean you have to get the composition in camera because heavily cropping then printing would be bad news. For a future video, how about long lens photography on a coastal path. You have the natural gift in making stunning images. An inspiration to us all. Thank you for taking the time.
Thank you so much for the interesting comparison, Nigel! It is an excellent study. I have the Z6, which has the slightly newer BSI sensor, and have felt that the 24mp is more than adequate for most needs. I do shoot mostly with Fujifilm X-H1 and X-T3 APS-C cameras, which are 24mp and 26mp respectively. With some of the better Fujifilm lenses, I have found them to be incredibly sharp, even at a pixel peeping level. I must admit, though, that I don't do much printing. With that in mind, I would be interested in seeing you do a similar comparison between one of the Nikon APS-C cameras, Z50 or Z fc and their full frame offerings. Thanks again!
Video Ideas I may be a little late to the party for upvotes but I thought I’d list a few ideas for consideration: 1. A landscape/nature shoot with the 105mm macro lens. 2. ICM - how to achieve different effects. 3. Multiple exposure ideas in landscape photography
The "entry level" (such a misleading term) is better than cameras of just a few years ago. I have a D850 and a Z5 and aside from drastic cropping, both cameras are more than capable. I still think 24MP is a sweet spot...
i was just curious and checked the price for the above mentioned D850....how is that entry level?? thats like 2 lakhs in india....almost 4 times what we call an entry level here...its probably that cameras in india are a lot costlier
@@arvindpillai6693 My point (might not have been clear) was that the Z5 (entry level) produces images that can hold it's own against anything, including the D850.
@@chrisbartlett8146 I think Canon is a great system, but I have never liked the way they feel. This goes back to my first holding (dating myself) the A1.
@@maze400 I bought my first camera, a kodak retina 2nd hand 60 years ago and have quite a few since but weight is now a big consideration for me. I use a Canon M5 with EF lenses which is an APS-c camera and 24 mp The reason I mentioned Canon is because their latest Camera which is supposed to compete with other brands and which they are releasing as their top mirrorless camera (almost double the price of their next camera down and 45 mp) has been reduced to 24 mp. This was to enable them to achieve 30 Frames per second so is aimed at wildlife photographers who usually have to severely crop their photo particularly of birds so must consider the resolution is as good as is required for extremely good detail. I have tried other cameras but prefer the feel and size of the camera I have got so understand what you are saying about feel.
I'd love to see a video on composition decisions with urban landscapes - since many of us don't have the lovely countryside close enough to regularly practice and progress
Brilliant content, particularly for me as I am at the decision point of a new camera and lens. Lost my others to an accident, total loss…😢. Any wise, I have really been struggling between resolution as well as lens quality. I have to admit, you have made that struggle a little more difficult for me…🙃. I had my self convinced that 45 MP was the choice based on the philosophy that the tool does matter, while recognizing that 98+% of the shot is down to the photographer and composition! But, if I can get that part right, (big question marks here…😂); I then want to make sure there is nothing technically hindering the photography. So, here are my take always from this: 1). Lens quality plays a bigger part of the final output than many realize…. Therefore, maybe the choice is to spend more money on the lens and give up some MP’s…. 2). 24MP is sufficient for larger prints recognizing that the 99+% of people viewing the photography are not going to be pixel pepping anyway…. 3). Today’s software offers lower MP users some great tools that most probably do not even know are there, I did not…. So, we need to consider all the tools available when making this important decision of what camera system to purchase and then how to process them… I am a Nikon guy myself, so I have some choices available…🙂! Finally, here’s an idea for a later video that I know would help me and I presume many others…. What other tools are available to photographers in Lightroom and Photoshop that the average user may not be aware of? Maybe this is a collaboration with Mads as I know he is a power user of Photoshop…No offense here Nigel, as I believe you are quite skilled here as well…. Just might be interesting to here both your thoughts…. What ever you decide, I am sure it will be great and very useful. Thanks again for a great presentation and subject to consider…
Wonderful comparison that really puts into perspective how powerful even entry level cameras are these days. An idea for the future - photos that you didn’t like, or ignored, when you first took them, but when you went back and revisited them years down the line your opinion had completely changed
Interesting video! Because I could write the check, when I upgraded from my D750/24-120, I went to the Z7ii/24-70 2.8. I’ve loved the results. But this reminds me again that less expensive can still be great if money is (not unreasonably) a constraint. My best photo of this summer was taken on an old D5300/28-200.
For the resolution / print size, I think some people feel that 24MP isn't enough, but when you do the calculations (assuming you're not cropping) you can still get a good sized 13x19 print from a 24MP sensor (at 300 dpi). I would suspect most people who are printing at home wouldn't need much more. And with enlargement software today, you can sometimes get a bit more out of 24MP images if you need something slightly larger. I agree with you on the DPR stuff and that in reality for most people 45MP vs 24MP isn't going to make a huge difference, and especially for on-screen use only, you probably can't tell the difference anyway as both are more than suitable for even 4k images. And I would think when it comes to print, if you're printing at the native resolution (usually 300 dpi in most cases) that it won't matter as much either (yes you would get a larger print from a higher-resolution camera) but as far as sharpness and detail I don't think the differences would be all that different. And if you're shooting handheld a lot in lower-light conditions, the 24MP camera (versus a 45MP camera, assuming both were Full frame) probably has an advantage anyway so you can possibly get a cleaner shot with the lower-res camera. (I always felt that while high-res cameras can offer great detail, when you start getting into the high-ISO range, the smaller pixels tend to require a bit more work -- in post processing in noise reduction -- over a lower-resolution image from a camera with larger pixels that could probably be shot at a lower ISO and thus a slightly cleaner image that doesn't need as much processing -- and that while you have a higher resolution image from the 45P image, you may have to apply more NR in post to a point where you've now lost some detail compared to the 24MP image that was shot a lower ISO and thus required less/no NR. Of course with technology these days, the differences I see betwen my Z6 and Z7 is maybe 1-2 stops at most in terms of noise performance whereas 10 years ago, that gap may have been larger (2-3 stops difference).
Idea for another video: as lockdown is highly likely to be happening again, can you do a video on finding photos inspiration in a local small patch of woodland/park? Thank you.
Kerry I don’t think there are going to be any more lockdowns. Nigel has tons of videos in his back catalogue to help you find inspiration. Just ‘getting out there’ is the main thing. Best wishes taking your shots. 😊
that's basically quite simple, keep your eyes open, look for unusual details and change your perspective, that was all true long before "corona", you don't need video tutorials for that
I‘d love you to have a look at alternatives to Lightroom and Photoshop for RAW development and image processing. Like Affinity Photo, Luminar, DxO Photolab etc. I know this would be really extensive and expensive but it would be awesome to have a professional photographer compare multiple tools, not only Lightroom vs something
Nigel, I'm your sub for a long time - somewhere in the first tens of thousand subs. I'm really happy to see that you continue to produce high quality content.
Really interesting, Nigel! I just picked up the Z6 as I'm looking to dabble a little in cinematography... I think a really cool video would be to entirely take yourself out of your comfort zone and try some street photography! Cheers from Vancouver, Canada.
A few of suggestions for future videos, thanks for asking: 1 - Motion: explain and show how you capture the intent of motion in landscape photography, be it wind, water, etc. 2 - Storytelling: when commission by someone or self motivated, how to interweave a story into your pictures. Do you seek the story or wait for it appear. 3 - Moon: a classic evening subject, it would be great to see you incorporate the early evening moon scape in your landscape. Cheers, D
Hey Nigel, I’d love to see a video on aspect ratios and how they are suited for different subjects and ways of transforming the aesthetics of a picture. I notice that I can return to my favorite places and still find new compositions just because I restrict myself shooting square or 6:17. PS: Having a 2 m wide seascape picture on my wall that I shot with a 12 mp D700 looks great from a normal viewing distance. But I guess as photographers we all love coming closer than usual to prints and enjoy the details. So the more dpi we can get the better. Great video! Wonder what that ai based scaling would do to that D700 file.
Hi Nigel, I think what you're running into here is that the perceived quality difference results from printing big, not from shooting big, i.e. pixels per inch on the printer. The breakeven is somewhere in the 200 ppi range. Greater than 300 ppi is good, 200 ppi is a minimum, and 125 ppi is just not good enough on the print. That's why your best shot on the whole video was the uprezzed picture with the better lens from the 24 mp Z5. Years ago I shot airshow pictures with a pro lens (Nikon 70 - 200 f2.8 VR) on a 6 mp D-70. I uprezzed the pictures with Genuine Fractals in order to get great details on large prints. I did the same thing with some 24 x 36 prints to keep feather detail on bird pictures taken with a 10 mp D-200 and later a 12 mp D-300. The uprezzing software is amazing!
Print size depends on subject matter and viewing distance to a large extend. You will have seen iPhone commercials printed as massively large billboards with photos shot on iPhones from 8MP files. Did you ever think these billboards looked horrible? Probably not, because you looked at them from a reasonable viewing distance. I make large prints from 10MP and 12MP files I shot more than ten years ago. How? I use the "Enhance" and "Super Resolution" feature in Lightroom and if required Topaz Sharpen. My subject matter is mostly street photography - dynamic shots, sometimes with motion blur. They upscale well. They print well to much larger than you would think they should. In my opinion, you only need more than 24MP if you excessively crop into your shots, losing massive amounts of resolution. Or if you shoot subject matter where every tiny bit of detail across the frame REALLY matters - like macro shots, wildlife detail shots. Maybe some landscapes with massive amount of fine detail you need to preserve for viewers to step up close to a print where they'll look at a particular detail, rather than the whole print.
Someone always makes the “you only need x number of pixels” or “nobody need more than x number of pixels” in pretty much every video comparing cameras of different pixels.
@@MartinFransson I actually just had a 12 megapixels file shot on a 11 years old Micro Four Thirds camera, at ISO 400 with a 60 years old manual focus lens printed at 30 by 40 inches and the print looks absolutely stunning. You'll have to move in to the image at a feet to notice lack of fine detail. With a print that large, that's basically irrelevant. Don't obsess about print size and megapixels. Basically ANY advanced camera of the past 10 years can produce prints at 30 by 40 inches if you know how to create a great image in camera of the motive you're shooting.
An excellent review of the differences apparent in high megapixel sensors. In reality no one usually prints two versions to check, so either is eminently satisfying. Secondly, who has a house big enough to hang more than a couple of 100 cm prints? All my prints are 50-60 cm on the long edge, and I currently have 12 hanging and no space for more. At 60 cm, 20 -24 MP are more than enough. Mid to high end lenses do make a difference, but I doubt landscape photography calls for more than f4, and f2.8 lenses are heavy and pricey. I feel the latter are aimed at gear junkies and the very few pros who shoot in low light at concerts or indoor sports events.
Of course it's good enough. It's about the frame, the skill and the editing. It's not that far back into past when we only had 12Mpix cameras and 24Mpix was only for super pro top level cameras... Let's not be ridiculous.
Absolutely! Also the false description of certain cameras being so-called ‘full frame’ is just a marketing ploy to get people to spend money they don’t need to! What does ‘full frame’ mean? It is only a description of a camera that has a sensor the size of the old 35mm film cameras. But there is no comparison in reality. Modern digital cameras, in the hands of a non-professional are more than capable of taking equal or even better photos than the old film ones. (Comparison between old lab produced film prints, and the capability of almost anyone at home to produce large and amazing prints).
@@petercollins7848 great point about "full frame". Cause what if I shoot medium format most of my life (which I do) and "full frame" to me is a huge crop from my 6x7cm film negatives? I'm not even gonna start with large format :D
If you want to live in the past is OK. But don't confuse clarity with resolution. You need sharp lenses in order to take advantage of a big res. He's using a zoom lense, not quite the sharpest, which makes the whole demonstration quite pointless.
@@claudianreyn4529 But obviously not pointless, as we saw various differences/ or not which helped us consider whether we need to go to a high MP. And as most non-professionals will be using moderate level zooms the video was very helpful.
Another interesting video, and as always cracking images. Watching it got me thinking how interesting it would be to see a similar unbiased, real world comparison between APSC and full frame. I have always used an APSC camera and have some fantastic lenses to go with it - I know it is not the camera that is the limiting factor in my photography. And yet I still find my self questioning myself whether to invest further into other APSC lenses that I would like (a telephoto and a wide angle) or whether I should just bit the bullet and go full frame. As it stands I and easily see and enjoy the weight and and cost benefits of APSC but don’t really know what the real world benefits of going full frame would be. The internet is far too full of strong opinions on the topic.
Colin, if you are getting cracking images, why are you worrying about ‘gear’? I have printed photos from a 5 MP bridge camera to A3 size and it looks fantastic. It is all about viewing distance. We don’t watch TV with our noses pressed against the screen do we? Well the cat might, if there is any fish in the picture! Happy shooting! 😀
If the keyboard warriors were really as interested as they claim about the extra benefits of full frame over apsc and how much bigger and better the pixel sites are surely they’d all be running and gunning with a medium format Fuji GFX or the Hasselblad X1D? Bigger sensor, at least 50 meg, and top quality glass. I’ve done the apsc with a Nikon D200, then jumped to full frame with the D700 because back then high ISO and apsc didn’t really work and now I’ve gone full circle back to apsc with Fuji. The image quality at iso 3200 is more than good enough to shoot a wedding hand held in a church and light years away from the D700. The biggest difference is the quality of your lens. I had a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and you could see the difference in prints from both lenses, the Nikon resolved far more detail than the Sigma, but then it cost twice as much. Carrying a full frame camera with a battery pack and fast lens all day shooting a wedding is crippling, that’s why I went mirrorless. There are pros and cons to each system but it’s not surprising to find the gear snobs are often the ones who’s egos far outstrip their talents.
That lighthouse picture was stunning. When you were talking about all the little things in the composition you saw and were careful about, I was blown away about the micro level detail that goes into some of your shots My idea for a video is walking us through the micro details in a composition you decide to make. I know you have some videos like that but perhaps making another one where you show us how one small change here or there changes a composition. Excuse my run on sentences.
I quit worrying about how big one can enlarge images when a client took a 4.1MP image from a Nikon D2H, blew the middle half of it up to roughly SIX FEET BY 12 FEET and used it on a billboard. Granted it was not a shot from a kit lens (a Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f2.8 zoom) but megapixels have meant little to me ever since those days.
Viewing distance matters, but like large format film.....it is not just resolution, but the immense color saturation you get withi bigger film (or more MP), and this you notice at any distance. Whatever distance you view at (make it a constant for both cameras), the higher MP camera (or larger film format) always wins. Now add great glass, and you have a winning combo. Women are right, size matters.
@@alfredv9902 I understand what you are saying here but, for me, it is more about content. While looking at a medium format image vs 35mm you will see the differences you mention if viewed at the same distance, you will always see differences in resolution and color saturation. But content can win over resolution and saturation for me. As someone who is mainly a black&white documentary photographer, I can live without the need for extras cited in your comment. Thanks for responding though. I loved your thoughts.
Hi Nigel, that was a great comparison 👍 Thankyou, I have a Z7 with the 24-70m F4 lens and was wondering if it is worth upgrading to the 24-70 2.8s version ? Will the 2.8 version resolve more detail and sharpness ? As i find the F4 version soft above A2 prints. I shoot mainly Landscapes and Architecture and in the F8-F11 range and will be printing beyond A2 and crop out a lot. Thankyou:)
I’m American. I’ve been to England and loved it and wanted to immigrate but I was too old for that!! You are wearing a KSC shirt and SF hat. Cracks me up. What would our ancestors think? Thank you for this video. Very helpful. The Z5 is great.
Let's be honest, 24mp is more than enough for 99% of the user, I will even go ahead and say 18mp is plenty. Many people's justification for getting a 40+mp camera is so they can crop, if you need that much resolution to crop, either you have the wrong lens or you have no idea how to compose and don't know what you want when you are shooting at the time.
Brilliant video as usual Nigel! Can’t wait to tune in next week! I just want to say thank you, I’m quite new to the world of landscape photography and you’ve really helped me a lot with everything from composition to Lightroom. So thank you I really appreciate what you do! As for video ideas, what sort of process do you go through to find completely new locations? It’s something I definitely struggle with having spent hours looking on a map to pick out a landscape only to then turn up and be disappointed. It would be interesting to know your thoughts?
I agree with Will. Love your videos and as I am new to this I would love to know your process of finding locations. Working a full time job during the week and only have the weekends makes it a little challenging time wise. Thanks for all you do. You are amazing.
Z 5 is really a good camera in my opinion. It doesn’t feel entry level in any aspect. It feels great in the hands, and build quality is amazing. For the price, here in Croatia when on sale its 950€ !!! 950€ for a camera that great. Nigel you just showed us what can be achieved with a great lens and a little bit of photoshop. Amazing results…just amazing. Very happy for the Z5 😌☺️
Thanks Nigel for this video - very interesting. One idea I would love to see would be a battle of the low res cameras (12MP - 20MP) upscaled in Photoshop using the Super Resolution. After seeing this video, I suspect there may be a less need for higher resolution cameras when you can upscale in post.
Hi Nigel. In lockdown I bought myself a camera & determined to exercise my brain by teaching myself to use it by watching your marvellous videos. I’ve learnt such a lot from basic operation of the camera, focussing & composing the shot to just recently turning on the RAW option instead of JPEG & trying to teach myself how to edit the pictures. I’d absolutely love to win your picture but even more than that I’d love you to come to East Anglia to the heart of Suffolk (or Norfolk) - no hills, no mountains, no waterfalls and challenge you to find a shot that compares with the brilliant work you usually produce. Obviously we have stunning sunrises and sunsets with all this flat land but that would be cheating don’t you think.
I've seen some fantastic photos of misty mornings in the fens with windmills etc. I have the Fotovue book on East Anglia so maybe no mountains but plenty of lovely scenery still.
@@SteveP_2426 absolutely agree Steve. I just love it. I still think it would be great for @nigel.danson to do a video. I’d love to see his approach to it & hear his thought processes. Or which aspect of the scenery he’d choose.
Nigel, I am super glad you made this video. I'm among the many who grapple with this question. (I'm at a cross roads with my gear, about to step up from DSLR to mirrorless, so a purchase is imminent). My sense is this quandary is due to very contradictory advice out there from "experts" about how much resolution "is needed" to print large. It's very helpful to see the actual prints, and as you did, to swap the lenses back and forth and compare all. As for the suggestion of a topic for a future video, would you perhaps want to drill down into the observation you shared during this video (and earlier ones) over the quality of the light on a subject and how that conveys the sense of 'feel' or emotion in the final image; not necessarily saying one is better than an other, but just producing the variety of results. Just a thought. Again, fantastic video...super helpful!!! Craig
Well the thing about technology is "Good enough" is not equal to equivalent. Yes a Nikon D1 was the standard in the 2000s. And with 5MP it will make prints that are "Good enough" to be used in a gallery. The same with APS-C cameras today. However compared to work using a Z7 or an A1/R3, you aren't playing the same game. And any work done on a Z7/A1/R3 is "Good enough" compared to a GFX100/Phase One XF/Hasselblad H6D-400C but not anywhere near equivalent. There is a reason Movies are shot on either Film or Cine cameras. Yes Full frame Mirrorless/DSLRs are "Good enough" to make a movie out of so why aren't they being used? Because "Good enough" is not good enough when you are competing with people who have the best. The quality of work is constantly getting higher. As it does in every industry. What people get wrong is although you might have gotten by with a 10MP full frame camera in 2008, you were competing with other photographers who had 10MP full frame cameras in 2008. IE the same or equivalent hardware. Which is so different from today. In 1931 an Alfa Romeo 8C won Le Mans with 140 bhp. In 2021 a Toyota GR010 won with a combined horse power of 939 hp. Yes they both competed in the same race and were the best at the time but comparatively they aren't even in the same league. Its the same for Photography and every single other industry. Entry level - "professional" is not an artificial barrier. Its a physical one.
99% of the folks buying photo equipment wouldn't have noticed if he had used an iPhone - hence the precipitous and continuing drop in traditional camera sales.
Landscape photography is not a forensic exercise in data gathering, it's the evocation of a mood in two dimensions. One of my favourite landscape shots was taken on a 16mp aps-c camera and kit lens I keep to hand in the car. Driving over bleak moorland in hill fog and rain, the sky cleared just long enough to pull over and grab a single image, before the weather closed in for the day. In that moment a shaft of golden light illuminated a stone path over the hills, while the rest of the landscape was in semi-darkness and swirling mist. A second before or after, and no amount of megapixels or lens sharpness would have made a better image. If technology makes a photograph objectively "better", it must mean old tech makes in worse. Which is clearly untrue.
I have a similar question about quality and sharpness. You actually examine it a bit in this video but a full on video about the lens comparison would be great. Using the same camera, so the megapixels are the same, but a kit lens verses a better quality lens, with the same settings, which produces the better print image and what differences are there between the image. This would help so much in the great debate about whether to invest in a better camera body or a better lens. Thanks so much for all you do. I so look forward to Sunday mornings because of you. Well done today. Thanks.
Love your videos. Why? Just simply because you make me happy🙂 you see the beauty in everything. In textures, light color etc. You have a calm voice and I can hear that you love what you do. And your a bloody great photographer. You inspire me in my photography journey. Keep up the great job.
This was fantastic and so helpful in choosing my next camera. I was just about to buy a full frame DSLR when Nikon released the Z series. I played it safe going to mirrorless by buying a Z50. I’m sold on mirrorless cameras and my budget doesn’t allow me to consider a 7 or 7ll. Now I know there is great potential with a 6, or a 5. My hope is to pursue the Z6 or 6ll in the next few months during the holiday sales. Your hard work to put this video together was so helpful and honest. Since I plan to get a full frame Z, I have purchased some full frame lenses to use on my Z50. Good glass makes a great camera even greater. The only idea I would have for a video is for you share various photos and have us guess which camera you used. Have Nikon donate a camera or lens as a prize. Thanks again and stay well.
I’m in the same boat. Got the z50 but still have my eye on the Z6 for the future. Picked up the 50mm full frame Z lens. Curious about what other Z lenses you chose if you care to share.
@@warlordpriest1 At this time the 50mm full frame and the 24-70mm f/4 lens. Because I bought and still own a D7100, I have Nikon's DX 35mm, 40mm (macro), 18-140mm, 70-300mm and a Tokina 11-16mm that I use with the FTZ adapter. Since I do a lot of landscape shots, one of the wider Z lenses will be my next purchase. My guitar addiction doesn't help my camera budget.
@@jonstout7635 Thanks for answering and sharing that. I’m still in the learning stage. The Z50 is my first Nikon other than an earlier Coolpix, so no reserve of glass here. If the Z5 was a little better in low light it would be a no brainer but it can’t hold a candle to the Z6. Hope to eventually get the Z6 with that 24-70 f/4. Although I have the two Z50 kit lenses they’re not so great in lowlight. I like landscapes but also nighttime cityscapes. That’s where a faster wide angle lens would come in handy. Also considering getting the ftz and maybe adapting the ultra-wide-angle Nikon AF-P DX 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR lens just to get a taste of wide angle shots at a thrifty price. Meanwhile, still a lot to learn with the two kit lenses and the 50mm. Home studio owner and keyboard player so my gear investment has been considerable. Nigel’s observations helped me control the gear lust, put things in perspective and concentrate on getting the best out of what I have. Greetings from Japan!
@@warlordpriest1 You got a much better start-up camera than I did. My oldest daughter majored in photography and my son was and still is an enthusiast. They both got Nikon D50's back around 2005. I had always owned mid-priced 35mm cameras, so they renewed my love for photography. I started out with a used D80 and 4 years later bought the D7100. Now the jump is from DX to FX before I retire and can't afford it. My son has a wide range of Nikon lenses I can borrow including many classics that were on vintage film cameras he bought. I recommend the Tokina 11-16mm. Great lens with a fast aperture of of 2.8 and not expensive. It's discontinued, but can be found occasionally new or used. They make a 16-24mm now. Henry Turner uses the 11-16mm with great results. I admire you for making a home studio work for you. I bought some recording gear twice, and could never discipline myself to record tracks. I used the last Korg unit I had to covert old tapes to digital files and then sold it all. Nice chatting with you and I hope you get your dream camera soon. Greetings from El Paso, Texas - on the Mexican border.
I don't normally "do" half hour videos, Nigel. But this one's exceptional. For various reasons. One - it's a sensible, no "bullshit" comparison of both the two different cameras & their sensors, as well as the two different lenses. Most of us don't have access to enough of this gear to make such comparisons ourselves, so we have to rely on people like you to do it for us. Two - Snowdonia's "something else" - thanks for the guided tour! Three - I hardly ever go beyond A2 and your comments on this vs. the next size up were very illuminating. Something I've suspected for a while (ever since I printed a cellphone shot at A4, for a friend). Four - the illuminating comments about the differences between the two lenses. Five - the same, on the differences in pixel count. My "biggest ever" print is a one-off - an 8 foot wide panorama of an island off the coast - 10 miles/15 Km off the coast, in fact. I couldn't print it myself, but luckily one of the best colour printing firms in the state is 5 or 10 minutes drive from my place. Joe took it as a bit of a challenge, and produced a fantastic print. I learned something extra. When they tell you that a lens focuses on "infinity", they don't really mean it - after all, who shoots anything that far away? So my "masterpiece" has a slightly dreamy, "painterly" look about it. Next I'm taking the plunge and getting a telescope, that I can plug my camera[s] into - it really DOES go to "infinity", so I'm hoping to return to my island - or rather, the seaside opposite the island - and see how much better it can get. I also want the 'scope to get a decent shot of the moon - I had a brilliant opportunity a year or so back to capture a harvest moon, and found the same issues with my telephoto lenses. There's nothing "wrong" with them - they do a brilliant job on anything "normal", like birds or wildlife. They just weren't designed with long distances in mind. And for a whole heap of shots around here, where anything "normal" simply won't have the reach I need.
How about something completely different, A video taking photos with an old 35mm SLR camera. Poss similar shots from one your previous locations for a comparison. Imagine, no lcd screen, no auto focus, manual stopping up or down, separate light metre, screw on lenses, sending film to chemists for developing, no post processing. Would be a bit of fun and interesting to see the comparison from old tech to todays modern electronic equipment (and also a good test of your udoubted camera skills )😀. After all this is how it use to be for some of us "older ones".
Thanks for sending the photos by mail. The result of the photos is amazing. Accordingly, the Z5 with kit lens and super resolution gives the same result as the Z7 and the 24-70 2.8 lens. Expressed in euros Z5 + kit = € 1,400 against Z7II + 24-70 f2.8 = € 5,000. Respect. Sorry for my bad english, i'm italian.
I think with today's cameras (and for the most part; there are some exceptions) cameras and kit lenses aren't like they used to be 5-10 years ago, where most people would get rid of their kit lens or just not bother with the kits and buy a body and lens separately. But I think today's kit lenses are much better... for example the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 is a great kit lens despite it not being as fast as the more expensive 2.8. But from tests I've seen, it does quite well for being a kit lens (in fact in one test I saw, it seemed to rival even the latest 24-70 2.8E F-mount lens in terms of sharpness -- in some areas the 2.8E performed better, but not by much or any significantly noticeable amount, which says a lot for the Z f/4 lens). The Z5 is also one of the most under-rated cameras I think Nikon has. People see the huge crop and slow burst speed of the camera and think it's not that great. And they may be right if you're looking for a camera for video and/or sports/wildlife shooting. The Z5 is not exactly the best option for those (unless you can live with the 1.7x crop and slow burst speed). But it's a great stills camera that you can get on a budget. Buy a used 24-70 f/4 and a Z5 and you can have a nice kit for around $2000. Edit: Yes I know you used the 24-50 but the 24-70 f/4 is probably slightly better and can still be bought as a kit lens too with the Z6 and Z7. But this does show that the 24-50 isn't that bad of a lens (for being a $300-$400 lens).
Fantastic video. The dead trees in black and white was my favourite image. Video idea: shoot three to five very different scenes and print in black and white only. Explain why black and white suits them better than colour and what to consider when taking a photograph that will be viewed solely in b&w.
Hi Nigel. I was a bit disappointed by the first two pictures because there were two variables, size of sensor and the lenses. Then you got to the lighthouse that was interesting, because we got to see that the image quality in the corners of the earlier images was nothing to do with sensor size and all about lenses. I've been using the Adobe enhance feature (I shoot Fuji XF) to drag out more detail for cropping and it works remarkably well. As an idea for a future test episode, how about this. Z5 v Z7. Use the kit lens, the f4 and the f2.8. All for the same image on both cameras. So six images in total. Print each of the full size images at scale of A1, A2, A3. Then on the same size of paper with a 50% crop, including corner and centre detail. I suggest that as a technical exercise composition wouldn't matter. That would sort out the 'wood from the megapixels' and provide a really solid understanding of the benefits of each sensor with different lenses. If you were really enthusiastic you could then run them all through Adobe Enhance. On the other hand I guess you aren't into feature length YT productions!!!
I'd love to see a video giving some tips and ideas on how to get started making some money or a following in photography, or just that next step from it being just a hobby. I (and I'm sure many others) feel my gear isn't good enough, my images aren't good enough, and don't know where to start. Would love to hear your thoughts and some insight into where it all began for you. Love the videos by the way!
Corey Are you showing your prints anywhere? There must be lots of places that would appreciate being given a lovely framed photo or two to display. This may lead to people requesting a print etc. Remember though to print with non-fading inks and to give advice to keep them out of direct sun. Good luck!
Just found this video in my Z5 research. Without a doubt the most informative and comprehensive comparison of not only premium vs entry camera bodies, but kit vs pro lenses (and a mix of both). Excellent work. Thanks Nigel. Also nice to hear it called a 'zed 5" not a 'zee 5'.
Nigel, can you talk about your experience with photography contests? I wonder what the judging process looks like and how you would approach submissions yourself. Thanks!
Great video! I'm an engineer so very much a linear thinker and struggle with the artistic side of things. I also don't have the time to travel just for the sake of taking photos. Photography usually happens when I'm doing something with my family - hiking, going to the beach etc. I'd love to see a video that would help in those kind of situations and really focus on composition and unique perspectives that someone might not consider. For example, I love that black and white image you took off the dead trees. I would never have stood there and thought I could capture a great image. I'd prefer that image BTW...
Like the video. It reminds me to spend more time outside and less on B&H's website. As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I would like to see a video about photographing in the rain.
I have been professionally editing and outputting digital images since the dawn of the technology, your video displayed a difference in the lenses. Output size (assuming equal quality lenses and a good capture) is simply a mathematical formula. Capture pixels divided by required output resolution per inch or millimeters. My 24 MP Nikon creates a 6,000 pixel wide capture, printed on high quality archive media, (in general at 200 pixels per inch) creats an art quality print at 30 inches wide. A 48 MP file will be 60 inches wide at the same output resolution, assuming the same aspect ratio.
I agree with those who said lensess trend to be more important than the camera. And for a future video, would be nice to see some people rating prints you have done and picking their favorites.
Amazing comparison Nigel,,, thanks. I have just completed a product shoot at a local beach area with a camera club, and what I discovered was the Tons of different shots, because of the many different compositions within the area,,, rocks, sea, woods, under normal landscape shooting, you would Not see more than a couple of shots, but because of it being a product shoot i.e. a wee bottle of your favourite tipple sitting on a rock or something like that, the compositions grew tenfold. So I suggest a product shoot in an area that doesn't normally give many landscape shots, and I think you will be amazed at the number of compositions you will see, it amazed me? Good luck Nigel.
Nigel, this is my idea for a video I think would be quite fun. As many people can't always travel very far to cool places to take photos, we find ourselves in common places such as the zoo, park or our neighborhood. I challenge you to find a popular/common, more highly trafficked area, and walk us through how you can capture great images even in places that aren't quite as interesting as they seem.
This needs more attention
Hi Jake - congrats on being the most liked idea for a new video! Send me a DM on instagram or twitter and I will send you out the print. Awesome idea by the way!!!!
I love this idea. I struggle to find anything in my local area of Rugby.
@@robertwarner3769 I used to live in Rugby. You could try the old railway lines converted into footpaths, or the country lanes going towards Coventry? Also the nearby canals and locks are great, especially with the right lighting. There are some interesting old buildings in Rugby I remember? Cheers, Steven
@@NigelDanson You never did this, though
Hope you enjoyed this longer than usual video. Let me know your ideas for a future video and the most liked comment suggesting an idea will win the lighthouse print.
Nice video Nigel. I was guessing that using the same high end lens on the cheaper 24mp camera the difference is even less noticeable. With the lighthouse photo seems that for 90% or more of the use cases you can get away with a 24mp camera and invest a bit more in good glass. And then as budget permits upgrade the body.
Brilliant as ever. My suggestion would be to take a photograph representing each letter of your name
Video suggestion: Getting out of your comfort zone and shooting subjects you wouldn't normally shoot. Like street photography.
My suggestion is micro-landscapes....small details instead of the grand vistas.
Excellent video, thanks! For some reason I can not add comments although I am signed in and subscribed. Therefore I leave the idea for next video here, if possible it would be fantastic to share a video about prints selling options, many people speak about it but quite generally, not the way you approach your videos, thoroughly and with concrete facts and arguments. Thanks again!!
Many of us have to fit our hobby around normal family life. That means for many of us, we are in the best locations when on holiday, out for a walk with the family, in the middle of summer. I think the topic that could have the greatest impact is how to tackle amazing scenery in the middle of the day, with a bright blue sky. Golden hour and blue hour are great, but not everyone has that kind of freedom with other responsibilities taking priority.
What a great and true comment, You are spot on!
I'd love to see a video on overcoming imposter syndrome and being accepting of your photos, especially when you view the raw unedited versions ie how to not dismiss your photos as bad
Yes please
typically, i would go through them all and delete any out of focus or blurred ones. Then go through them again and get rid of any duplicates (and find the sharpest one) and that usually boils it down to 20-30 unique photos for me
One of the best compare on youtube!👍
Too many variables for me to calculate, but I'm sticking to the belief that the lens makes more difference than the camera.
I agree.
The 3rd part is us. The most important part, hopefully
This is a myth from analog photography times, when the body had almost no impact on quality. In our digital world the sensor size and type matters.
@@henrykg It does matter, just not as much as the lense. A $5,000 camera with an amazing sensor is useless if the lense is a piece of junk.
@@jwebcoding7289 we have XXI century - all lenses are good. You pay for light, distorsion and AF speed, but resolution is always good enough.
It wasn't long ago that the question was "is 6MP enough?" Then was 12 enough, then was 16 enough, then 20, then 24. In each case someone proved each one of them was 'enough'...IF you are looking at a photo and not a 400% pixel peep. I suppose it will never stop. In a couple of years the same question will come up about the current 40-50MB sensors...are they enough?
you are very much right😉😉😉
I like to look at my photos at 200% zoom (new hi res monitors have so small pixels that 100% is not enough) - how else you can see all details. Looking at whole pic from a distance? Photos are not abstract art ;-)
This is actually not easy to answer (and will be long…), but it is definitely not a linear development that is just about new sensors and electronics. First of all: Is 6 MP enough? This depends on the size of the print. It really is enough for prints up until DIN/A5 or even A4 (~about letter size) - I did travel Photobooks with a D40 (6MP) 15 Years ago, that still amaze me when I look at them today, how good the pictures are - sharp, detailed, contrasted, even in complicated gradients (Shadows, darker Parts in the evening, Night Sky, …).
But if you go beyond that size (A2 (Poster), A1 (Big Poster)) , you would notice subtile but visible differences - if you get close up to the printed picture. But normally, with print size you increase your viewing distance for a normal viewing angle, and that extra detail would be lost, because your Retina has not the resolution to resolve it from that distance.
24 MP is just double the detail-resolution of 6MP - it makes minor differences in Details when you crop, but not in the same shots uncropped in average size prints.
Using a 6MP with the right lenses and picture composition during taking the shots, beats doing post-shot software cropping and composing with 24MP for a lazy shooter.
So, now about going from 24 MP to 48MP - does it bring the same little advantages, at least noticable when going up close? No, in most cases not. First it is only 50% more Resolution, you would need a cool 96MP to double again from 24MP (and it would then only be 4 times the 6MP Resolution), but now the trouble really starts: Your standard lenses get to the edge of their physical line resolution, so you need heavier, faster and much more expensive Lenses. You need the perfect still shot on a Tripod-Setup, or any movement in the camera or the scene would destroy the perfect detail sharpness you need to see any difference to 24MP or even 6MP. It is very hard to really do a 48MP shot that preserves all that theoretical extra resolution sharpness in real life shooting situations, especially handheld.
All your 48MP pictures double in size to 24 MP or are even 8 times larger than 6MP RAWs. That means bigger, faster, expensive cards for storage are needed, bigger harddrives are needed, a bigger and faster PC is needed, better Monitor-Setup, and on and on and on it goes - much more trouble and money for less an less real live advantage.
So - will we see „is it enough?“ discussions for 50MP, 200MP or even 800MP in „normal“ photography (aside from super pro, astro-science, and the like)? No, we won‘t. At least not to any benefit to real life photos and prints for normal photographers. It all has a technical (physical) Border, and an end in practical use to our biological limitations. All difficulties, problems and costs quadruple each time you double resolution. And as with any exponential function, the end comes pretty quick after a few steps. The same is true for 4k Video, 8k Video that is not meant for theater-viewings on 12m-Screens… 8k on your 100-inch big TV at home is nonsense, if you do not sit with your face only 2 feet away from the screen, to be able to see all the technically possible details. And who does that? And which film would show that? Out of focus bokeh is not better in 8k than in HD… and thats 90% of every film scene…
This stuff will probably go one or two iterations farther than today, but not to any real benefit for buyers and viewers, but only for demonstrating technological „progress“ and keep the industry alive that needs justification for new product generations. More and more expense for less and less real benefit.
100/100!
Many thanks for this video Nigel. You have confirmed that I was right to go for the Z5 when I was looking for my first full frame camera. More megapixels would have been nice but I couldn't justify the extra cost just for that. The higher burst rates and better video of the Z6 and Z7 weren't a consideration for me so I believe I made the right choice.
Ha! Just bought the Z5 and the 24-200mm for now and been just walking around handheld getting used to the camera... Got to admit, I'm impressed so far. Hardly an "entry level" camera imho ;) Great video Nigel, glad you did something real world with the Z5.
The basics of astro photography! How to set up your shot to compliment the milky-way or the moon with a beautiful landscape.
I wish a lot of hobbyists who are on the brink of getting "more serious" would watch this video TWICE and realize what a lot of us older and experienced photographers have learned about gear. Too many folks buy the commercial quality stoves and still produce just survival food. Excellent technique, skill, understanding light, "seeing" compositions , and knowing how your camera works will always produce better images than flagship gear used carelessly. You touched on something that I think merits four or five minutes in a future video: upscaling. I'd like you to tell us your workflow, the things you consider, the degrees to which you employ it, and the kinds of scenes that benefit the most from it. Thanks for a good, thought-provoking video, Nigel.
Sounds like my brother-in-law with golf clubs🤣 Very true in both cases
A Very interesting video, mainly as I own Z5! My idea for a future video is you, travelling down to East Anglia where the land is very flat, no mountains or rolling hills to be seen and seeing what images you can capture!
A few months ago I used my D750 with a crop sensor lens for the range at an air show, and even with all that lost resolution, it still printed extremely well. I printed several 24x36 photos and it looked amazing. I just got a Z5 today and i already love this camera.
Nigel, that's a great video topic. I find people are hysterical regarding megapixels. The thing is there is one parameter that is almost never brought up: viewing distance! At home I have beautiful 75×50 cm prints from 8 Mp, at work a very nice looking 170×90 cm print from 20 Mp and the extreme case of a 6×2 meter print for a customer from 5 Mp!! What makes them work? Viewing distance! That 6x2 meter one is only viewed from quite far away and the scenery was without too many details, a seascape.
Glad you mentioned viewing distance, that is so important too!
It's brought up in literally every video and article on the subject :p
@@Laudrengen and still people on internet forums completely lose it if a new camera has only 20 or 24 Mp... 😉
24mp is 300dpi on a A3. If you also, crop is already cringe.
I just thought of some photos by Andreas Gursky in this context. What does Nigel think, was Gursky's Rhein II a photographic achievement on its own?
IDEA - Nigel having a go at another genre of photo-ing, e.g. street, portraits, macro etc?
Great video. Thanks Nigel.
Thank you for the video. Just one small comment: I would not really call a 24 MP camera “low pixel”. In the real world most people cannot tell the difference between images taken with “entry level” and “pro level” cameras. You confirmed that the benefits arising from the more expensive equipment are marginal at best.
I’d like a “behind the scene” video of how you make a video with camera settings, drones etc and how you edit it. What are the pitfalls you can reveal and hints you may want to give as a videographer about photography.
Great video Nigel! Building on AC’s point regarding cropping, there is a 3rd reason many of us amateurs may need a high megapixel camera. Often, a lot of us travel to spectacular places with our families. When we see something photo-worthy, we only have a few seconds to formulate a composition, choose a lens/camera settings, and take the image. Most of the time, this leads to sub-optimal compositions. However, in post, I think it is possible to find good images hidden in a broader scene, and therefore, the need to crop. An idea for a future video would be to use the images you took in this video but add a 25% or 50% crop. It would be interesting to see how the images compare. The lower megapixel image would lose corner area softness. However, differences in center image quality should be more observable. Would be interesting to see how this plays out in a real-world, large print test.
I've heard before that the glass is more important than the body, and I think this is a good demonstration of that. The 24mp Z5 with the expensive lens took an absolutely spectacular shot of that lighthouse. Really neat comparison video!
Idea for a future video: I'd enjoy something along the lines of revisiting photos from the past, say maybe five or ten years ago and processing them again, or even re-taking and then processing them again, to reflect on how you have evolved as a photographer; what you would do differently, what you've held onto, what you cringe at now, etc.
I think I remember him doing this.
Idea for a new video : Olympus OM-D E-M1X , 20 mpx professional camera VS Nikon Z5 cheapest Nikon mirrorless full frame 24 mpx
I do a lot of remote wildlife photography with a micro four thirds kit. The results you can get if you know your gear's limits (and your own!) is always a bit surprising. Great comparison.
You can tell a LOT of work has gone into this 👏🏻 Idea for future video: What's the biggest print you can make? Chop a photo up into, say 24 boxes. Print each box on A1 paper, then re-arrange on the floor and see how it comes out! Great excuse to get the drone out too 😊
You have a good one here Nigel. And a winner for that print.
costly however a great creative idea for a timelapse video Nigel ! OR promotional advert @DJI #sponsorship
I love how the video has been up for less time than the length of the video, and there are still comments from 20+ minutes ago. It is astoundingly frustrating that people only look at videos like this as an opportunity to get on THEIR soapbox about the topic instead of watching the video itself.
It might not be that: to maximise viewing I watch all videos at double speed. Occasionally I watch at a slower speed if I think it is something that I really need to concentrate on. My time is limited and I want as much input from photographers as possible.
@@kerry5586 It may not be what I described for EVERYONE. But I can 100% guarantee you loads of people read a title and look at a cover image and go straight to the comments.
Great Video! 💙💙💙 For Future Videos I would love to learn more about your personal WORKFLOW. How do you select the top images of a trip? How do you decide how to edit the image? Do you edit all images with the same effort or you only spend more time for the very best shots? Do you print all your top images or keep them on your hard drive only? … 🤔
my idea for future video would be industrial landscapes
I appreciate you actually printing the images out vs just zooming in and comparing them on a monitor like other channels! It’s definitely more effort and money but it shows! Nothing like actually printing your photos.
As for my video suggestion: I'd love to see one talking about how to identify good long lens compositions, specifically when you're missing any kind of strong foreground interest when zoomed in. Thanks so much for taking the time to make this comparison! I love this kind of stuff!
I'd love a video on how to get started with printing at home. Do's and don'ts on buying and what to think of. Thanks for your great work!
SHOOTING IN MIST! 🌁
As we move from summer and into autumn, I’d love to see some videos shooting in these stunning conditions.
Try using a low budget camera and lens which I am sure most of us use and a very expensive camera which you use, if all our pictures are for social media does it matter what you use. Sometimes i dont really see the point in comparisons only maybe to prove a point. The size of those pictures wow how much would it cost to print one of them, it looks like you had half a dozen printed there! Thank you for all the hard work you put into this blog.
Nigel, I really appreciate all of the time and effort you put into this video. As someone who shoots 24MP full frame with intermediate F4 glass, it was helpful to see the difference. I certainly expect the larger megapixel Z7 to show more detail, but I am pleased to see that the difference in an every day world scenario is not as significant as I thought. Your note that the difference in the increased megapixels translates into more detail, but not increased sharpness was helpful. I always thought the increased megapixels meant the image would also be more sharp. I also found the print out comparison interesting since I print fairly large images of my work (20 X 30 inches and 24 X 36 inches). Last, I was intrigued to hear about the photo shop resolution tip you gave, I look forward to trying it very soon. Thank you for this video!🙂
Great video Nigel, from a newbie who hasn’t printed any images yet. Idea for a future video: Understanding landscape light. I use apps to see the direction of the light, but I’m unclear on where to stand to capture the light on subjects, especially where hills and moorland is concerned.
Dave, this only comes from practice practice practice. Don’t rely too much on technology (apps), learn to ‘see’ the potential in a shot.
Also there is too much hype about megapixels etc and ‘gear’. I have printed a 5 MP shot to A3 size and it looks amazing. Indeed a friend has blagged a copy off me and had it professionally framed!
Just enjoy the photography and don’t get hung up on gear. Happy shooting!😀
Hi Nigel, I would like to see a seascape video focusing on the difference between shooting incoming waves against outgoing waves. Thanks Phil
New video idea: Planning a photography trip (using tools like google earth etc in a real world example). Kind of a step by step guide to the target image.
Yes
Thank you
Love this video. Would like to see a very similar comparison of the 24-200 mm against the 70-200 mm f/2.8 at the long end. Also with images printed large. Thanks for all the great content.
My suggestion for a future video would be on editing tips for those of us who are colorblind, not monochromatic (b&w) but dichromatic. But obviously, these tips would still be of value to all you weirdos with normal vision. Many UA-cam vloggers, such as yourself, will sometimes intentionally push color values to an extreme to demonstrate the error in getting carried away with certain editing features. Most the the time, we (or at least I) can see the difference between good and not good. But there are many times when we can't discern any difference between what you would identify as normal vs what you would identify as blown out or unnatural. While the histogram is helpful, it is not a be all and end all, ...because sometimes rules have to be broken. I realize that in the end, there is a great deal of subjectivity in the creative process, so even with my deficiency I have quite a bit of wiggle room. However, it would be nice to be able to stretch beyond my conservative editing and be confident that I'm not completely screwing up an image by pushing values too far.
By the way, I have a 45 x 60 cm (had to break out my American to 'rest of the world' translator to get that measurement, I hope you're properly impressed) image of one of the old barns on Mormon Row in front of the Grand Tetons, that I took with a pre-DSLR 10MP Sony 15 years ago. It looks pretty decent, even close up. As many people have already responded, many factors affect the presentation - subject, composition, framing, matting,, viewing distance.
Great video, and thank you for the tip on upping the resolution in Photoshop!
Future video idea: over coming chaos in a woodland scene.
And we never saw Nigel again... LOL
A great idea for a future video is: "The Benefits of Landscape Photography for us individuals". Most channels talk too much about the technical aspects of Photography, and they never touch the actual benefits the photographer gets for just being in the outdoors. I have a big list just in case my idea is pickup, I will be happy to share it with you, Nigel. Love the sincere way you talk to us on your channels. Thanks.
Very interesting Nigel, especially for those of us who only print occasionally or up to A3 or A4. It would be good to have a video on filter usage - when best to use, how to use and which types. Thanks.
Hello! Here´s an old guy from germany. I love Wales and been there 5times since 1973 (16years) hoping to travel next year (2023) for nearly 4 weeks to Wales and England. Yes, i´m also a Digital Nikon Photographer since 2009, but started with Photography 1972. So, that´s a perfect Video for me, using a D610, Z50 and since 2 weeks a Z5. And I hope to make a lot of photos next year in North-Wales/Anglesey. Finally: I love this video! Tschüß!
This summer, before leaving (finally) on a vacation we found a great deal for the Z5 with the 24-70 f/4 lens included for around 1200 euros. It was about time to upgrade my old D7000, so after a bit of hesitation we decided to go for it, since the deal is rare and usually just the body costs more than that.
So far i find the camera very nice. I know Nikon is getting all the shit from basically every "pro" on YT, but i think they are still good and the Z5 is a great option for an amateur like me.
This video reassures me of the choice to go for it! I do feel bad costing my family 1200 euros for a hobby, but it seems like we got a very good quality for the money. Hope 3rd party lenses come out soon for the Z system so i can get a native zoom. I currently have my old 70-200 Tamron with an FTZ, but honestly it doesn't work perfectly.
Most of the "pros" on UA-cam are professional UA-camrs and do photography on the side. You can really tell the difference with someone like ND or Steve Perry, who make amazing photos and also have a focus on in-person instruction.
The 24-70 f/4 just looks amazing. It will definitely be in the cart the second I go mirrorless. Your path (D7000 --> Z5) is very similar to what I'll be going through (D7500 --> maybe Z6III). (I'd get the Z6-line because I also like to do wildlife and some shooting that is photojournalism-style and requires some speed, like certain street photography situations.)
@@gyozakeynsianism It's all about budget, when you are a pro-summer :)
I got the Z5 cause the 1200 offer with a 24-70f/4 lens was honestly unbeatable, and even today you can't find that. Otherwise i would have waited and gotten a Z62 or something else...
Hope you find a decent offer this blackfriday! :)
@@DobromirManchev Exactly! That's why I'm sticking with my D7500 for now. No more purchases this year (my last was the exemplary AF-S 85mm G) even though I'm itching for FF dynamic range and noise levels! Best of luck to you too and congrats on your excellent purchase.
Like others have said it is all about viewing distance. If you had one of those cameras you will not be comparing it to the other cameras images. The 24megapixel camera will mean you have to get the composition in camera because heavily cropping then printing would be bad news.
For a future video, how about long lens photography on a coastal path.
You have the natural gift in making stunning images. An inspiration to us all. Thank you for taking the time.
Thank you so much for the interesting comparison, Nigel! It is an excellent study. I have the Z6, which has the slightly newer BSI sensor, and have felt that the 24mp is more than adequate for most needs. I do shoot mostly with Fujifilm X-H1 and X-T3 APS-C cameras, which are 24mp and 26mp respectively. With some of the better Fujifilm lenses, I have found them to be incredibly sharp, even at a pixel peeping level. I must admit, though, that I don't do much printing. With that in mind, I would be interested in seeing you do a similar comparison between one of the Nikon APS-C cameras, Z50 or Z fc and their full frame offerings. Thanks again!
Video Ideas
I may be a little late to the party for upvotes but I thought I’d list a few ideas for consideration:
1. A landscape/nature shoot with the 105mm macro lens.
2. ICM - how to achieve different effects.
3. Multiple exposure ideas in landscape photography
The "entry level" (such a misleading term) is better than cameras of just a few years ago. I have a D850 and a Z5 and aside from drastic cropping, both cameras are more than capable. I still think 24MP is a sweet spot...
i was just curious and checked the price for the above mentioned D850....how is that entry level?? thats like 2 lakhs in india....almost 4 times what we call an entry level here...its probably that cameras in india are a lot costlier
@@arvindpillai6693 My point (might not have been clear) was that the Z5 (entry level) produces images that can hold it's own against anything, including the D850.
See Canons latest high end mirrorless camera the R3 using only 24.1 MP and allowing it to achieve 30 frames per sec.
@@chrisbartlett8146 I think Canon is a great system, but I have never liked the way they feel. This goes back to my first holding (dating myself) the A1.
@@maze400 I bought my first camera, a kodak retina 2nd hand 60 years ago and have quite a few since but weight is now a big consideration for me. I use a Canon M5 with EF lenses which is an APS-c camera and 24 mp The reason I mentioned Canon is because their latest Camera which is supposed to compete with other brands and which they are releasing as their top mirrorless camera (almost double the price of their next camera down and 45 mp) has been reduced to 24 mp. This was to enable them to achieve 30 Frames per second so is aimed at wildlife photographers who usually have to severely crop their photo particularly of birds so must consider the resolution is as good as is required for extremely good detail. I have tried other cameras but prefer the feel and size of the camera I have got so understand what you are saying about feel.
I'd love to see a video on composition decisions with urban landscapes - since many of us don't have the lovely countryside close enough to regularly practice and progress
Brilliant content, particularly for me as I am at the decision point of a new camera and lens. Lost my others to an accident, total loss…😢. Any wise, I have really been struggling between resolution as well as lens quality. I have to admit, you have made that struggle a little more difficult for me…🙃. I had my self convinced that 45 MP was the choice based on the philosophy that the tool does matter, while recognizing that 98+% of the shot is down to the photographer and composition! But, if I can get that part right, (big question marks here…😂); I then want to make sure there is nothing technically hindering the photography. So, here are my take always from this: 1). Lens quality plays a bigger part of the final output than many realize…. Therefore, maybe the choice is to spend more money on the lens and give up some MP’s…. 2). 24MP is sufficient for larger prints recognizing that the 99+% of people viewing the photography are not going to be pixel pepping anyway…. 3). Today’s software offers lower MP users some great tools that most probably do not even know are there, I did not…. So, we need to consider all the tools available when making this important decision of what camera system to purchase and then how to process them… I am a Nikon guy myself, so I have some choices available…🙂! Finally, here’s an idea for a later video that I know would help me and I presume many others…. What other tools are available to photographers in Lightroom and Photoshop that the average user may not be aware of? Maybe this is a collaboration with Mads as I know he is a power user of Photoshop…No offense here Nigel, as I believe you are quite skilled here as well…. Just might be interesting to here both your thoughts…. What ever you decide, I am sure it will be great and very useful. Thanks again for a great presentation and subject to consider…
Wonderful comparison that really puts into perspective how powerful even entry level cameras are these days. An idea for the future - photos that you didn’t like, or ignored, when you first took them, but when you went back and revisited them years down the line your opinion had completely changed
Interesting video! Because I could write the check, when I upgraded from my D750/24-120, I went to the Z7ii/24-70 2.8. I’ve loved the results. But this reminds me again that less expensive can still be great if money is (not unreasonably) a constraint. My best photo of this summer was taken on an old D5300/28-200.
For the resolution / print size, I think some people feel that 24MP isn't enough, but when you do the calculations (assuming you're not cropping) you can still get a good sized 13x19 print from a 24MP sensor (at 300 dpi). I would suspect most people who are printing at home wouldn't need much more. And with enlargement software today, you can sometimes get a bit more out of 24MP images if you need something slightly larger.
I agree with you on the DPR stuff and that in reality for most people 45MP vs 24MP isn't going to make a huge difference, and especially for on-screen use only, you probably can't tell the difference anyway as both are more than suitable for even 4k images. And I would think when it comes to print, if you're printing at the native resolution (usually 300 dpi in most cases) that it won't matter as much either (yes you would get a larger print from a higher-resolution camera) but as far as sharpness and detail I don't think the differences would be all that different. And if you're shooting handheld a lot in lower-light conditions, the 24MP camera (versus a 45MP camera, assuming both were Full frame) probably has an advantage anyway so you can possibly get a cleaner shot with the lower-res camera. (I always felt that while high-res cameras can offer great detail, when you start getting into the high-ISO range, the smaller pixels tend to require a bit more work -- in post processing in noise reduction -- over a lower-resolution image from a camera with larger pixels that could probably be shot at a lower ISO and thus a slightly cleaner image that doesn't need as much processing -- and that while you have a higher resolution image from the 45P image, you may have to apply more NR in post to a point where you've now lost some detail compared to the 24MP image that was shot a lower ISO and thus required less/no NR. Of course with technology these days, the differences I see betwen my Z6 and Z7 is maybe 1-2 stops at most in terms of noise performance whereas 10 years ago, that gap may have been larger (2-3 stops difference).
Idea for another video: as lockdown is highly likely to be happening again, can you do a video on finding photos inspiration in a local small patch of woodland/park? Thank you.
Kerry
I don’t think there are going to be any more lockdowns. Nigel has tons of videos in his back catalogue to help you find inspiration.
Just ‘getting out there’ is the main thing. Best wishes taking your shots. 😊
@@petercollins7848 If I had a million pounds in the bank I would quite happily bet it on there being more lockdowns, though I applaud your optimism.
Nice idea, we still have two more months of lockdown in Melbourne.
that's basically quite simple, keep your eyes open, look for unusual details and change your perspective, that was all true long before "corona", you don't need video tutorials for that
I‘d love you to have a look at alternatives to Lightroom and Photoshop for RAW development and image processing. Like Affinity Photo, Luminar, DxO Photolab etc. I know this would be really extensive and expensive but it would be awesome to have a professional photographer compare multiple tools, not only Lightroom vs something
Affinity user here. Very happy with it.
Another Afinity user here learning how to use it.
Nigel, I'm your sub for a long time - somewhere in the first tens of thousand subs. I'm really happy to see that you continue to produce high quality content.
I'd like to see a "Pebbles Challenge," where each of your final images has to have a good shot of Pebbles in it. Location is your choice.😍
I always press the thumbs up before watching any Nigel's video. I know it won't disappoint - and indeed it never does.
Really interesting, Nigel! I just picked up the Z6 as I'm looking to dabble a little in cinematography...
I think a really cool video would be to entirely take yourself out of your comfort zone and try some street photography!
Cheers from Vancouver, Canada.
A few of suggestions for future videos, thanks for asking:
1 - Motion: explain and show how you capture the intent of motion in landscape photography, be it wind, water, etc.
2 - Storytelling: when commission by someone or self motivated, how to interweave a story into your pictures. Do you seek the story or wait for it appear.
3 - Moon: a classic evening subject, it would be great to see you incorporate the early evening moon scape in your landscape.
Cheers, D
Hey Nigel, I’d love to see a video on aspect ratios and how they are suited for different subjects and ways of transforming the aesthetics of a picture. I notice that I can return to my favorite places and still find new compositions just because I restrict myself shooting square or 6:17.
PS: Having a 2 m wide seascape picture on my wall that I shot with a 12 mp D700 looks great from a normal viewing distance. But I guess as photographers we all love coming closer than usual to prints and enjoy the details. So the more dpi we can get the better. Great video! Wonder what that ai based scaling would do to that D700 file.
Hi Nigel, I think what you're running into here is that the perceived quality difference results from printing big, not from shooting big, i.e. pixels per inch on the printer. The breakeven is somewhere in the 200 ppi range. Greater than 300 ppi is good, 200 ppi is a minimum, and 125 ppi is just not good enough on the print. That's why your best shot on the whole video was the uprezzed picture with the better lens from the 24 mp Z5. Years ago I shot airshow pictures with a pro lens (Nikon 70 - 200 f2.8 VR) on a 6 mp D-70. I uprezzed the pictures with Genuine Fractals in order to get great details on large prints. I did the same thing with some 24 x 36 prints to keep feather detail on bird pictures taken with a 10 mp D-200 and later a 12 mp D-300. The uprezzing software is amazing!
Print size depends on subject matter and viewing distance to a large extend. You will have seen iPhone commercials printed as massively large billboards with photos shot on iPhones from 8MP files. Did you ever think these billboards looked horrible? Probably not, because you looked at them from a reasonable viewing distance.
I make large prints from 10MP and 12MP files I shot more than ten years ago. How? I use the "Enhance" and "Super Resolution" feature in Lightroom and if required Topaz Sharpen. My subject matter is mostly street photography - dynamic shots, sometimes with motion blur. They upscale well. They print well to much larger than you would think they should.
In my opinion, you only need more than 24MP if you excessively crop into your shots, losing massive amounts of resolution. Or if you shoot subject matter where every tiny bit of detail across the frame REALLY matters - like macro shots, wildlife detail shots. Maybe some landscapes with massive amount of fine detail you need to preserve for viewers to step up close to a print where they'll look at a particular detail, rather than the whole print.
Very good points, I just commented about the same thing. Viewing distance is a real thing 🙂
Someone always makes the “you only need x number of pixels” or “nobody need more than x number of pixels” in pretty much every video comparing cameras of different pixels.
@@davidpearson3304 Usually in response to videos that claim, "you need at least x number of pixels..."
@@MartinFransson I actually just had a 12 megapixels file shot on a 11 years old Micro Four Thirds camera, at ISO 400 with a 60 years old manual focus lens printed at 30 by 40 inches and the print looks absolutely stunning. You'll have to move in to the image at a feet to notice lack of fine detail. With a print that large, that's basically irrelevant. Don't obsess about print size and megapixels. Basically ANY advanced camera of the past 10 years can produce prints at 30 by 40 inches if you know how to create a great image in camera of the motive you're shooting.
An excellent review of the differences apparent in high megapixel sensors. In reality no one usually prints two versions to check, so either is eminently satisfying. Secondly, who has a house big enough to hang more than a couple of 100 cm prints? All my prints are 50-60 cm on the long edge, and I currently have 12 hanging and no space for more. At 60 cm, 20 -24 MP are more than enough. Mid to high end lenses do make a difference, but I doubt landscape photography calls for more than f4, and f2.8 lenses are heavy and pricey. I feel the latter are aimed at gear junkies and the very few pros who shoot in low light at concerts or indoor sports events.
Of course it's good enough. It's about the frame, the skill and the editing. It's not that far back into past when we only had 12Mpix cameras and 24Mpix was only for super pro top level cameras... Let's not be ridiculous.
Absolutely! Also the false description of certain cameras being so-called ‘full frame’ is just a marketing ploy to get people to spend money they don’t need to! What does ‘full frame’ mean? It is only a description of a camera that has a sensor the size of the old 35mm film cameras. But there is no comparison in reality. Modern digital cameras, in the hands of a non-professional are more than capable of taking equal or even better photos than the old film ones. (Comparison between old lab produced film prints, and the capability of almost anyone at home to produce large and amazing prints).
@@petercollins7848 great point about "full frame". Cause what if I shoot medium format most of my life (which I do) and "full frame" to me is a huge crop from my 6x7cm film negatives? I'm not even gonna start with large format :D
If you want to live in the past is OK. But don't confuse clarity with resolution. You need sharp lenses in order to take advantage of a big res.
He's using a zoom lense, not quite the sharpest, which makes the whole demonstration quite pointless.
@@claudianreyn4529
But obviously not pointless, as we saw various differences/ or not which helped us consider whether we need to go to a high MP. And as most non-professionals will be using moderate level zooms the video was very helpful.
Great video Nigel, thank you. Helps me a lot with my decision for a z7 and z6II. With the money saved on the z7 I will buy a good lens
Another interesting video, and as always cracking images. Watching it got me thinking how interesting it would be to see a similar unbiased, real world comparison between APSC and full frame.
I have always used an APSC camera and have some fantastic lenses to go with it - I know it is not the camera that is the limiting factor in my photography. And yet I still find my self questioning myself whether to invest further into other APSC lenses that I would like (a telephoto and a wide angle) or whether I should just bit the bullet and go full frame. As it stands I and easily see and enjoy the weight and and cost benefits of APSC but don’t really know what the real world benefits of going full frame would be. The internet is far too full of strong opinions on the topic.
Colin, if you are getting cracking images, why are you worrying about ‘gear’? I have printed photos from a 5 MP bridge camera to A3 size and it looks fantastic. It is all about viewing distance. We don’t watch TV with our noses pressed against the screen do we? Well the cat might, if there is any fish in the picture! Happy shooting! 😀
If the keyboard warriors were really as interested as they claim about the extra benefits of full frame over apsc and how much bigger and better the pixel sites are surely they’d all be running and gunning with a medium format Fuji GFX or the Hasselblad X1D? Bigger sensor, at least 50 meg, and top quality glass.
I’ve done the apsc with a Nikon D200, then jumped to full frame with the D700 because back then high ISO and apsc didn’t really work and now I’ve gone full circle back to apsc with Fuji. The image quality at iso 3200 is more than good enough to shoot a wedding hand held in a church and light years away from the D700.
The biggest difference is the quality of your lens. I had a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and you could see the difference in prints from both lenses, the Nikon resolved far more detail than the Sigma, but then it cost twice as much.
Carrying a full frame camera with a battery pack and fast lens all day shooting a wedding is crippling, that’s why I went mirrorless. There are pros and cons to each system but it’s not surprising to find the gear snobs are often the ones who’s egos far outstrip their talents.
That lighthouse picture was stunning. When you were talking about all the little things in the composition you saw and were careful about, I was blown away about the micro level detail that goes into some of your shots
My idea for a video is walking us through the micro details in a composition you decide to make. I know you have some videos like that but perhaps making another one where you show us how one small change here or there changes a composition.
Excuse my run on sentences.
I quit worrying about how big one can enlarge images when a client took a 4.1MP image from a Nikon D2H, blew the middle half of it up to roughly SIX FEET BY 12 FEET and used it on a billboard. Granted it was not a shot from a kit lens (a Tokina ATX Pro 80-200mm f2.8 zoom) but megapixels have meant little to me ever since those days.
Viewing distance matters, but like large format film.....it is not just resolution, but the immense color saturation you get withi bigger film (or more MP), and this you notice at any distance. Whatever distance you view at (make it a constant for both cameras), the higher MP camera (or larger film format) always wins. Now add great glass, and you have a winning combo. Women are right, size matters.
@@alfredv9902 Everything you said ..except the last part...its how you use it..🙃
@@alfredv9902 I understand what you are saying here but, for me, it is more about content. While looking at a medium format image vs 35mm you will see the differences you mention if viewed at the same distance, you will always see differences in resolution and color saturation. But content can win over resolution and saturation for me. As someone who is mainly a black&white documentary photographer, I can live without the need for extras cited in your comment. Thanks for responding though. I loved your thoughts.
@@nickreid5939 Yeah, they tell me that too.
I'm still on 16 MP and find it good for everything I want. I even use my old 10mp camera sometimes and that still holds up as for as I can see.
Hi Nigel, that was a great comparison 👍 Thankyou, I have a Z7 with the 24-70m F4 lens and was wondering if it is worth upgrading to the 24-70 2.8s version ?
Will the 2.8 version resolve more detail and sharpness ? As i find the F4 version soft above A2 prints.
I shoot mainly Landscapes and Architecture and in the F8-F11 range and will be printing beyond A2 and crop out a lot.
Thankyou:)
I’m American. I’ve been to England and loved it and wanted to immigrate but I was too old for that!! You are wearing a KSC shirt and SF hat. Cracks me up. What would our ancestors think? Thank you for this video. Very helpful. The Z5 is great.
Let's be honest, 24mp is more than enough for 99% of the user, I will even go ahead and say 18mp is plenty. Many people's justification for getting a 40+mp camera is so they can crop, if you need that much resolution to crop, either you have the wrong lens or you have no idea how to compose and don't know what you want when you are shooting at the time.
I do like more pixels in the street. When I go out with only one prime, it's nice to have some leg room to crop the image later.
Excellent! Time well spent. Glass can make a difference over MPs.
Brilliant video as usual Nigel! Can’t wait to tune in next week!
I just want to say thank you, I’m quite new to the world of landscape photography and you’ve really helped me a lot with everything from composition to Lightroom. So thank you I really appreciate what you do!
As for video ideas, what sort of process do you go through to find completely new locations?
It’s something I definitely struggle with having spent hours looking on a map to pick out a landscape only to then turn up and be disappointed. It would be interesting to know your thoughts?
I agree with Will. Love your videos and as I am new to this I would love to know your process of finding locations. Working a full time job during the week and only have the weekends makes it a little challenging time wise. Thanks for all you do. You are amazing.
Z 5 is really a good camera in my opinion.
It doesn’t feel entry level in any aspect.
It feels great in the hands, and build quality is amazing.
For the price, here in Croatia when on sale its 950€ !!!
950€ for a camera that great.
Nigel you just showed us what can be achieved with a great lens and a little bit of photoshop.
Amazing results…just amazing.
Very happy for the Z5 😌☺️
Thanks Nigel for this video - very interesting. One idea I would love to see would be a battle of the low res cameras (12MP - 20MP) upscaled in Photoshop using the Super Resolution. After seeing this video, I suspect there may be a less need for higher resolution cameras when you can upscale in post.
Hi Nigel. In lockdown I bought myself a camera & determined to exercise my brain by teaching myself to use it by watching your marvellous videos. I’ve learnt such a lot from basic operation of the camera, focussing & composing the shot to just recently turning on the RAW option instead of JPEG & trying to teach myself how to edit the pictures. I’d absolutely love to win your picture but even more than that I’d love you to come to East Anglia to the heart of Suffolk (or Norfolk) - no hills, no mountains, no waterfalls and challenge you to find a shot that compares with the brilliant work you usually produce. Obviously we have stunning sunrises and sunsets with all this flat land but that would be cheating don’t you think.
I've seen some fantastic photos of misty mornings in the fens with windmills etc. I have the Fotovue book on East Anglia so maybe no mountains but plenty of lovely scenery still.
@@SteveP_2426 absolutely agree Steve. I just love it. I still think it would be great for @nigel.danson to do a video. I’d love to see his approach to it & hear his thought processes. Or which aspect of the scenery he’d choose.
20MP with my tiny m4/3 Olympus is good enough for me. My old and tired computer can handle those file sizes in LR just fine… 😀👍
m43 for the win! Love my Oly.
Nigel, I am super glad you made this video. I'm among the many who grapple with this question. (I'm at a cross roads with my gear, about to step up from DSLR to mirrorless, so a purchase is imminent). My sense is this quandary is due to very contradictory advice out there from "experts" about how much resolution "is needed" to print large. It's very helpful to see the actual prints, and as you did, to swap the lenses back and forth and compare all.
As for the suggestion of a topic for a future video, would you perhaps want to drill down into the observation you shared during this video (and earlier ones) over the quality of the light on a subject and how that conveys the sense of 'feel' or emotion in the final image; not necessarily saying one is better than an other, but just producing the variety of results. Just a thought. Again, fantastic video...super helpful!!! Craig
Well the thing about technology is "Good enough" is not equal to equivalent.
Yes a Nikon D1 was the standard in the 2000s. And with 5MP it will make prints that are "Good enough" to be used in a gallery. The same with APS-C cameras today. However compared to work using a Z7 or an A1/R3, you aren't playing the same game. And any work done on a Z7/A1/R3 is "Good enough" compared to a GFX100/Phase One XF/Hasselblad H6D-400C but not anywhere near equivalent.
There is a reason Movies are shot on either Film or Cine cameras. Yes Full frame Mirrorless/DSLRs are "Good enough" to make a movie out of so why aren't they being used? Because "Good enough" is not good enough when you are competing with people who have the best. The quality of work is constantly getting higher. As it does in every industry.
What people get wrong is although you might have gotten by with a 10MP full frame camera in 2008, you were competing with other photographers who had 10MP full frame cameras in 2008. IE the same or equivalent hardware. Which is so different from today.
In 1931 an Alfa Romeo 8C won Le Mans with 140 bhp. In 2021 a Toyota GR010 won with a combined horse power of 939 hp.
Yes they both competed in the same race and were the best at the time but comparatively they aren't even in the same league. Its the same for Photography and every single other industry. Entry level - "professional" is not an artificial barrier. Its a physical one.
99% of the folks buying photo equipment wouldn't have noticed if he had used an iPhone - hence the precipitous and continuing drop in traditional camera sales.
Landscape photography is not a forensic exercise in data gathering, it's the evocation of a mood in two dimensions. One of my favourite landscape shots was taken on a 16mp aps-c camera and kit lens I keep to hand in the car. Driving over bleak moorland in hill fog and rain, the sky cleared just long enough to pull over and grab a single image, before the weather closed in for the day. In that moment a shaft of golden light illuminated a stone path over the hills, while the rest of the landscape was in semi-darkness and swirling mist. A second before or after, and no amount of megapixels or lens sharpness would have made a better image. If technology makes a photograph objectively "better", it must mean old tech makes in worse. Which is clearly untrue.
Idea:
I have a similar question about quality and sharpness. You actually examine it a bit in this video but a full on video about the lens comparison would be great. Using the same camera, so the megapixels are the same, but a kit lens verses a better quality lens, with the same settings, which produces the better print image and what differences are there between the image. This would help so much in the great debate about whether to invest in a better camera body or a better lens. Thanks so much for all you do. I so look forward to Sunday mornings because of you. Well done today. Thanks.
Love your videos. Why? Just simply because you make me happy🙂 you see the beauty in everything. In textures, light color etc. You have a calm voice and I can hear that you love what you do. And your a bloody great photographer. You inspire me in my photography journey. Keep up the great job.
This was fantastic and so helpful in choosing my next camera. I was just about to buy a full frame DSLR when Nikon released the Z series. I played it safe going to mirrorless by buying a Z50. I’m sold on mirrorless cameras and my budget doesn’t allow me to consider a 7 or 7ll. Now I know there is great potential with a 6, or a 5. My hope is to pursue the Z6 or 6ll in the next few months during the holiday sales. Your hard work to put this video together was so helpful and honest. Since I plan to get a full frame Z, I have purchased some full frame lenses to use on my Z50. Good glass makes a great camera even greater. The only idea I would have for a video is for you share various photos and have us guess which camera you used. Have Nikon donate a camera or lens as a prize. Thanks again and stay well.
I’m in the same boat. Got the z50 but still have my eye on the Z6 for the future. Picked up the 50mm full frame Z lens. Curious about what other Z lenses you chose if you care to share.
@@warlordpriest1 At this time the 50mm full frame and the 24-70mm f/4 lens. Because I bought and still own a D7100, I have Nikon's DX 35mm, 40mm (macro), 18-140mm, 70-300mm and a Tokina 11-16mm that I use with the FTZ adapter. Since I do a lot of landscape shots, one of the wider Z lenses will be my next purchase. My guitar addiction doesn't help my camera budget.
@@jonstout7635 Thanks for answering and sharing that. I’m still in the learning stage. The Z50 is my first Nikon other than an earlier Coolpix, so no reserve of glass here. If the Z5 was a little better in low light it would be a no brainer but it can’t hold a candle to the Z6. Hope to eventually get the Z6 with that 24-70 f/4.
Although I have the two Z50 kit lenses they’re not so great in lowlight. I like landscapes but also nighttime cityscapes. That’s where a faster wide angle lens would come in handy. Also considering getting the ftz and maybe adapting the ultra-wide-angle Nikon AF-P DX 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G VR lens just to get a taste of wide angle shots at a thrifty price. Meanwhile, still a lot to learn with the two kit lenses and the 50mm. Home studio owner and keyboard player so my gear investment has been considerable. Nigel’s observations helped me control the gear lust, put things in perspective and concentrate on getting the best out of what I have. Greetings from Japan!
@@warlordpriest1 You got a much better start-up camera than I did. My oldest daughter majored in photography and my son was and still is an enthusiast. They both got Nikon D50's back around 2005. I had always owned mid-priced 35mm cameras, so they renewed my love for photography. I started out with a used D80 and 4 years later bought the D7100. Now the jump is from DX to FX before I retire and can't afford it. My son has a wide range of Nikon lenses I can borrow including many classics that were on vintage film cameras he bought. I recommend the Tokina 11-16mm. Great lens with a fast aperture of of 2.8 and not expensive. It's discontinued, but can be found occasionally new or used. They make a 16-24mm now. Henry Turner uses the 11-16mm with great results. I admire you for making a home studio work for you. I bought some recording gear twice, and could never discipline myself to record tracks. I used the last Korg unit I had to covert old tapes to digital files and then sold it all. Nice chatting with you and I hope you get your dream camera soon. Greetings from El Paso, Texas - on the Mexican border.
I don't normally "do" half hour videos, Nigel. But this one's exceptional.
For various reasons.
One - it's a sensible, no "bullshit" comparison of both the two different cameras & their sensors, as well as the two different lenses. Most of us don't have access to enough of this gear to make such comparisons ourselves, so we have to rely on people like you to do it for us.
Two - Snowdonia's "something else" - thanks for the guided tour!
Three - I hardly ever go beyond A2 and your comments on this vs. the next size up were very illuminating. Something I've suspected for a while (ever since I printed a cellphone shot at A4, for a friend).
Four - the illuminating comments about the differences between the two lenses.
Five - the same, on the differences in pixel count.
My "biggest ever" print is a one-off - an 8 foot wide panorama of an island off the coast - 10 miles/15 Km off the coast, in fact. I couldn't print it myself, but luckily one of the best colour printing firms in the state is 5 or 10 minutes drive from my place. Joe took it as a bit of a challenge, and produced a fantastic print. I learned something extra. When they tell you that a lens focuses on "infinity", they don't really mean it - after all, who shoots anything that far away? So my "masterpiece" has a slightly dreamy, "painterly" look about it. Next I'm taking the plunge and getting a telescope, that I can plug my camera[s] into - it really DOES go to "infinity", so I'm hoping to return to my island - or rather, the seaside opposite the island - and see how much better it can get.
I also want the 'scope to get a decent shot of the moon - I had a brilliant opportunity a year or so back to capture a harvest moon, and found the same issues with my telephoto lenses. There's nothing "wrong" with them - they do a brilliant job on anything "normal", like birds or wildlife. They just weren't designed with long distances in mind.
And for a whole heap of shots around here, where anything "normal" simply won't have the reach I need.
Black and white, what makes for a great black and white image and then how to edit them.
A+ show again .. thanks for sharing your talent with us
How about something completely different,
A video taking photos with an old 35mm SLR camera.
Poss similar shots from one your previous locations for a comparison.
Imagine, no lcd screen, no auto focus, manual stopping up or down, separate light metre, screw on lenses, sending film to chemists for developing, no post processing.
Would be a bit of fun and interesting to see the comparison from old tech to todays modern electronic equipment (and also a good test of your udoubted camera skills )😀.
After all this is how it use to be for some of us "older ones".
Thanks for this Nigel! This is a fantastic video thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Thanks for sending the photos by mail. The result of the photos is amazing. Accordingly, the Z5 with kit lens and super resolution gives the same result as the Z7 and the 24-70 2.8 lens. Expressed in euros Z5 + kit = € 1,400 against Z7II + 24-70 f2.8 = € 5,000. Respect.
Sorry for my bad english, i'm italian.
I think with today's cameras (and for the most part; there are some exceptions) cameras and kit lenses aren't like they used to be 5-10 years ago, where most people would get rid of their kit lens or just not bother with the kits and buy a body and lens separately. But I think today's kit lenses are much better... for example the Nikon Z 24-70 f/4 is a great kit lens despite it not being as fast as the more expensive 2.8. But from tests I've seen, it does quite well for being a kit lens (in fact in one test I saw, it seemed to rival even the latest 24-70 2.8E F-mount lens in terms of sharpness -- in some areas the 2.8E performed better, but not by much or any significantly noticeable amount, which says a lot for the Z f/4 lens). The Z5 is also one of the most under-rated cameras I think Nikon has. People see the huge crop and slow burst speed of the camera and think it's not that great. And they may be right if you're looking for a camera for video and/or sports/wildlife shooting. The Z5 is not exactly the best option for those (unless you can live with the 1.7x crop and slow burst speed). But it's a great stills camera that you can get on a budget. Buy a used 24-70 f/4 and a Z5 and you can have a nice kit for around $2000.
Edit: Yes I know you used the 24-50 but the 24-70 f/4 is probably slightly better and can still be bought as a kit lens too with the Z6 and Z7. But this does show that the 24-50 isn't that bad of a lens (for being a $300-$400 lens).
Fantastic video. The dead trees in black and white was my favourite image. Video idea: shoot three to five very different scenes and print in black and white only. Explain why black and white suits them better than colour and what to consider when taking a photograph that will be viewed solely in b&w.
Hi Nigel. I was a bit disappointed by the first two pictures because there were two variables, size of sensor and the lenses. Then you got to the lighthouse that was interesting, because we got to see that the image quality in the corners of the earlier images was nothing to do with sensor size and all about lenses.
I've been using the Adobe enhance feature (I shoot Fuji XF) to drag out more detail for cropping and it works remarkably well.
As an idea for a future test episode, how about this.
Z5 v Z7.
Use the kit lens, the f4 and the f2.8. All for the same image on both cameras. So six images in total.
Print each of the full size images at scale of A1, A2, A3. Then on the same size of paper with a 50% crop, including corner and centre detail. I suggest that as a technical exercise composition wouldn't matter.
That would sort out the 'wood from the megapixels' and provide a really solid understanding of the benefits of each sensor with different lenses.
If you were really enthusiastic you could then run them all through Adobe Enhance. On the other hand I guess you aren't into feature length YT productions!!!
I'd love to see a video giving some tips and ideas on how to get started making some money or a following in photography, or just that next step from it being just a hobby. I (and I'm sure many others) feel my gear isn't good enough, my images aren't good enough, and don't know where to start. Would love to hear your thoughts and some insight into where it all began for you. Love the videos by the way!
Corey
Are you showing your prints anywhere? There must be lots of places that would appreciate being given a lovely framed photo or two to display.
This may lead to people requesting a print etc. Remember though to print with non-fading inks and to give advice to keep them out of direct sun.
Good luck!
Congrats Ambassador Nigel! Very well deserved!
Just found this video in my Z5 research. Without a doubt the most informative and comprehensive comparison of not only premium vs entry camera bodies, but kit vs pro lenses (and a mix of both). Excellent work. Thanks Nigel. Also nice to hear it called a 'zed 5" not a 'zee 5'.
Henry Turner basically answered this question a long time ago.
Great video, Nigel. Always a pleasure.
Nigel, can you talk about your experience with photography contests? I wonder what the judging process looks like and how you would approach submissions yourself. Thanks!
Great video! I'm an engineer so very much a linear thinker and struggle with the artistic side of things. I also don't have the time to travel just for the sake of taking photos. Photography usually happens when I'm doing something with my family - hiking, going to the beach etc. I'd love to see a video that would help in those kind of situations and really focus on composition and unique perspectives that someone might not consider. For example, I love that black and white image you took off the dead trees. I would never have stood there and thought I could capture a great image. I'd prefer that image BTW...
Like the video. It reminds me to spend more time outside and less on B&H's website. As someone who lives in the Pacific Northwest, I would like to see a video about photographing in the rain.
I have been professionally editing and outputting digital images since the dawn of the technology, your video displayed a difference in the lenses. Output size (assuming equal quality lenses and a good capture) is simply a mathematical formula. Capture pixels divided by required output resolution per inch or millimeters.
My 24 MP Nikon creates a 6,000 pixel wide capture, printed on high quality archive media, (in general at 200 pixels per inch) creats an art quality print at 30 inches wide. A 48 MP file will be 60 inches wide at the same output resolution, assuming the same aspect ratio.
I agree with those who said lensess trend to be more important than the camera.
And for a future video, would be nice to see some people rating prints you have done and picking their favorites.
Amazing comparison Nigel,,, thanks. I have just completed a product shoot at a local beach area with a camera club, and what I discovered was the Tons of different shots, because of the many different compositions within the area,,, rocks, sea, woods, under normal landscape shooting, you would Not see more than a couple of shots, but because of it being a product shoot i.e. a wee bottle of your favourite tipple sitting on a rock or something like that, the compositions grew tenfold. So I suggest a product shoot in an area that doesn't normally give many landscape shots, and I think you will be amazed at the number of compositions you will see, it amazed me? Good luck Nigel.