Your questions answer on exposure, raw vs jpeg, lenses and more

Name: Your questions answer on exposure, raw vs jpeg, lenses and more
Uploaded: 2025-01-07T16:47:02.880Z
Duration: 17 min 43 s
Channel: BHG Photo Video (Zoom Plus!)
Description: #Education, #Photograper ,#filmmaker, #makevideo

BHG Photo Video (Zoom Plus!)

5 Video Views·Jan 7, 2025 #Education #Photograper #makevideo

#Education, #Photograper ,#filmmaker, #makevideo

Hi everyone, I'm going to go through your questions on YouTube and give you slightly more in-depth answers. So the first question comes from John and he says, do you use any filters for landscape photography? The answer to that is no, I don't. I don't use any filters for landscape photography. The only filter that I think is worth using is a polarizer filter. I just don't own one, so I don't use it. I probably should buy one, but I just never get around to doing it. But the, you know, all the ND filters and stuff, they just do nothing for digital photography. It's okay if you like using them, then use them, but they're really left over from the film days. But if you enjoy the process and you like using them and you get your results that way, then, you know, continue to use them and do so. Why do you have a tripod mounting plate on the bottom of your camera? Okay. Martin, I have a question. Canon 5D Mark II or Canon RP, good for photography landscapes? Canon RP, just if anything, just for the tilt screen, really. And also just it can do focus stacking into the camera. You can do extended bulb exposures as well. You can say you want to put in a three minute exposure, you can do that in camera as well. The screen on the back is better as well. I prefer the output mostly from the 5D Mark II, but for landscapes, it's, yeah, not for landscapes. I think when I say I prefer the output from the 5D Mark II, for portraits, I prefer it. But for landscapes, I think the RP is the better camera of the two, definitely. It's just all of those modern features add up to a more usable camera. The high ISO, if you want to do any astro stuff as well, is really good in the RP. You can shoot at 6,400, 12,800, and it's all usable. It's a very good camera for landscapes, actually. Regarding the 16-35mm f4, do you prefer it over the 17-40mm f4? Yes, I do. Actually, having owned it for longer, you know what, I had the 16-35mm f4 before, and I was just like, meh about it. And then I kind of sold it and kept with the 17-40mm. The 16-35mm is noticeably a bit better, definitely. The image stabilisation in it is a thing for me that's really useful if you have a camera that doesn't have IBIS built into the body, because it allows you to do a reasonable amount of handheld photography without using the tripod. The 17-40mm is still a very, very good lens, but I would say that if you have a 17-40mm and it's your primary lens, I would just keep using the 17-40mm, because the 16-35mm isn't leaps and bounds better. Definitely not. And the 17-40mm is still very, very good. So I would only switch to a 16-35mm if you want to do more work handheld, or it's your primary lens that you use as that focal range. Do you usually shoot live view with the 5D Mark II for exposure accuracy? I get unpredicted exposure results when I use the viewfinder with this camera. Yeah, the metering the 5D Mark II is not great, so it does help with that, definitely, to get your exposure. So there's a couple of ways you could use the live view on a camera like the 5D Mark II. You could use it to get your exposure, and then just shoot and use the viewfinder. But the reason that I do it is two reasons why. One is so I can show you on YouTube what I'm doing, because if I'm holding the camera up to my face, you can't see it. Does that make sense? So I can show you on YouTube. But I would shoot like that anyway, even if it wasn't YouTube. Well, I might use the viewfinder more. But the thing is, when I'm holding the camera like this, I like that I can see everything around me at the same time. And for me, that gives me a better... I just feel more connected to the landscape like that when I'm holding the camera away. And I just feel like I'm more connected to what I'm doing. When I'm looking through the viewfinder, it gives you more of a tunnel vision. The ultimate answer is, you should just do whatever you prefer. Don't listen to anyone else. Be yourself. Just do what you want. If you want to mix and match, sometimes use a view... That's me more realistically. If I'm not filming for YouTube, I would be backwards and forwards between the viewfinder and the LCD, and it would just be whatever I'm feeling. It's not always logic-driven. It's always just like, oh, I'll put the camera... You just do it, and then you use it like that. So try using the LCD on the back. See how you get on with that. See if you like it. Give it a fair go, and then pick what you like. And don't do this thing when you end up shooting somebody else, just because they do it like that. Just do what you want. You'll be all right. This is a DSLR-based question. Dr. Pentecost, I think that's how it's said. When shooting at 1.8, are you using the center focus point and recomposing, or are you using the outer focus points? That was probably a question for the D600. I use the outer focus points, and then I recompose because I'll just get a focus point that's relatively close to the framing that I want, and then I'll do a small focus and recompose rather than doing a bigger one from the center. But if I broaden the question out to other cameras like the Canon cameras, it depends on the lens. So with the 5D Mark II or 5D Mark I, you have to test your camera body with your lens and see how accurate it is with the outer focus points. And it will be for that lens on that camera body, and then you have to do that with all your other lenses as well. And then you'll know whether you can get away with it and try it on moving subjects. So you don't do that. You don't test stuff like that on a photo shoot. You just test it with a friend or your partner or anything. Just try stuff out and experiment and see how reliable the focus is on the outer focus points. And if it's not reliable, then you need to focus and recompose. But obviously, when you're going to wider apertures, it becomes harder. So let's say you've got a 1.4 or 1.2 prime, and you want to shoot it wide open, but your outer focus points aren't very accurate, but your center one is, which is usually the case with those kinds of cameras. Then what you need to do is you need to shoot with the center focus point, do a minimal recompose. So it's not actually pulling the picture into the composition you want and then crop it afterwards. That's what I do, because then it's going to actually be in focus. That is often the only way that you can do it. You could manual focus, but then if your subject's moving at all, it doesn't really work. Dr. Pentecost again says, is there any reason why you don't mention the Canon 6D Mark II? I'm going to answer that because loads of people keep asking me about the 6D Mark II. He says here, I can't find any videos that you've done about it. It's got face tracking. I've never used it. That's it. I generally don't spend much time talking about stuff that I haven't used. I made a video before about full frame cameras that I thought were good budget options. And I got a lot of people saying, I can't believe you didn't mention this camera or that camera. And just one thing I'd remind all of you is that when people are talking about things that they like or they rate, and you know, I'm saying this Sony's good and that Canon's good and this Nikon's good. I'm talking about cameras that I've used. So I'm not going to start mentioning the whole range of things that are out there that are good budget options. If I haven't actually experienced them and used them, because that's not a genuine recommendation. So always just bear that in mind. Whenever you're watching a YouTube or reading a review of something, if they're not mentioning something, it's probably because they haven't got any experience of it. And if you like a camera, you think you should write something about it or make a video about it, or, you know, make a comment on a forum, make a post on a forum about it. So people can see that. There's a lot of, I think Pentax users, maybe Panasonic users using cameras that I've never even seen in real life saying this camera's brilliant. Go and write a report on it online so people can read that, you know, it's a good thing to do so other people can see it. And then they might consider buying Mammo Monken. I hope I said that right. So you do prefer the 6D Mark I to the 5D Mark III. I prefer the sensor in the 6D Mark I to the 5D Mark III. The 5D Mark III is a better camera. It's the best camera body, better autofocus, just better ergonomics, better handling, everything else that goes with it. What Canon should have done is they should have put the 6D Mark I sensor into the 5D Mark III. Even if you want to bump up the megapixels a little bit for that as well, I'd be fine with that, if that's what they want. But they really got that wrong. They got that wrong. Why didn't they put the 6D Mark I sensor in the 5D Mark III? The 5D Mark III is a great camera. I had it, I shot some weddings on it, I did portrait shoots on it, and I didn't have too many issues with it. However, there's tons of really good photos on it, so none of that should hold you back. It's a great, great camera. It's just that the sensor in the 6D Mark I is just so much better. It feels like it's a generation or two, it feels like a whole generation ahead of the 5D Mark III. I'd say that's about accurate. It feels a full, full-on, solid generation ahead of the 5D Mark III. Better image quality, better dynamic range, it's got nicer skin tones, it's just got a nicer color overall, it's got better ISO performance. Yeah, it's a definite step up. So yeah. Dunk O says, one question, does the in-camera histogram represent the tones in the file or those showing on the display? Thanks. It's those shown on the display. It's the histogram in your camera is reflecting your JPEG settings. Doesn't matter if you're shooting RAW only, you still have a JPEG picture profile selected, right? Even if you're shooting RAW. So you say, I'm shooting RAW and your picture style is standard or neutral, but you still have to pick one of those. The histogram you get is for the JPEG. So you've always got much more latitude in the files than the histogram says. But as long as you get close with the histogram, then you'll be fine. Do you use RAW or JPEG? I use RAW, but I would shoot JPEG and I will do some shoots in JPEG. People that use Fuji a lot, some of them really like the film simulations that are in there. So they'll shoot JPEG for that. And I really like on the 5D Mark II, the JPEG rendering for portraits and for wedding outdoor kind of stuff. And I will do some videos on that later in 2023. I'll do some videos where I shoot JPEG on the 5D Mark II and show the rendering that comes from that. And you can still edit quite a lot more than you think on a JPEG. Yeah, you can do still quite a bit to it. And it does bake in the camera's own kind of look and feel. Be a thinking person and say to yourself, do I like the way that JPEGs come out of this camera? Are there times when I can use this? If yes, then use that when you want to. If not, then shoot RAW. But yeah, don't just blindly shoot RAW or blindly shoot JPEG because people say that's what you should do. Think through your own use case and say, do I like the JPEGs from this camera? Are there any circumstances when this is so close to what I'd want anyway that I might as well just shoot it and do it? That's fine. There's no right or wrong. There's all this oh, you must only shoot RAW if you're a professional photographer. I'll tell you something. There are photographers that shot in JPEG their entire career that will smoke 99% of the photographers out there today. 99% of them, really. Just wondering what focus points do you use for the 5D Mark IV to shoot a wedding? When I use the 5D Mark IV, I do that thing. I'm trying to remember exactly what it is, but I tend to cut down the focus points to when it's 15 or 16 or something like that, the lowest number, so I can just move the focus point around quickly. And then I do mini focus and recomposes off that because it's too slow when you've got the maximum number of focus points on the screen to just keep moving them around when you're trying to catch moments. It's just too slow. That's my feeling on it. It's too slow. Hi, which metering type would you use on the 5D for landscape photography? I just use what it, what's it called? The matrix or evaluative, another one that does the entire scene. I just use that and I will take a test exposure, look at the histogram and adjust from there. So normally I will, I have a good feel for the camera, so I'll usually look at the meter to get my first shot. And if you're not sure, if you're not used to doing that, do this. Just send to the meter, take a picture, look at the histogram, look at the overall image and then adjust from there. Does it need to go a bit brighter? Does it need to go a bit darker? Change your exposure and go from there. That's the best way to do it. XCX asks, do you not use back button focusing? No, I don't. And the reason I don't do it is just because I can't, I tried for a very long time and it just doesn't work for me mentally. I understand the benefits of it completely. So please, you don't need to write them down. I get that, but it's never clicked for me and I've really tried with it. And I just find that the sort of using the shutter button and I've never missed anything or had any problems. So I just go with what I'm comfortable with, but I get logical benefits of back button focusing. I just can't think like that for me. It's like I'm right-handed. It feels like I'm using my left hand instead of my right hand. That's what it feels like to me with back button focusing. So I'm not going to do it, but you do whatever it's right for you. If you like it, do it. Do you still have your 40D? Colin asks. Yes, I do. And it's broken. It doesn't work, but I still have it. Fernanda De Giovanni asks, if you could only afford one lens for landscaping, which one would you choose? So that was on a 5D Mark I video. Right. If I could only have one lens, let's say it's on a budget for Canon. And I know that these things budget's relative. So for some people, they might say that's still too expensive. I'd get a used 17-40 F4. Canon 5D Mark II video that I did, 55play, says, is it easy to focus on moving objects like animals with a 5D Mark II? No, it's not. Not by today's standards. Mohammed asks, would it be wrong if I got the Canon RP with the EF 70-200 2.8 Mark III? No, it wouldn't go for it. 4th Lensman says, I'm not saying you're wrong and that it's not completely subjective, but I'm struggling to see how a 5D Classic would win out of over the D800 for portraits. Please could you enlighten me further? The 5D Classic is the portrait master. I'm struggling to see how the D800 beats the 5D Classic for portraits. Skin tones, man. Rendering. D800 is a great camera. Smokes the 5D Classic for nearly anything else. But the 5D Classic is, to my mind, one of the very best, if not the best, portrait digital cameras of all time. Like even nowadays, outside of medium format, so I'm not going to include medium format, you know, let's say of a full frame sensor with all the right things of, you know, within your control as they are in a portrait shoot. I think that for most photographers, the 5D Classic would be really hard to beat for a portrait shoot. Really, really hard to beat. But yeah, it's about renderings and skin tones and so on. It just looks fantastic. It's very, very good. One of my landscape photography videos, how far do you travel to find those spots? Like the locations that I go to for landscapes? Yeah, long way. I drive 600, 700 miles sometimes. Yeah, fair way. But I wouldn't stay just for a day if I'm doing that. I would stay for a longer period of time. DJP asks, hey Martin, would you care to explain your reasoning behind shooting in sRGB for weddings? I've always heard that one should shoot in Adobe RGB as that provides more color range for printers. Those settings are for your JPEGs and camera, so if you're shooting RAW, it doesn't have any impact. So when I do a menu walkthrough and it's set to sRGB, it doesn't matter what it's set to, just set it. Anyway, that's it for today's Q&A. Like, subscribe, drop me a comment. See you again next video. Take care. Bye-bye.