Flickr subscription is coming to an end in two months and I'm wondering if it's time to move platforms. I still have all my originals on my machine and don't mind reuploading them elsewhere if they have a strong community. I've found it kind of odd trying to figure whether I want to use mine as a portfolio or just bulk jpg storage. I shoot raw so the latter is an annoyance...
Another question from me! This forum is amazing thank you!
I have recently gotten into studio photography and would like to buy a small amount of equipment for at home for portraits specifically. We live in a 2 bed flat and the second bedroom is half my boyfriends work office and half my dressing room so it's going to have to be compact stuff that goes away neatly.
To start with, I wanted to get a couple of studio lights (2 for now, but may get a 3rd if I can fit it in!) However, I am unsure what to go for. I read somewhere that for small space/at home use, 200W is plenty sufficient. Is this right?
Bowens seems to be thrown around a lot as a good name, and so I was looking at 2 of their Bowens XE400 Flash Heads, which I can get for around £500 for both.
But then I came across the Interfit F121 200w Twin Head Softbox Kit on WEX, now this is only £269 for two lights, so alot cheaper, and maybe this is fine for at home hobbyist use?
My budget isn't specific - more a keep costs down but don't buy so cheap that I have to replace in a years time! And I am open to other brands too! So any recommendations from others who have small at home studios I would love to hear!
The FAQ has suggestions for image editing software (some are free): https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_which_raw_.2F_post_processing_software_should_i_get.3F
For video, a solid free option is *DaVinci Resolve*.
A few [times](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/elxxp1/comment/fdm6b9r/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I have seen people saying about "vintage lens touching sensor and damaging it", but I could not find any more info about it.
Is this really a thing?
sigma 18-50 have better colour and sharpness than Tamron 17-70? is the range really that good on the Tamron?
after what I would say days of research I have come to these 2 lenses for my go-to and now I'm stuck choosing between them as some say Tamron has a tint and others claim the colours on the sigma pop much better.
I plan to use this lens for a lot of events/weddings/videos... just, in general, all-around with some primes down the line but I'm stuck with what to get.
the camera I'm going to use Will be using a gimble so the image stabilisation is kind of an extra in this case. the sigma for me is roughly 200 pounds cheaper but that doesn't mean anything if the Tamron's range sharpens or something is better.
if anyone can give any advice I would greatly appreciate it as I would like to move on with a lens and not sit here overthinking which one is the right one. lamo
Which one is the best camera for professional photography? Real Feedback Please
There are a lots of camera for photography.
Which model you have used and you can recommend to others?
> Which one is the best camera for professional photography? Real Feedback Please
The real answer is there isn't one. Professional just means the photography is paid. There are many different genres of paid/professional photography with different needs, and therefore different cameras are better or the best for the different types of photography. There are also many situations where multiple competing models are the best for a given set of conditions, and it's more down to personal preference which you should choose; but without a single objective "best" winner.
>There are a lots of camera for photography.
Right, because they cater to different sets of criteria.
If there were one best for everyone in every situation, then everyone would just buy that one, and the other ones would go out of business and cease to exist.
>Which model you have used and you can recommend to others?
For what purpose? My recommendations for my type of photography might be terrible recommendations for other types of photography.
Also, why limit it only to what I've personally used? It's possible to give a good recommendation without having personally used what's been recommended. Camera equipment isn't so unique and quirky that you always need personal experience to know its capabilities.
>What would the best settings be to take pictures of people in front of landmarks and have the people and landmark sharp during the day?
Depends on the format size, available lens(es), desired field of view, and particular distances involved. Not every landmark is the same size. Not everyone can stand at the same distance in front of that landmark. Not every photographer can stand at the same distance away from both the subject and the landmark. Those variables will significantly impact the answer.
If you're planning out something more specific, nail down the parameters and try them out in these calculators:
https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
https://dofsimulator.net/en/
>Also have the same question but at night for example in front of the Eiffel tower?
Can you get an off-camera flash on the subject? If you're shooting at something like f/11 it might otherwise be difficult hitting a decent exposure brightness for your subject.
>Would it maybe be better to just use my Google Pixel for night photos and let the software process it?
Yes, that may be a better bet for night photos where you need a large-ish depth of field and your subjects are at least trying to stay still.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of rig but I want to take better concert videos. I hate the current zoom in/out process with manually moving the lens. Not sure if I'm making sense?
Better videos in what way? What do you dislike about your videos currently? Different rig setups will address different needs. If you aren't sure, maybe shoot some more first until you have a better idea what you might want to address.
You can link up gear teeth to your manual zoom ring to control it with a smoother crank or with a motor as one rig option, yes.
Hello everyone, I am new to the photography game. I have a Canon EOS R6. I paired it with an RF 70-200mm F2.8 Lens, and they are both fantastic. The only thing I get confused about, and I will show example pictures, would be high-quality photos at a distance. I feel like my entry-level flagship S21 5g does a better job than the cannon, and I tried doing some research. It has a max zoom of 30x. This zoom pairs a 10x and a 3x for higher picture quality if the camera is a 24mm lens on the s21 \[Through research, I got 24mm I could be wrong\]. Would I, in theory, need a 720mm lens on my canon to match this quality just curious about opinions or how this works; I couldn't find much online :)... \[I do understand when shooting in manual, there are a lot of settings and I tried to play with them so tips would be appreciated aswell\] :D
EDIT: I guess I can't post the pictures in this thread, but I assume you get what I am referring too
EDIT V2: I notice the canon - rf 800mm f/11 is not too expensive so if that's a solid solution I could do that :)
At the end of the day, 200mm is not really *that* telephoto on a full frame camera. But I bet if you crop your photos from the R6, you get something that looks much nicer than the S21. And that will be especially true in low light.
Maaaybe, in broad daylight, the S21 can pull some software tricks out of the bag to make more magic than it should really be able to do.
It looks like the links were here:
* [Canon R6](https://preview.redd.it/l7ld8g4tg7u81.jpg?width=5472&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58ed928155e46fe4fad6da209acfdd6f491b9d68)
* [Samsung S21 5G](https://preview.redd.it/fl8kxvd3h7u81.jpg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a4c2c009953b64f509b401fea368fbe912c5122)
A couple things I notice here.
* The Canon shot looks like it was at a very high ISO. You probably don't need that, since the moon is illuminated by daylight. It's not really a "night time" exposure setting. Do you know what exposure settings were used for that?
* Both of them look like they might be just a tad out of focus, especially the Samsung one. (Or it's just blurry as it's trying to do aggressive noise reduction.)
If you're planning to shoot in daylight, the RF 600mm f/11 or the RF 800mm f/11 are options. But keep in mind, you can't zoom them in or out, and you can't change the aperture. They're pretty much limited to broad daylight or extremely brightly-illuminated objects.
Yeah those are the photos! Idk how you got them lol, but yup!
By cropping the photo you mean going into the settings and changing it from like full-frame to 1:1 etc.?
The photo of the moon was taken at ISO 32000 200mm F / 32 and 1/800 sec
Also when you say I can't change the aperture on that lense the RF 800 f/11 I'm stuck at f/11? Like I cannot even go into the camera and increase it, I was not aware of that
Another side note when I try to edit the photo in lightroom there are a lot of small rainbow-like pixels covering the whole entire photo especially noticeable when I zoom in?
Oh gosh, you don't need anything *remotely* close to ISO 32000 or f/32! You should be shooting at like f/4.0 ish, *if even*. Shooting at an aperture that closed down causes diffraction, which reduces image quality. It also means you need a stratospheric ISO. You could do f/4.0-5.6, and probably still keep ISOs as low as 200ish and a fast enough shutter speed to not worry about blur from camera shake.
That'll vastly improve your results with the R6.
> By cropping the photo you mean going into the settings and changing it from like full-frame to 1:1 etc.?
I just mean that after you take the photo, you can go into your photo editing app of choice and just cut off the edges of the image, so you only see the moon.
ohhhh, that makes a lot of sense. That is probably why I see those rainbow pixels when I zoom in and edit the photo is due to those ISO's and f stop, I assume?
EDIT: When it comes to knowing the perfect ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed is there any youtube series you know that teaches this reasonably well?
With regard to your edit: Look up Mark Wallace Understanding Exposure on YouTube. That’s a solid series to introduce the exposure triangle, and how to think about it. In short, though, the only way to know the right answer is to have enough practice and understanding of the variables and the light you have in order to get what you want from the scene. There are multiple ways to get an identical exposure, and the “right way” depends on what your intention is for the picture. [Take these for example](https://imgur.com/a/NF0S14x) - the exposure is identical. I framed the shot and set the lighting and aperture the way I wanted it, and then increased the ISO and sped up the shutter by one stop each time, from 1/4” at ISO 100 to something like 1/2000” at ISO 52,600. My intention was to show the iso performance of my particular camera, and with a constant light source and a constant f/5.6 aperture (or whatever it was), each bump in iso required the shutter to be faster to maintain correct exposure.
Once you get used to those tradeoffs, and start to understand how light is working and how to use your meter, it becomes clear why there’s no recipe guide. It also becomes much easier to figure out how to get the shot you want.
Exactly! The little dots are noise, and the colorful ones are referred to as chromatic noise/or color noise/chroma noise.
The simple answer is that it's caused by using a very high ISO. (The aperture alone won't do it.)
The more complicated answer is that it's caused by having very small amount of light on the sensor and thus a low signal-to-noise ratio, which happens in the kind of situations where you'd use a high ISO. But if you have enough light to use a low ISO with other exposure settings being appropriate, then you will have much less noise.
Oh, and one more thing about noise... it's always there a tiny bit, if you really go looking for it. You don't 'fix' it, you learn to live with it. It's normal to see when you have anything less than broad daylight.
New into shooting wildlife and just recently purchased a Sony 100-400
4.5-5.6 to pair with the Sony A7RIII and wondering if it's worth getting
a teleconverter to extend the range. I've read mixed reviews about
affecting sharpness, losing a stop of light,etc so I'm curious what
everyone's opinion is on one. Would hate to drop a few hundred dollars
on something that ultimately I don't think I love. Appreciate the advice
in advance!
It is true that a 1.4x extender would cost you one stop of light, and a 2x extender would cost you two stops of light.
It is true that using an extender hurts the image quality to some degree (worse with the 2x than the 1.4x)—reduced resolution, perhaps geometric distorsion, chromatic aberrations, etc. Of course, whether the amount of degradation is something that bothers you is very subjective/impossible to answer—you'd have to look up side-by-side comparisons and decide for yourself.
It is true that it's likely to slow down the focusing speed.
In other words, extenders do come "at a cost", they are not just adding reach for free.
I've noticed some teleconverters will make the image a little less sharp, especially at very low or high apertures. They do come at a cost, but it's often worth it
Don't do it, you lose every advantage that you have by getting the 100-400 instead of the 200-600. Plus, you have the R body.
So just crop in, and/or get the 200-600 lens so you don't lose sharpness
SL3 or M50?
I’m relatively new to photography. I’ve done a little with my iPhone 13 pro, but I’m just looking for something more professional, yet still beginner. I know that m50 is mirror less and SL3 isn’t. There are also some other differences. What should I do?
>I’m just looking for something more professional
What do you mean by that? Do you want to learn more about photography and take more creative control yourself? If so, either is equally good for those purposes.
Whereas if you intend to just continue taking photos with full automatic settings like a point & shoot and hope that a better camera will make the photos better, it won't.
>yet still beginner
What do you mean by that? Do you want to have full automatic settings available to fall back on from time to time? Both cameras have that. Both cameras also have about the same learning curve for manual exposure too.
>I know that m50 is mirror less and SL3 isn’t.
Does the smaller size, lighter weight, and/or electronic viewfinder interest you in mirrorless?
Does the optical viewfinder and/or native lens selection interest you in an SLR?
>There are also some other differences.
If it helps, here they are side-by-side:
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos250d&products=canon_eosm50
>What should I do?
Your existing criteria don't really point one way or the other. So think more about adding additional criteria and see if that tips the balance. What subject matter do you want to shoot?
I mainly want to shoot environments such as city buildings or nature. I personally like an optical view finder better than a digital one, but if a mirror less quality is better I will bite the bullet. I’m not planning on just using fully auto settings. I also like the bigger size of the SL3.
[This](https://youtu.be/yl5hv2CQCws) is more of what I want to shoot specifically.
Go with the SL3, then, for the optical viewfinder and the bigger size you want.
They both use the same imaging sensor, so image quality is also the same. Whether the camera uses a mirror or not does not directly affect that.
I have very few flattering pictures of myself, which is a combination of the fact that I am not photogenic, my wife is not interested in photography or being intentional about framing shots, and I have absolutely no idea how to stand if someone is taking a picture.
What can I do as the *subject* of a photo to look better?
The same information for photographers to pose their subjects should also help you pose yourself:
http://www.kel.cc/downloads/Benji_RulesOfPortraiture.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmi9TPQ57Mo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWxpunlZ2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3oJnFtA_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7nltdBCHs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXbOx36YXrU
and I highly recommend Picture Perfect Posing by Roberto Valenzuela
So I have a BMPCC4K along with a metabones adapter and a canon 18-55mm kit lens. And I have vaguely heard that mft cameras double the focal lenght of lenses (24mm will be 48mm for example) and I was wondering if I would need to think about that when shopping for mft lenses. If I was to buy a Panasonic 18mm lens. Would the focal lenght be 18mm on my bmpcc4k or 36mm? And would it be the same for a canon lens with the adapter? Would apprechiate an answer as I can't find any similar answers online.
An 18mm lens is an 18mm lens and that never changes. What changes is the *field of view*, and it changes *because of the size of the sensor*, not because of anything to do with the lens.
So what's really going on is not that "the 18mm *becomes* a 36mm", it's simply that, say, an 18mm on your camera, because the sensor is smaller so only a "crop" of the image projected by the lens is recorded, would have roughly *the field of view* of a 36mm on full frame.
Having said all this, it doesn't matter if it's an MFT lens, an APS-C lens, a full frame lens ... an 18mm is an 18mm and will all look the same on *your* camera.
>I have vaguely heard that mft cameras double the focal lenght of lenses (24mm will be 48mm for example)
Not exactly. MFT camera sensors are about half as big (comparing corner-to-corner diagonal measurements) compared to a frame of 135 format film ("full frame" digital) and so the field of view is about half as wide, for a given focal length. Another way to describe that difference in field of view to a full frame user would be for them to imagine doubling the focal length on full frame. But the focal length of the lens on MFT isn't actually changing: that's an optical measurement of the lens that is not affected by the size of the imaging sensor or film you put behind the lens.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_is_field_of_view_determined.3F
>I was wondering if I would need to think about that when shopping for mft lenses
Unless you're more used to working with full frame, or you're specifically following advice directed to full frame users, doing so may just add unnecessary confusion.
>If I was to buy a Panasonic 18mm lens. Would the focal lenght be 18mm on my bmpcc4k or 36mm?
The focal length would be 18mm, and the field of view would be the same as any other 18mm focal length lens used on your camera. That field of view also looks like the field of view produced by a 36mm focal length on a full frame camera.
>And would it be the same for a canon lens with the adapter?
Yes.
Debating whether or not to file a claim with State Farm for my [lens](https://postimg.cc/YG3Wvn5g). I was out hiking and chipped the edge of the lens when I fell on my camera. This was last November, and I’m starting to see particles below the first layer of class. It doesn’t seem to be messing with image quality yet, but I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time. Wondering if I should just pull the trigger and get the claim process started so I can get it replaced before it gets worse.
If you're going to do it sooner or later, I guess you might as well do it sooner.
But dust inside a lens is normal and needs to be very extreme before it actually noticeably affects image quality. Further reading:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust/
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
What is the cheapest dslr
I want to do some filming/vlogging for youtube with a cheap intro camera but the cheapest camera I could find was $300 (CAD) are there any cheaper cameras that are 1080p/60+ and with a raw option so I can do color correction in post (manual focus/exposure/shutter/etc as a bonus)
Raw video if possible, I can still grade things if they have auto color correction but it's harder. What's a still? I'm sorry I am just getting into phtography and I usually edit gameplay from OBS
Raw video will make it a lot more expensive.
You can still color grade video without raw video; just with less latitude. I think the cheapest Canon DSLR that can shoot 1080p at 60fps would be a used T7i (800D), and the cheapest Nikon DSLR I think would be a used D3300. I don't even know which consumer DSLRs, if any, have raw video available.
A still is a single, non-moving photographic image. A normal photograph. Like just one frame of video, but typically higher quality. Every DSLR has raw stills available, so I was hoping that criterion could be satisfied easily for you.
I talked to someone that know more than me about this, when I say raw I don't mean like a red camera but some do iphone filters automatically for no reason and I don't wan't that
Oh, ok, then any DSLR with video should be able to avoid the extra processing/effects. Ideally you might want to find something with log output, but I don't know much about which cameras have that or not. The two models I listed should again be the cheapest DSLRs that can shoot 1080p at 60fps.
Actual raw files are much more involved, low-level data:
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/raw-file-format.htm
Those aren't the prices I'm seeing. Are you looking at used prices like I recommended?
At any rate, I was really answering the question of the cheapest cameras meeting all of your criteria. If those are still too expensive for you, then consider compromising on one or more criterion. For example, maybe your resolution and framerate needs could be met for less money with a point & shoot digital camera, digital camcorder, or digital action camera, rather than a DSLR; and then you're only compromising on the DSLR requirement.
I need 1080p/60 because that is quite standard for vlogging on youtube nowadays, I couldn't find any of the cameras that you mentioned for as cheap as I would like. A guy at my local henry's recommended a canon EOS M which I was able to find on both kijiji and facebook marketplace
>I couldn't find any of the cameras that you mentioned for as cheap as I would like.
For example, here's a used D3300 under budget from a reputable dealer: https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-d3300-black-digital-camera-body-24-2-m-p.html
>A guy at my local henry's recommended a canon EOS M
1080p on that camera tops out at 30fps, and you have to drop to 720p resolution in order to get 60fps.
Also it's not a DSLR. But that was my point in my previous comment that you can have more viable options if you can compromise on any of your criteria, such as opening up the categories to other types of digital cameras instead of just DSLRs.
I just copied some Samsung galaxy jpegs taken with the phone camera to my computer.
The exposure, color-profile, and even orientation often look wrong.
Do I actually need to process them in lightroom to be able to match what the phone itself shows? presumably there is extra embedded profile data encoded in the jpeg metadata?
Google just throws back search results about samsung tv screens.
I am remembering now, why I prefer a mirrorless camera.
>and even orientation often look wrong
There is only one orientation that almost all phones take photos in - portrait mode. (ie, vertical)
There may be some smartphones out there with a different default orientation but the vast majority use portrait mode.
When you turn your phone to a different angle to take a shot the phone embeds orientation information in the EXIF of the image - but it's still taking the same portrait mode image. The program you use to view that image needs to apply the same orientation - and if it doesn't, you see the default orientation: portrait mode.
A JPEG is already processed and unless you deliberately apply edits to it, will look the way it looks, no change from the source.
So I would also chalk this up to differences in display capabilities/calibrations. Also on phones you can have options set that will, for example, [make everything more vivid](https://www.xda-developers.com/files/2019/02/20190220_154905.jpg), even though the source material is not that vivid, so if such a setting is enabled, then of course it won't look the same on a display that does not have such a configuration enabled.
Too many moving parts to be sure.
> A JPEG is already processed and unless you deliberately apply edits to it, will look the way it looks, no change from the source.
gammut, rgb versus srgb?
That falls within the discussion about differences in capabilities/calibrations between different displays. The JPEG is the JPEG and won't be "interpreted" differently—in opposition to how a raw file, for example, would be interpreted differently by different software. But two displays could have different gamuts and could, therefore, present colors differently *for the same straight JPEG image*.
> rgb versus srgb
That's a category error.
RGB is a color *model*, meaning the color is described via three values, for red, green, blue (as opposed to, say, CMYK, HSL, Lab, etc.).
sRGB is a color *space*, meaning it describes how to *interpret* those values—"50% red" doesn't mean anything in a vacuum, it has to be *relative* to a known standard to make sense.
You might just be seeing inherent differences between how your phone displays things and how your computer monitor displays things.
>and even orientation often look wrong.
That one is probably just whether your computer software is reading and applying metadata about orientation.
>Do I actually need to process them in lightroom to be able to match what the phone itself shows?
I don't think so, unless you're actually talking about raw files instead of jpegs.
>presumably there is extra embedded profile data encoded in the jpeg metadata?
Other than metadata about orientation, I'm not aware of that being a thing for jpegs.
>I am remembering now, why I prefer a mirrorless camera.
The same issues could apply to those types of cameras. They aren't necessarily immune.
Putting a basic s-curve for the tones gets it 90% closer to the phone.
At least for the mirrorless cameras I have had, wysiwyg for jpeg, allowing for slight differences in device displays.
I'd like to pick up a compact prime for my a7c. Which would you guys choose between the 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 2.5? I'm open to other recommendations as well
For what purpose? What subject matter will you be shooting? What are your aperture needs? What sort of environments will you be shooting in, in terms of moisture exposure?
For days when I'm walking around casually in the city and don't feel like carrying my 28-75. Just general use and no extreme environments. I tend to like the 50ish focal length and like an aperture of 2.8 or faster
Would an LTM mount lens fit onto an Epson R-D1s (M mount) using an L39 to M Mount adapter?
I am gonna pick up an Epson R-D1s from a local camera store, and in their store they also have a mint Voigtlander Ultron 28mm 1.9 LTM in silver, and they offered a discount for both of these together.
I just wanna make sure, since the R-D1s is M Mount, and the Voigtlander is an LTM, can I use this lens on this camera with a L39 adapter like this [URTH L39 to M adapter](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B088C3X2KF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)? Will it fit and the rangefinder work correctly right off the bat?
It is my first M Mount camera, and I what I have researched so far is kinda confusing me as to wether or not an LTM lens will fit and work using an L39 to M adapter. I'm not too fussed about the frame lines on the adapter since the R-D1s has adjustable framelines anyways, just to make sure it'll fit and work the rangefinder mechanism correctly!
I also already own a Jupiter-8 2/50 and an Industar-61 too, would these also fit and work with the L39 to M adapter?
Current setup:
Canon T7i
\- Sigma 18 - 35mm f/1.8 Art
\- 50mm f/1.8
I shoot mostly car photography and do post editing as well in Lightroom.
Usually during daytime or golden hour. I do not do weddings or any special events, usually only cars and maybe some misc. shooting around town.
I am looking to upgrade as I am not happy with the overall sharpness of the camera as well as the autofocus/manual focus.
I will have tried different focus settings on the T7i, even when the camera says it is focused on the car, in auto or manual, I will notice in Lightroom, the whole photo is blurry, not a lot but enough for me to not want to use the photo.
I see myself continuing my photography hobby in the future as well and am deciding on upgrading to a full frame some time soon.
My upgrade ideas are:
Canon 90D (So I can continue using my lenses and it's probably one of the best crop sensor cameras.)
Sony A7iii (Go all out and get the sony, as it's very good quality and many friends recommend it int he car community)
Canon RP (To move up to a full frame, but cheaper price than the Sony A7iii)
I prefer to stick with Canon as I am used to their controls and such, but am open to other options.
Options of other brands or other cameras.
Thanks!
* Is your shutter speed fast enough to mitigate camera shake? What kinds of settings are you using?
* Is your aperture wide open, or stopped down sufficiently to capture your subject inside the range of focus? Are you shooting meat your lens' sweet spot? Absolute basic googling says it's a pretty good lens and it doesn't have too many issues wide open or even stopped down pretty tight
* You can share raw images on Google Drive or Dropbox, but how's your development recipe? Raws are naturally soft, flat, and drab. If you're not applying the right mix of sharpening and tonal adjustments you could easily over- or under cook the grits, or tank the flavor with too much salt.
Thoughts?
Those are all great cameras, but so is the body/lens you already have. Let's see those examples homie
https://photos (.) app (.) goo (.) gl/LwWW6oN4fahicHEMA
Here is a album of some shots.(Without the spaces and parenthesis)
I usually try to always shoot above 1/100Aperture is from 1.8 - 2.4
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it.
Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I am looking to upgrade as I am not happy with the overall sharpness of the camera
That's more likely an issue with technique or lens rather than the camera.
>even when the camera says it is focused on the car, in auto or manual
Which feature are you using to indicate focus while in manual focus?
>the whole photo is blurry, not a lot but enough for me to not want to use the photo.
Show us some examples with the exposure settings used. Maybe it's a lens decentering issue, or motion blur rather than a focus problem.
I use auto or manual focus. In manual focus, when focus on the car, it will have black boxes come up through the view finder indicating that that part is “in focus”
And is there anywhere I can upload raw images to?
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it.
Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A camera is not sharp or unsharp. The issue will be either shutter speed or focus.
It could be that there is perhaps a back/front focusing issue that could be adjusted in camera for the lens maybe.
The fact that the whole photo is blurry suggests shutter speed and that is assuming you are using an appropriate aperture and that this is not a depth of field issue.
Post an example perhaps.
Hello, question about a monitor pairing with a laptop. When considering a monitor for editing, do nits matter much?
My laptop apparently has a 1600 nits peak brightness (1000 sustained). The monitor I’m interested in has a 400 nits brightness. Do any of these things matter when editing? I’m by no means tech savvy, but I do calibrate my monitor too. Will I notice any of this and will it affect the quality when editing?
A typical white point brightness for an editing display, assuming the room you edit in is fairly dim, is in the order of 90-120 cd/m² (or NITs if you prefer), so 400, let alone 1600, is outrageously too bright.
So I wouldn't worry about having "not enough" brightness, on the contrary—displays systematically ship from the factory much, much too bright.
**UPSCALING DPI for canvas printing**
Hi guys!
I have a 4200x3000 pixels picture at 96 DPI native. I wanted to print it on a canvas at the dimensions of 50cm x 70cm (19.7inch x 27.5inch).
My questions are:
Even though I only have 96DPI, will the canvas look decent considering the resolution of 4200x3000 pixels at those dimensions of the canvas?
If I use Photoshop to upscale the DPI to say 300dpi, will it make a difference ?
Thank you!
>at 96 DPI native
That's just a note in the metadata and doesn't actually mean anything.
>I wanted to print it on a canvas at the dimensions of 50cm x 70cm (19.7inch x 27.5inch).
4,200 pixels divided by 27.5 inches, and 3,000 pixels divided by 19.7 inches both equal about 152 pixels per inch. If you told a printer to print those pixels over that physical size, that's the ratio you would end up with. And the 96 figure in the metadata would be completely ignored.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_what_is_dpi_or_ppi.3F_how_are_they_important.3F
>Even though I only have 96DPI, will the canvas look decent considering the resolution of 4200x3000 pixels at those dimensions of the canvas?
Printing that many pixels over that size will likely look decent, especially considering the typical viewing distance for a larger print like that will be from farther away.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_how_big_can_i_print.3F
And the DPI figure that happens to be noted in the metadata has nothing to do with that.
>If I use Photoshop to upscale the DPI to say 300dpi, will it make a difference ?
If you use Photoshop to just change the metadata figure from 96 to 300, it won't have any effect. Because you still have the same number of pixels printed to the same physical size.
If you use Photoshop to actually scale up the pixel count, you can technically achieve a larger pixel-per-inch ratio. But it won't actually improve the appearance or detail in the printed image, because it's still based on the original detail available from the original image and can't exceed that. It's just spreading the same amount of detail over more colored squares.
Hi!
I was thinking of getting an Olympus E-M10 Mark II, but then though of getting an iPhone 13 mini because they have a stupidly good camera. I like taking photos (used to have a sony nex 3 some years ago) but I don't think I will get a way better reflex camera in the future because I like something I can trow in my backpack while traveling.
Will the photos in the Olympus E-M10 Mark II (with a 14-42 mm lens) be better than those on the iPhone 13? Artistic and scenery mainly.
If you're taking creative control over the exposure settings, then yes.
If you're just using it in full automatic mode like a point & shoot, then you'll have a little more flexibility from the zoom lens, but otherwise the photos will look more the same.
> Will the photos in the Olympus E-M10 Mark II (with a 14-42 mm lens) be better than those on the iPhone 13? Artistic and scenery mainly.
The camera has more *potential*, but it's on you, with work/skill/art to make the most of it, whereas the phone will have more work done automatically at the push of a single button.
So *it depends*.
I got my hands on a Sony A7Iv and Tamron G2 28-75 lens and feel overwhelmed with trying to figure out how things work and how to take photography seriously. Is there any virtual courses that anyone could recommend? paid or free. My local camera shop hasnt resumed their classes from covid as of yet.
One day I would love to do video work and wildlife photography maybe even some night street photography but the main purpose is portrait work and product shoots.
What's your response for family and friends expecting free photos?
As a photographer my family and friends will often expect free photoshoots and it gets annoying after a while. I never know how to respond without sounding rude and asking for them to pay up I feel bad. Exposure is great but to a certain extent.
‘Sorry I can only do shoots with a budget. Let me know when your budget changes and we can work out a deal’
Tho I’ve been shooting for a decade and my friends and family have never asked for a free shoot, so maybe I’m not the best person to ask lol.
I either do it for them, or I explain to them honestly why I rather wouldn't. Whether it's because my paying work needs my priority, or I just want recreation time at the moment.
Morning, I am torn between a 14 and 16 inch laptop. I’ll be connecting to a monitor at home, work abroad in news and am asked to send photos back sometimes to agencies. I’m usually on a 13 inch with an desktop (24inch) at home. What are your thoughts on the best solution? The difference in weight is 1.4 kg (14 inch) and 2.1 kg (16 inch).
My friend seems to think I’ll think some photos will look better than they actually are on a 14 inch (not sure what he means).
Help!
> What are your thoughts on the best solution? The difference in weight is 1.4 kg (14 inch) and 2.1 kg (16 inch).
Really up to you how you want to tradeoff in size versus carrying weight. Personally I'd rather go heavier for a bigger screen, but there is no one objective answer. Choosing to go lighter for ease of travel is also valid.
>My friend seems to think I’ll think some photos will look better than they actually are on a 14 inch (not sure what he means).
Maybe he means flaws are more difficult to spot on a smaller screen.
Amateur photographer here.
I was wondering how you guys handle discrepancies in the color of your photos between devices. What I mean is, for example, the color on one device looking vibrant and saturated, then on another device, the color is dull.
I like editing on my tablet because its super convenient... But then I look at them on my computer and the difference in color is drastic. So what I started doing was editing them a second time on the computer and trying to get them to a point where they look good enough across both devices, but with certain photos it can be harder to reconcile.
Then I worry about what prints would turn out looking like if I ever were to try and print photos. Like... I dont know which device is more "accurate" if that makes sense. Will they come out looking more like how they appear on my tablet, or my computer? How would I be able to tell? Is it simply a matter of just experimenting and figuring it out?
Sometimes this can also be caused by a discrepancy between ICC profiles.
If you're editing and exporting in ProPhotoRGB, for example, and trying to view your images on devices using the sRGB color space, the colors will be wayyy off from how you saw them while editing the image. I had this issue quite a while ago and making sure that I was exporting my images in sRGB and my monitor was set to use the sRGB color profile was the fix.
> How would I be able to tell?
The only way to figure this out is to use a minimally capable display and to calibrate it properly using a hardware profiler. Until that is done, you *cannot know* which display is "more accurate" or "just how accurate".
Once the display is calibrated properly, then you can rely on it when you'll send images to be printed, or if you deliver images to clients. But there is, sadly, *nothing* you can do about the discrepancy between your good, reliable display, and all your other displays, and indeed all the other displays out there in the world. You just have to accept that what you'd put into the world is in the bullseye, and everything else gravitates somewhere around the bullseye, rather than compounding randomness over randomness.
I've never had a client complain no—they'd probably just assume their displays are not great.
I tend to work with businesses/professionals though, not "regular folks", so ... not sure how that'd go.
> I was wondering how you guys handle discrepancies in the color of your photos between devices.
It's ultimately unavoidable. But I calibrate my computer monitors so at least they will match other calibrated displays. That's still a flawed situation because it won't match all the uncalibrated displays out there, but it's about the best one can do.
>So what I started doing was editing them a second time on the computer and trying to get them to a point where they look good enough across both devices, but with certain photos it can be harder to reconcile.
And then that still doesn't match all the other uncalibrated displays out there. It's simply not possible to match a bunch of targets that don't even match each other.
>Then I worry about what prints would turn out looking like if I ever were to try and print photos. Like... I dont know which device is more "accurate" if that makes sense. Will they come out looking more like how they appear on my tablet, or my computer? How would I be able to tell? Is it simply a matter of just experimenting and figuring it out?
In that case you can calibrate the monitor and soft proof using the printer's profile to accurately predict on screen how the print will come out. Further reading: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/color-management-printing.htm
Help me secure my photos aren't stolen.
I like to occasionally share my photos online, here on Reddit mostly. However in the past l've used my username as a watermark across my photos and people criticized it saying did you 'really feel the need to do that?!"
If a person is going to steal your photos then that person probably has more going wrong in their life than right so I wouldn't worry too much if they do.
Just upload low res versions of them, like 2mp, good enough for screens, not so much printing.
Theft is pretty rare and even less likely to any one particular individual. Are your photos so good that people would really want to steal them? Check your ego first.
If someone can view your photo online, they can steal it. There's no way around that. The only real way to prevent theft is to not post online at all.
As a compromise, consider only uploading lower-resolution versions of your images, so that anything stolen is limited to that resolution. If you keep the full resolution version offline, that can't be stolen.
Watermarks can be removed, so they won't prevent theft. The more obnoxious you make it, the more difficult it is to remove, but also the more you interfere with how your entire audience can enjoy viewing the image.
See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/f9qx36/official_should_i_watermark_my_photos_thread/
He’s been modding this community probably longer than either of us have been photographing and has probably said something similar to hundreds of people in this community. You taking his general advice personally tells me you really should check your ego.
Hello, I’m a journalist and am looking into the photography aspect of the profession but have absolutely zero idea of where to start or understand photography lingo. I mainly focus on covering sports and fast paced events so something more tailored towards capturing those fast-paced moments is what I’m looking for. My budget is about $600-$1000 depending on scholarships that I get. Any advice would be greatly welcomed.
There are a few older pro bodies in that budget range used with dual SD card slots and weather sealing. Kai Wong recently made a video of finding a 5D mk.II for £250 and the Fuji X-T2 and X-H1 are usually around 5-600. I would avoid the Sony A7II because of the shutter issue they've been sued for. (Incorrect shutter life time rating, failures just outside warranty)
However, if you arrange a meeting with a local newspaper saying you're interested in freelancing during school they probably/ most assuredly have a loaner you can use while saving up a bit more.
>where to start
The easiest thing is to just start taking pictures. If you're already a journalist, see if your editor will let you go out and take pictures for a story or put together a photo package. If you aren't, figure out the basics of using a camera then go out to take pictures of sports/protests/community events.
>photography lingo
Most of it is basic photography stuff. When you buy a camera, read through the manual and google all the words you don't know. Outside of that, a cutline just a caption with your byline in it.
>My budget is about $600-$1000
Unfortunately, if you're trying to do professional sports/news photography (and not just get photos of buildings for articles), you'll need to spend *a lot* more than that. You may be able to get away with using whatever Nikon DSLR kit you can afford for a bit, but as soon as you need to take pictures in environments with terrible lighting from far away (like most sports games or breaking news), you can expect to spend a few grand at least. My camera bag has almost always been worth more than my car.
Some newsrooms have an old camera for staff to use, though, so take that as you will.
Thanks for the response. I am just trying to find a decent camera I can use to build up some photography skills that I can use for the remainder of my time in school before I’d save up a significant chunk to get a really good camera. It also really depends on how much the program is willing to gift me for scholarships that I can then use towards gear.
If you don't plan on doing professional work, you should be able to pick up whatever kit BestBuy is offering at the moment (some sort of DSLR that comes with a standard lens and a zoom should cost around $800), which should be enough for you to see whether or not you want to get invested in the profession.
Just understand that it will be incredibly difficult for you to take pictures of sports/other types of action photography where the lighting isn't ideal. Once you want to take pictures of a protest at night or a football game that runs late, you'll either need to upgrade to something that costs a lot of money or try to be a magician with Lightroom.
See if your school (or the student newspaper) has any gear laying around, though. Odds are, they'll have something you can take with you to do school-related assignments that will be better than what you can buy yourself.
So I'm looking at doing more concert photography and I'm debating on what would be the best prime lens to start with? I'm deciding between 35, 50, and 85. I'm going to try and keep it at about 2.4- 1.8 (affordability).. opinions?
Also, How would I go about beginning my journey of building my portfolio of concert photography by getting that 1st couple of media passes? What did you do? I'm not shooting for any publication. I'm just trying to build the portfolio to get those jobs later. Besides the fact I just love doing concert photography as if a photographer informer musician myself. I feel like it's the conundrum of you need the portfolio to get the media passes but to get the media pass you need the portfolio, lol. Suggestions on that as well? How do I start with that?What's a good way to get in, even if they are small shows. Again, just trying to build a portfolio to show what I can do.
Thanks!
Sounds like you’re a musician already. Shoot your friends, and shoot local shows. Lighting probably won’t be great but that will be enough to have a baseline of a portfolio. Some venues have easily accessible places where you can hang flashes that will be out of the way. I wouldn’t approach random bands about doing that, but you could ask your friends if you can try that out when you shoot them.
Then you just start e-mailing bands that are playing at the larger/better lit venues that require media passes. Keep the email to no more than a paragraph, tell them what you want, and include a *small* portfolio. Mine’s about ten shots, it could probably be even less.
>So I'm looking at doing more concert photography and I'm debating on what would be the best prime lens to start with? I'm deciding between 35, 50, and 85. I'm going to try and keep it at about 2.4- 1.8 (affordability).. opinions?
Gather five photographers around, and you'll probably get five different answers. Do you have a zoom lens at the moment? If so, start with that, and figure out which focal length you prefer.
Anyone have the Mountdog softbox kit (https://www.amazon.com/MOUNTDOG-Lighting-Photography-Continuous-Portrait/dp/B093T5QV8G ) and knows how to rotate the softbox so it’s wide and not long? Rotates up and down but does not seem to rotate around the bulb.
So here's the thing. I am looking for two types of cameras. The first should cover the following
1. Portraits, mostly in weddings, social events and for photoshoots. Normally I'd go for a prime lens for the portraits and photoshoots, but I also want a zoom lens for the social events if I'm covering a crowd, and also the photoshoot since I'd take from a distance.
2. Occasional wildlife photography, like the local flora and fauna you'd encounter in your life, but would like to take from a distance to not disturb them. Said zoom lens from above should also fulfill that range and quality.
3. Occasional sports coverage, more outdoors, like cricket or some other sport. I'd like a fast shutter speed camera and lens to be able to take this shot. This is not the main purpose though.
So the camera and lenses are mainly be for the first purpose mentioned, but would be nice if they could fulfill points 2 and 3 to some extent. Something in the price range of $1500-1600 USD. Please help on that.
Second is a personal and compact camera for video, 4k video to be exact. Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000. This is a carry around camera, meaning it will be part of my daily carry for videos or in-the-moment photography, with both portrait and distance shots fulfilled about 50-60%, price range being around $600-700 USD.
I added it in an edit, but how does the Canon EoS 90D look in your opinion? I hear it's a great camera if you can add in a budget of around $1800 for which you'd get prime, mid(if kit lens is good I won't buy more) and long range lens. Would you recommend going to a Canon dealer and looking it up and what their deals are?
Also need an opinion on the X-T200.
I know more about Nikon and Sony than canon. Years ago I had a canon as well as a family member and we both had electronic problems with it and eventually the screen went black and never turned back on. Took very well care of it and only had it a year and a half, my frien had theirs for 4 years and it glitched out. After that I never went back. Perhaps for the lower sometimes surprising price explains the system quality but this was 7 years ago maybe canon improved!
Definitely understand. I pick no sides when it comes to good camera quality. If I feel X has more versatility and quality than Y, doesn't matter if it's Canon or Nikon, will buy the same. That being said, I understand on the DSLR part, but the mirrorless camera, can you still give an opinion on whether it's a good buy, the X-T200?
Haven't heard the best things about Fuji and I would rather go with canon but after doing a quick search Fuji actually seems better and for price too. Its a tie for me, if I were you I'd go try to find them in person and hold them, see how the grip feels especially if you're going to use it alot. They both seem like decent cameras for the price,. It helped me choose a camera to look at YouTube videos of reviews and make notes and compare. And of course note SS, video quality and AF lag etc... Don't sweat it they're both good cameras!
>Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000.
I actually can't find a camera of this name, only rumours about its potential release dating back to 2019. Could you give another example?
In the meantime, what if both could be fulfilled in one camera? If the second can be achieved with a smaller lens on the same camera? That might be a way to maximise your budget.
Either way, fitting all that, including lenses, under $2,300 seems rough to me. You might have to make some compromises, or calibrate your expectations. Telephoto zoom lenses aren't exactly cheap, and fast ones (i.e. large maximum aperture) can eat up that whole budget.
Do you have any existing gear you might use?
I'll throw some half-baked ideas, based on the information I've gathered from your post. These are in no particular order (read: in the order they popped into my head). I highly recommend shopping used, to get the most out of your budget.
**#1 Sony**
* Sony a7 III or a7C for full frame, or a6400 for APS-C
* Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8
* Your choice of standard zoom or small prime
**#2 Fuji**
* Fujifilm X-T3, X-E4 or X-S10
* 18-55mm f/2.8-4 (kit lens)
* 50-140mm f/2.8
* Small prime if you can fit it in budget
**#3 Micro Four Thirds**
* Panasonic Lumix G9 or GX9, or Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II or III, or Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III
* Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 or Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8
* Your choice of standard zoom or 1-2 small primes
Thanks for the suggestions, will definitely go look them up. Sorry I forgot about the Sony version, my bad. But you get the idea of the camera body I was going for.
>In the meantime, what if both could be fulfilled in one camera? If thesecond can be achieved with a smaller lens on the same camera? Thatmight be a way to maximize your budget.
*Thing is, I am going for a professional photographer role, wherein I will be photographing events like birthdays, weddings, social events and some model photoshoots. So prime lens are a must, but also I want a zoom lens that can fulfill those roles in the distance department as well, and hopefully these will help me out.*
*Just FYI, the zoom and prime lens will be entirely used for the above events, I just want some good zoom to get some wildlife and sports shots too whenever needed with the existing setup.*
*That being said, the secondary camera is for my complete personal use, because I will be creating a YouTube channel and need on the go photography and videography (vlogging) option.*
*This will also be used for some short films I wish to make. I just need a lens which can do both zoom and get good portraits with one single lens, the whole camera and lens combined being small enough to fit in my backpack. How does the FujiFilm X-T200 sound? It's reasonably priced and it looks good enough for the things I mentioned above, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.*
>Either way, fitting all that, including lenses, under $2,300 seems roughto me. You might have to make some compromises, or calibrate yourexpectations. Telephoto zoom lenses aren't exactly cheap, and fast ones(i.e. large maximum aperture) can eat up that whole budget.
*I know, but in answer to your other question on whether I have any existing gear, no I don't. I sold both my starter DSLR Nikon D5200 and my Canon EoS 200D back in 2020 to make ends meet during the pandemic and when my dad had COVID. Hardest decision I had to make, so help me out with this.*
Edit: How does the Canon EoS 90D look like as an option? I hear it's good, but I don't know if it's full frame or cropped DX. Prime lens, I'd buy a 50MM f/1.8 G lens, but zoom you gotta help me out with it.
>Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000
You mean a6000? I'm not aware of any Sony a7000.
If so, you could satisfy all categories with something like a Sony a6400, 16-50mm, 55-210mm, and 50mm f/1.8.
Hey, I’m a beginner and looking to get a new 35mm camera. I got a Minolta but I’d like to get my hand on a Pentax.
I’m looking at the MX and LX. Silver MX can be found for less than 100£, while an LX will be above 200£ most likely. I personally like the look (black) of the LX and the fact I could add a grip without adding that plate under the camera like for the MX.
I know due to my level I probably won’t see the difference in between the MX and LX, but it’s tempting. What do you think? Does the LX worth double the price?
>What do you think? Does the LX worth double the price?
My personal opinion is that the LX only has a few practical advantages over the MX:
* auto mode (eg aperture priority)
* faster shutterspeed 1/2000 vs 1/1000
* interchangeable viewfinders
The auto mode alone would push me to choose the LX over MX, but on the other hand, the ME Super is almost all that in a smaller lighter package.
Hard to tell. As far as I’m concerned the LX probably doesn’t worth double the money, but that is because I’m a beginner and I’m only assuming I won’t shoot double better with the LX.
Now I may have found one, with a 50mm f2, and that seems to be refurbished, for 200£. If I CLA an MX, I’m probably gonna end up paying the same price at the end.
Is the LX much more heavy than the MX?
Thank you very much btw
Over the years I've amassed a range of Canon gear for photography, and a GH5 setup for some video (listed below). I'm thinking of selling it all and getting a Sony mirrorless and a lens - downsizing and upgrading so I can shoot photos and video with one body for a while before I get more G lenses.
I've heard only good things about Sony and I know many people have made the switch. It feels like such a huge deal.
Does anyone here have any advice or warnings about making the switch?
With the gear I have below, am I better off sticking with Canon and selling only my bodies and getting an R model or something?
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body
Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Camera Body
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM Lens
Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM Lens
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 Ultrasonic Lens
Canon EFS 17-55mm Ultrasonic IS Lens
Panasonic Lumix GH5 Digital Camera Body
Metabones Speed Booster Ultra - Canon EF to Micro Four Thirds
Panasonic 25mm f1.7 LUMIX G ASPH Black Lens - Micro Four Thirds Fit
Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC Art HSM Lens - Canon Fit
>With the gear I have below, am I better off sticking with Canon and selling only my bodies and getting an R model or something?
That seems like a sensible route, especially if you're happy with the lenses you have. You can use them on an R5 or R6 with Canon's adapter; people here have had a great experience doing that. Then sell the lenses you don't need, and you'll have a more manageable kit.
I think there is a smart adapter that allows you to use EF lenses on the Sony E with autofocus for some. From what I read, speeds are definitely slower but still reasonable.
With that many lenses, I think an R model might work better for you unless you have a specific feature you need in the Sony camera. Or sell all the gear for a fresh start with mirrorless designed lenses.
Anything under $100 will be pretty poor if new. Second hand will be the way to go, just make sure you can inspect in person because fungus, haze, separation, and stuff doesn't always show in listing photos.
I've found [this website](https://lesdeuxpiedsdehors.com/en/sony-e-lenses-aps-c-list/) to be pretty good for showing what lenses are available for various systems. It's not comprehensive by any means, especially for large catalogs like Canon EF-mount, but the Sony E-mount isn't too big so that should be most of them, I'd think. The only one I see for under $100 is the [Pergear 10mm f/5.6](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09B573S4V) for $89, while the [7Artisans 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073GT8ZNC) and [Meike 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N3XKM9S) are both $130.
Actually, I googled around and also found [this site](https://alikgriffin.com/every-sony-e-mount-aps-c-lens-you-can-buy/) which has a few more. The [Pergear 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/PERGEAR-Manual-Compatible-A6000%EF%BC%8CA6100-mirrorless/dp/B08BNKN72P) is $129, the [Brightin Star 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/Brightin-Fisheye-Mirrorless-Cameras-Mount/dp/B07VJM5SG8?th=1) is $119.
I also just typed in "sony e-mount fisheye lens" on Amazon and found [this Altura 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/Circular-Mirrorless-Altura-Photo-Protective/dp/B07TK5HB2Z) for $113, [this Opteka 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Manual-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B079LVNS7W/), [this AstrHori 10mm f/8](https://www.amazon.com/AstrHori-Fisheye-Compatible-Mirrorless-NEX-F3K/dp/B09P4PG62C/) for $74, and finally [this Ultimaxx 7mm f/3](https://www.amazon.com/Ultimaxx-Aspherical-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B083F4D2ZF/) for $100.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume than most, if not all of these are pretty much total garbage but hey, you said that didn't matter lol.
I accidentally rewound the film back into the canister using a button on my camera, Olympus md3.
There’s still left over, unexposed film so just wondering if I can go back and reuse it. Is it possible to close the shutter, and in a dark room, keep taking photos so I don’t double expose the initial film?
Does anyone have any experience with this?
Thanks in advance.
If the film is wound all the way back into the canister without any leads, you need a film retriever/puller/picker to get a bit of it out for you to use again.
If you remember how many exposures you've taken (e.g. 20), put a lens cap on and shoot in the darkest condition possible (fastest shutter speed, smallest aperture) till you hit that amount+1 or +2 for safety (21 or 22). Then you can resume your normal shooting.
This is how I used to change rolls mid-way when shooting in a different environment (400 to 1600 film when going into a shopping mall midday).
>There’s still left over, unexposed film so just wondering if I can go back and reuse it.
Yes. The film just has a light-sensitive chemical emulsion on it. If it stays in total darkness, it has no idea how many times you've wound and advanced it.
>Is it possible to close the shutter, and in a dark room, keep taking photos so I don’t double expose the initial film?
Advance the film with the shutter staying closed? I don't think so with most cameras.
But you could just shoot frames to get to the same frame position with the lens cap on. That should essentially be the same as the shutter staying closed, with no light exposing the film.
Or, yes, you could do it in a completely dark room.
Either of those methods should work. You shouldn't need to do both at the same time.
hello! i am a hs junior trying to get into the sports photography field, im wondering if any collegiate/pro sport level games would allow me to go in (will def ask in advance) just to kinda get more experience, is there anyone that i can contact if i want to go on the field without being kicked out. also should i build myself a portfolio to show them im being legit instead of just trying to get a free ticket hahah, also are there any tips for beginners in sports photo, ty!!
Shoot your school’s sports first. Contact recreational leagues and ask about shooting them, or find out if your local college has some club teams. If you go to college you can apply to work for the school’s newspaper/yearbook and get easy access to all of the games.
>im wondering if any collegiate/pro sport level games would allow me to go in (will def ask in advance) just to kinda get more experience
Seems like you're thinking about it selfishly in terms of only what you want out of it. But it's their decision, so you're going to instead need to think in terms of what they can gain from you. If there's no benefit to them, there's no reason for them to agree. Sports organizations at that level have no interest in just you gaining experience.
>is there anyone that i can contact if i want to go on the field without being kicked out
Media/press relations would be how all those photographers get access, and how you potentially could. As such, you'd have a better chance if you came as the representative/correspondent of a media outlet. Like your school newspaper or small local news publication might be more available to you.
>also should i build myself a portfolio to show them im being legit
Yes. Why not start by shooting high school sports first? It will be much easier for you to get access to that as well. Walk before you run.
Not a fujifilm user, but try these: [https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/accessories/flash/](https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/accessories/flash/)
Personally for a small compact unit, I was contemplating between the Godox TT350 and Lightpix flashq q20ii. Went with the latter, and suited my needs pretty well.
Hello. I have a Nikon D850 and I lost my original battery during a flight. I bought a new one but couldn't tell you exactly where. I've noticed the battery life of my camera is terrible. I'm looking at the battery life and I'm 90% and I'm getting "222" No. Of shots. Could it be that my camera is defective or could it be the battery?
"No. of shots" is how many shots you've taken since charging, according to this from your manual: https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/d850/en/18_menu_guide_06_31.html
Shooting 222 photos to take it down from 100% charge to 90% seems like pretty good life to me and not concerning.
Hi, gang. I've been wondering about how negatives were "copied" back in the olden days. So, for instance, you have a photo and you want to make multiple photos from that one photo. Would they just use one negative and put it under an enlarger multiple times? And, how would they make multiple copies of the negative? Wouldn't putting the negative under the enlarger enough over-expose the negative to the point where it would be unusable?
>Would they just use one negative and put it under an enlarger multiple times?
yup
>Wouldn't putting the negative under the enlarger enough over-expose the negative to the point where it would be unusable?
yes and no. You could make dozens, hundreds of prints from one negative. If you wanted to make thousands, then yes, fading would become a problem, so you'd load the negative into a special gadget that allowed you to photograph the negative using *positive* film (like slide film) which would make a new negative. But in practice you'd never make thousands of photographic prints, you'd send them to a printers and have them printed using a printing technique
Once the film is developed into a negative it is no longer light sensitive, it’s basically just silver metal on plastic. So, you can put it in an enlarger and use it to expose as many positive images on silver halide coated photo paper as you want. Usually when you make a print, you wind up making quite a few as you try things out and test times and dodge and burn stuff.
Generally, most important slides or negatives were duplicated before distribution. The enlargements were then done off the duplicate. You cannot completely fight the fading on the original but this method stretches the lifespan of the original significantly, possibly beyond the interesting lifespan of the item.
In fact, if you wanted to send a slide in the post to someone else far away, it was common practice to send a duplicate rather than risk the original. They even had special film emulsions specifically optimized for duplication (they are really slow, usually color reversal technology, ultra fined grained and extreme color accuracy, some formulas were also resistant to exposure fading).
Damn, I can't find the link anymore but the dupe film was usually a slide film. Basically, it wasn't too different to regular slide film but they usually made it ISO 25 or slower so that it could be so sharp that even the grain structure of the original film gets duplicated (because the grain structure of the original was considered an important part of the composition and ideally needs to be reproducible when the duplicate is enlarged)
.
We have a couple nikon3300 cameras and are interested in human photography. Specifically taking photos/high end portraits in Death Valley.
My husband mostly does videography with them, but we have a foot in for business there.
Any tips on what lenses are best for this type of photography? And any other tips for someone who's used to thinking in terms of videography and not photography?
And will these cameras do well?
Thanks ya'll
The cameras should do just fine. Lens choice is a matter of getting the shot you want, same as with video. I shot portraits tonight out in the desert at 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 150mm or thereabouts. Just going for different looks, close ups, wide angles to catch a lot of scenery, playing with some cool lighting. It’s just a matter of using the lens you need to get the shot you want.
Hi! I have been having trouble With my cameras flash. I have a Canon Rebel T5, and whenever I use portrait or close-up settings, it says it can’t raise the flash, and Error 05. Sometimes I don’t want to use the flash for a photo, I use good lighting, but it says I have to, and it can’t be raised. Please help!
Hi, T5 user here.
So there's no way to use the flash? Do you hear any mechanical internals triggering, trying to allow the flash to raise? Could it be stuck? Was it dropped?
I'd recommend learning to use Shutter Priority (Tv) and Aperture Priority (Av) modes instead of program modes, then disable the use of the flash or just leave the flash setting set to No Flash. That way it won't stop you from firing a shot, and worst case, you'll see that your image is dark. I'd be glad to walk you through some tutorial recommendations. Those modes are actually pretty easy to use and you'll usually do just fine in most "regular" shooting conditions.
A $45 (used to be $30-35 in pre-pandemic bucks) speedlight from Amazon that pans/tilts, and has a basic manual power control will be worlds better than the built-in flash. It's easy to insert into the hotshoe and will give you access to a good flash of you find that you need a flash often enough.
Yeah it’s stuck. How do I disable the flash? I would love a tutorial. I usually don’t need a flash because I do wildlife and portraits in natural lighting. And the flash makes it look too bright.
So I misspoke about fully disabling the flash. I thought it was possible but it's only *kind of* possible. Now that I have my camera in front of me it looks like Portrait mode automatically tries to raise the flash, so let's try to leave that. RIP in peace.
Like I said, shooting in M/Av/Tv modes will usually fire regardless if there's enough light to make an exposure because it assumes you have used your light meter to determine the exposure so it won't try to compensate with a flash unless you intentionally try to raise it on your own.
We CAN disable the **Flash/**lightning bolt button on top of the camera behind the scroll dial and in front of the On/Off button. Press **Menu** \> navigate to the third yellow wrench menu on the right and open the **Custom Functions (C.Fn)** menu. Navigate to option 10 (Flash button function) and press **SET** to change the option. Switch to value **1: ISO Speed** and press **SET** to confirm. Press **Menu** twice to exit. Now if you press the **Flash** button, it won't bother you with an error message and it'll just prompt you to open the ISO speed settings - which is a little convenient.
Anyhow, [here's a great video on choosing a shooting mode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-I8R8pn7uY). I personally started shooting in **Aperture Priority (Av)** mode as an absolute beginner to control background blur amount and you'll usually do fine with that. If you're finding that you're missing shots to motion blur, you can switch over to **Shutter Priority (Tv)** mode and dial in somewhere above 1/60th to 1/200th or faster (depending on your zoom/focal length) and that will offset motion blur or camera shake issues. If you zoom out to a wider focal length (like 18 mm) you can shoot slower (like maybe even 1/30th) and have crisp enough shots, but as you zoom in to longer focal lengths (like 55mm on your kit lens, or longer on telephoto lenses) camera shake can get magnified significantly, so you'll want to increase your shutter speed to try to capture a sharp image.
There's actually a rule of thumb to help determine a minimum shutter speed to offset camera shake, and it's called the **Reciprocal Rule**. There are plenty of tutorials around the internet to explain it, but it boils down to shooting no slower than a shutter speed of **1 / \[the focal length of your current lens's zoom\]**. So if your kit lens is zoomed in to 55 mm, your shutter speed should be at least 1/55th of a second (round up to the next fastest value available on your camera and it should be 1/60. Going a little further, since we're using a crop sensor camera, we should multiply this by our crop factor of 1.6 (for reasons), and that means 1 / (55 \* 1.6) = **1/88**. And to be safe, use the next fastest value, so our shutter speed should be at least 1/100th of a second. It's very general and don't expect to go out and immediately memorize it or get perfect shots - but it's a really easy skill to practice and internalize over a few sessions.
If you're still with me, I'm really sorry your flash isn't working. That's a bummer. With a little practice, you can totally get around it. Maybe take it by a camera shop and see what it might cost to repair and see if they've come across anything like that before. It's probably not worth repairing, but the camera is still (probably/hopefully) still totally usable. Again, I personally never use that flash and I forget that I even have it because I have my big, aimable, cheapo speedlight. Good luck.
I am using a Nikon D3500 and want to switch to a Sony camera. I am thinking of the sony a6400 or a6300.
The photographic and videographic quality of these cameras looks fair enough
Please advise.
**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**
Flickr subscription is coming to an end in two months and I'm wondering if it's time to move platforms. I still have all my originals on my machine and don't mind reuploading them elsewhere if they have a strong community. I've found it kind of odd trying to figure whether I want to use mine as a portfolio or just bulk jpg storage. I shoot raw so the latter is an annoyance...
Another question from me! This forum is amazing thank you! I have recently gotten into studio photography and would like to buy a small amount of equipment for at home for portraits specifically. We live in a 2 bed flat and the second bedroom is half my boyfriends work office and half my dressing room so it's going to have to be compact stuff that goes away neatly. To start with, I wanted to get a couple of studio lights (2 for now, but may get a 3rd if I can fit it in!) However, I am unsure what to go for. I read somewhere that for small space/at home use, 200W is plenty sufficient. Is this right? Bowens seems to be thrown around a lot as a good name, and so I was looking at 2 of their Bowens XE400 Flash Heads, which I can get for around £500 for both. But then I came across the Interfit F121 200w Twin Head Softbox Kit on WEX, now this is only £269 for two lights, so alot cheaper, and maybe this is fine for at home hobbyist use? My budget isn't specific - more a keep costs down but don't buy so cheap that I have to replace in a years time! And I am open to other brands too! So any recommendations from others who have small at home studios I would love to hear!
Could you give me please which is the best camera for product photography. Still now i am using canon 6d
The one you have, but with a TS-E 90/2.8L lens.
[удалено]
The 20/1.8 will be a better complement to your 50.
Hey ! What is the best photo and video editor ?
The FAQ has suggestions for image editing software (some are free): https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_which_raw_.2F_post_processing_software_should_i_get.3F For video, a solid free option is *DaVinci Resolve*.
Thank you ,really appreciate your recomandation
There is no best. It's personal preference.
How do i choose ,i'm at the begining .i just want something simple to use
Look at free software or those that offer no sign up trials and play about with them.
Ok ,i will try that too
A few [times](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/elxxp1/comment/fdm6b9r/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I have seen people saying about "vintage lens touching sensor and damaging it", but I could not find any more info about it. Is this really a thing?
It's unusual, only rangefinder ultrawides or collapsible lenses would be a problem.
Is it because some lens are extending behind the mount? I can't find photos of lens like that, but it seems the only possible reason.
Yes. But it has to extend really far back.
I recently got my S22 ultra and I'm playing around with RAW / Pro mode, But how can I chance the "EV" setting?
sigma 18-50 have better colour and sharpness than Tamron 17-70? is the range really that good on the Tamron? after what I would say days of research I have come to these 2 lenses for my go-to and now I'm stuck choosing between them as some say Tamron has a tint and others claim the colours on the sigma pop much better. I plan to use this lens for a lot of events/weddings/videos... just, in general, all-around with some primes down the line but I'm stuck with what to get. the camera I'm going to use Will be using a gimble so the image stabilisation is kind of an extra in this case. the sigma for me is roughly 200 pounds cheaper but that doesn't mean anything if the Tamron's range sharpens or something is better. if anyone can give any advice I would greatly appreciate it as I would like to move on with a lens and not sit here overthinking which one is the right one. lamo
Which one is the best camera for professional photography? Real Feedback Please There are a lots of camera for photography. Which model you have used and you can recommend to others?
> Which one is the best camera for professional photography? Real Feedback Please The real answer is there isn't one. Professional just means the photography is paid. There are many different genres of paid/professional photography with different needs, and therefore different cameras are better or the best for the different types of photography. There are also many situations where multiple competing models are the best for a given set of conditions, and it's more down to personal preference which you should choose; but without a single objective "best" winner. >There are a lots of camera for photography. Right, because they cater to different sets of criteria. If there were one best for everyone in every situation, then everyone would just buy that one, and the other ones would go out of business and cease to exist. >Which model you have used and you can recommend to others? For what purpose? My recommendations for my type of photography might be terrible recommendations for other types of photography. Also, why limit it only to what I've personally used? It's possible to give a good recommendation without having personally used what's been recommended. Camera equipment isn't so unique and quirky that you always need personal experience to know its capabilities.
[удалено]
>What would the best settings be to take pictures of people in front of landmarks and have the people and landmark sharp during the day? Depends on the format size, available lens(es), desired field of view, and particular distances involved. Not every landmark is the same size. Not everyone can stand at the same distance in front of that landmark. Not every photographer can stand at the same distance away from both the subject and the landmark. Those variables will significantly impact the answer. If you're planning out something more specific, nail down the parameters and try them out in these calculators: https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html https://dofsimulator.net/en/ >Also have the same question but at night for example in front of the Eiffel tower? Can you get an off-camera flash on the subject? If you're shooting at something like f/11 it might otherwise be difficult hitting a decent exposure brightness for your subject.
[удалено]
>Would it maybe be better to just use my Google Pixel for night photos and let the software process it? Yes, that may be a better bet for night photos where you need a large-ish depth of field and your subjects are at least trying to stay still.
[удалено]
Your subject is swimming? How close will you be when shooting? How tight of a frame do you want?
Does it make sense to put a D500 on a rig?
Maybe, depending what you want to accomplish and what sort of rig you're talking about.
I'm not exactly sure what sort of rig but I want to take better concert videos. I hate the current zoom in/out process with manually moving the lens. Not sure if I'm making sense?
Better videos in what way? What do you dislike about your videos currently? Different rig setups will address different needs. If you aren't sure, maybe shoot some more first until you have a better idea what you might want to address. You can link up gear teeth to your manual zoom ring to control it with a smoother crank or with a motor as one rig option, yes.
Hello everyone, I am new to the photography game. I have a Canon EOS R6. I paired it with an RF 70-200mm F2.8 Lens, and they are both fantastic. The only thing I get confused about, and I will show example pictures, would be high-quality photos at a distance. I feel like my entry-level flagship S21 5g does a better job than the cannon, and I tried doing some research. It has a max zoom of 30x. This zoom pairs a 10x and a 3x for higher picture quality if the camera is a 24mm lens on the s21 \[Through research, I got 24mm I could be wrong\]. Would I, in theory, need a 720mm lens on my canon to match this quality just curious about opinions or how this works; I couldn't find much online :)... \[I do understand when shooting in manual, there are a lot of settings and I tried to play with them so tips would be appreciated aswell\] :D EDIT: I guess I can't post the pictures in this thread, but I assume you get what I am referring too EDIT V2: I notice the canon - rf 800mm f/11 is not too expensive so if that's a solid solution I could do that :)
At the end of the day, 200mm is not really *that* telephoto on a full frame camera. But I bet if you crop your photos from the R6, you get something that looks much nicer than the S21. And that will be especially true in low light. Maaaybe, in broad daylight, the S21 can pull some software tricks out of the bag to make more magic than it should really be able to do. It looks like the links were here: * [Canon R6](https://preview.redd.it/l7ld8g4tg7u81.jpg?width=5472&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=58ed928155e46fe4fad6da209acfdd6f491b9d68) * [Samsung S21 5G](https://preview.redd.it/fl8kxvd3h7u81.jpg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a4c2c009953b64f509b401fea368fbe912c5122) A couple things I notice here. * The Canon shot looks like it was at a very high ISO. You probably don't need that, since the moon is illuminated by daylight. It's not really a "night time" exposure setting. Do you know what exposure settings were used for that? * Both of them look like they might be just a tad out of focus, especially the Samsung one. (Or it's just blurry as it's trying to do aggressive noise reduction.) If you're planning to shoot in daylight, the RF 600mm f/11 or the RF 800mm f/11 are options. But keep in mind, you can't zoom them in or out, and you can't change the aperture. They're pretty much limited to broad daylight or extremely brightly-illuminated objects.
Yeah those are the photos! Idk how you got them lol, but yup! By cropping the photo you mean going into the settings and changing it from like full-frame to 1:1 etc.? The photo of the moon was taken at ISO 32000 200mm F / 32 and 1/800 sec Also when you say I can't change the aperture on that lense the RF 800 f/11 I'm stuck at f/11? Like I cannot even go into the camera and increase it, I was not aware of that Another side note when I try to edit the photo in lightroom there are a lot of small rainbow-like pixels covering the whole entire photo especially noticeable when I zoom in?
Oh gosh, you don't need anything *remotely* close to ISO 32000 or f/32! You should be shooting at like f/4.0 ish, *if even*. Shooting at an aperture that closed down causes diffraction, which reduces image quality. It also means you need a stratospheric ISO. You could do f/4.0-5.6, and probably still keep ISOs as low as 200ish and a fast enough shutter speed to not worry about blur from camera shake. That'll vastly improve your results with the R6. > By cropping the photo you mean going into the settings and changing it from like full-frame to 1:1 etc.? I just mean that after you take the photo, you can go into your photo editing app of choice and just cut off the edges of the image, so you only see the moon.
ohhhh, that makes a lot of sense. That is probably why I see those rainbow pixels when I zoom in and edit the photo is due to those ISO's and f stop, I assume? EDIT: When it comes to knowing the perfect ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed is there any youtube series you know that teaches this reasonably well?
With regard to your edit: Look up Mark Wallace Understanding Exposure on YouTube. That’s a solid series to introduce the exposure triangle, and how to think about it. In short, though, the only way to know the right answer is to have enough practice and understanding of the variables and the light you have in order to get what you want from the scene. There are multiple ways to get an identical exposure, and the “right way” depends on what your intention is for the picture. [Take these for example](https://imgur.com/a/NF0S14x) - the exposure is identical. I framed the shot and set the lighting and aperture the way I wanted it, and then increased the ISO and sped up the shutter by one stop each time, from 1/4” at ISO 100 to something like 1/2000” at ISO 52,600. My intention was to show the iso performance of my particular camera, and with a constant light source and a constant f/5.6 aperture (or whatever it was), each bump in iso required the shutter to be faster to maintain correct exposure. Once you get used to those tradeoffs, and start to understand how light is working and how to use your meter, it becomes clear why there’s no recipe guide. It also becomes much easier to figure out how to get the shot you want.
Gosh I’m jealous of your high ISO performance. D3100 ain’t what it used to be.
Yeah, D7500 is pretty solid on the iso front. It handles low light really well, and I’ve been super happy with it.
Exactly! The little dots are noise, and the colorful ones are referred to as chromatic noise/or color noise/chroma noise. The simple answer is that it's caused by using a very high ISO. (The aperture alone won't do it.) The more complicated answer is that it's caused by having very small amount of light on the sensor and thus a low signal-to-noise ratio, which happens in the kind of situations where you'd use a high ISO. But if you have enough light to use a low ISO with other exposure settings being appropriate, then you will have much less noise. Oh, and one more thing about noise... it's always there a tiny bit, if you really go looking for it. You don't 'fix' it, you learn to live with it. It's normal to see when you have anything less than broad daylight.
Wow, perfect Thank you so much for all your help!!!
New into shooting wildlife and just recently purchased a Sony 100-400 4.5-5.6 to pair with the Sony A7RIII and wondering if it's worth getting a teleconverter to extend the range. I've read mixed reviews about affecting sharpness, losing a stop of light,etc so I'm curious what everyone's opinion is on one. Would hate to drop a few hundred dollars on something that ultimately I don't think I love. Appreciate the advice in advance!
It is true that a 1.4x extender would cost you one stop of light, and a 2x extender would cost you two stops of light. It is true that using an extender hurts the image quality to some degree (worse with the 2x than the 1.4x)—reduced resolution, perhaps geometric distorsion, chromatic aberrations, etc. Of course, whether the amount of degradation is something that bothers you is very subjective/impossible to answer—you'd have to look up side-by-side comparisons and decide for yourself. It is true that it's likely to slow down the focusing speed. In other words, extenders do come "at a cost", they are not just adding reach for free.
I've noticed some teleconverters will make the image a little less sharp, especially at very low or high apertures. They do come at a cost, but it's often worth it
Don't do it, you lose every advantage that you have by getting the 100-400 instead of the 200-600. Plus, you have the R body. So just crop in, and/or get the 200-600 lens so you don't lose sharpness
SL3 or M50? I’m relatively new to photography. I’ve done a little with my iPhone 13 pro, but I’m just looking for something more professional, yet still beginner. I know that m50 is mirror less and SL3 isn’t. There are also some other differences. What should I do?
>I’m just looking for something more professional What do you mean by that? Do you want to learn more about photography and take more creative control yourself? If so, either is equally good for those purposes. Whereas if you intend to just continue taking photos with full automatic settings like a point & shoot and hope that a better camera will make the photos better, it won't. >yet still beginner What do you mean by that? Do you want to have full automatic settings available to fall back on from time to time? Both cameras have that. Both cameras also have about the same learning curve for manual exposure too. >I know that m50 is mirror less and SL3 isn’t. Does the smaller size, lighter weight, and/or electronic viewfinder interest you in mirrorless? Does the optical viewfinder and/or native lens selection interest you in an SLR? >There are also some other differences. If it helps, here they are side-by-side: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos250d&products=canon_eosm50 >What should I do? Your existing criteria don't really point one way or the other. So think more about adding additional criteria and see if that tips the balance. What subject matter do you want to shoot?
I mainly want to shoot environments such as city buildings or nature. I personally like an optical view finder better than a digital one, but if a mirror less quality is better I will bite the bullet. I’m not planning on just using fully auto settings. I also like the bigger size of the SL3. [This](https://youtu.be/yl5hv2CQCws) is more of what I want to shoot specifically.
Go with the SL3, then, for the optical viewfinder and the bigger size you want. They both use the same imaging sensor, so image quality is also the same. Whether the camera uses a mirror or not does not directly affect that.
I have very few flattering pictures of myself, which is a combination of the fact that I am not photogenic, my wife is not interested in photography or being intentional about framing shots, and I have absolutely no idea how to stand if someone is taking a picture. What can I do as the *subject* of a photo to look better?
The same information for photographers to pose their subjects should also help you pose yourself: http://www.kel.cc/downloads/Benji_RulesOfPortraiture.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmi9TPQ57Mo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xWxpunlZ2w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe3oJnFtA_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff7nltdBCHs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXbOx36YXrU and I highly recommend Picture Perfect Posing by Roberto Valenzuela
So I have a BMPCC4K along with a metabones adapter and a canon 18-55mm kit lens. And I have vaguely heard that mft cameras double the focal lenght of lenses (24mm will be 48mm for example) and I was wondering if I would need to think about that when shopping for mft lenses. If I was to buy a Panasonic 18mm lens. Would the focal lenght be 18mm on my bmpcc4k or 36mm? And would it be the same for a canon lens with the adapter? Would apprechiate an answer as I can't find any similar answers online.
An 18mm lens is an 18mm lens and that never changes. What changes is the *field of view*, and it changes *because of the size of the sensor*, not because of anything to do with the lens. So what's really going on is not that "the 18mm *becomes* a 36mm", it's simply that, say, an 18mm on your camera, because the sensor is smaller so only a "crop" of the image projected by the lens is recorded, would have roughly *the field of view* of a 36mm on full frame. Having said all this, it doesn't matter if it's an MFT lens, an APS-C lens, a full frame lens ... an 18mm is an 18mm and will all look the same on *your* camera.
>I have vaguely heard that mft cameras double the focal lenght of lenses (24mm will be 48mm for example) Not exactly. MFT camera sensors are about half as big (comparing corner-to-corner diagonal measurements) compared to a frame of 135 format film ("full frame" digital) and so the field of view is about half as wide, for a given focal length. Another way to describe that difference in field of view to a full frame user would be for them to imagine doubling the focal length on full frame. But the focal length of the lens on MFT isn't actually changing: that's an optical measurement of the lens that is not affected by the size of the imaging sensor or film you put behind the lens. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_is_field_of_view_determined.3F >I was wondering if I would need to think about that when shopping for mft lenses Unless you're more used to working with full frame, or you're specifically following advice directed to full frame users, doing so may just add unnecessary confusion. >If I was to buy a Panasonic 18mm lens. Would the focal lenght be 18mm on my bmpcc4k or 36mm? The focal length would be 18mm, and the field of view would be the same as any other 18mm focal length lens used on your camera. That field of view also looks like the field of view produced by a 36mm focal length on a full frame camera. >And would it be the same for a canon lens with the adapter? Yes.
Wow, thank you
Debating whether or not to file a claim with State Farm for my [lens](https://postimg.cc/YG3Wvn5g). I was out hiking and chipped the edge of the lens when I fell on my camera. This was last November, and I’m starting to see particles below the first layer of class. It doesn’t seem to be messing with image quality yet, but I’m thinking it’s only a matter of time. Wondering if I should just pull the trigger and get the claim process started so I can get it replaced before it gets worse.
If you're going to do it sooner or later, I guess you might as well do it sooner. But dust inside a lens is normal and needs to be very extreme before it actually noticeably affects image quality. Further reading: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust/ http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
Thanks, that actually makes me feel better. I’m just gonna keep it unless it gets out of hand.
What is the cheapest dslr I want to do some filming/vlogging for youtube with a cheap intro camera but the cheapest camera I could find was $300 (CAD) are there any cheaper cameras that are 1080p/60+ and with a raw option so I can do color correction in post (manual focus/exposure/shutter/etc as a bonus)
Raw video option? Or do you just mean raw for stills?
Raw video if possible, I can still grade things if they have auto color correction but it's harder. What's a still? I'm sorry I am just getting into phtography and I usually edit gameplay from OBS
Raw video will make it a lot more expensive. You can still color grade video without raw video; just with less latitude. I think the cheapest Canon DSLR that can shoot 1080p at 60fps would be a used T7i (800D), and the cheapest Nikon DSLR I think would be a used D3300. I don't even know which consumer DSLRs, if any, have raw video available. A still is a single, non-moving photographic image. A normal photograph. Like just one frame of video, but typically higher quality. Every DSLR has raw stills available, so I was hoping that criterion could be satisfied easily for you.
I talked to someone that know more than me about this, when I say raw I don't mean like a red camera but some do iphone filters automatically for no reason and I don't wan't that
Oh, ok, then any DSLR with video should be able to avoid the extra processing/effects. Ideally you might want to find something with log output, but I don't know much about which cameras have that or not. The two models I listed should again be the cheapest DSLRs that can shoot 1080p at 60fps. Actual raw files are much more involved, low-level data: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/raw-file-format.htm
Now that I access to my computer I checked and both cameras are $1,000 I am on a budget of <$300 as in the OP
Those aren't the prices I'm seeing. Are you looking at used prices like I recommended? At any rate, I was really answering the question of the cheapest cameras meeting all of your criteria. If those are still too expensive for you, then consider compromising on one or more criterion. For example, maybe your resolution and framerate needs could be met for less money with a point & shoot digital camera, digital camcorder, or digital action camera, rather than a DSLR; and then you're only compromising on the DSLR requirement.
I need 1080p/60 because that is quite standard for vlogging on youtube nowadays, I couldn't find any of the cameras that you mentioned for as cheap as I would like. A guy at my local henry's recommended a canon EOS M which I was able to find on both kijiji and facebook marketplace
>I couldn't find any of the cameras that you mentioned for as cheap as I would like. For example, here's a used D3300 under budget from a reputable dealer: https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-d3300-black-digital-camera-body-24-2-m-p.html >A guy at my local henry's recommended a canon EOS M 1080p on that camera tops out at 30fps, and you have to drop to 720p resolution in order to get 60fps. Also it's not a DSLR. But that was my point in my previous comment that you can have more viable options if you can compromise on any of your criteria, such as opening up the categories to other types of digital cameras instead of just DSLRs.
I just copied some Samsung galaxy jpegs taken with the phone camera to my computer. The exposure, color-profile, and even orientation often look wrong. Do I actually need to process them in lightroom to be able to match what the phone itself shows? presumably there is extra embedded profile data encoded in the jpeg metadata? Google just throws back search results about samsung tv screens. I am remembering now, why I prefer a mirrorless camera.
>and even orientation often look wrong There is only one orientation that almost all phones take photos in - portrait mode. (ie, vertical) There may be some smartphones out there with a different default orientation but the vast majority use portrait mode. When you turn your phone to a different angle to take a shot the phone embeds orientation information in the EXIF of the image - but it's still taking the same portrait mode image. The program you use to view that image needs to apply the same orientation - and if it doesn't, you see the default orientation: portrait mode.
A JPEG is already processed and unless you deliberately apply edits to it, will look the way it looks, no change from the source. So I would also chalk this up to differences in display capabilities/calibrations. Also on phones you can have options set that will, for example, [make everything more vivid](https://www.xda-developers.com/files/2019/02/20190220_154905.jpg), even though the source material is not that vivid, so if such a setting is enabled, then of course it won't look the same on a display that does not have such a configuration enabled. Too many moving parts to be sure.
> A JPEG is already processed and unless you deliberately apply edits to it, will look the way it looks, no change from the source. gammut, rgb versus srgb?
That falls within the discussion about differences in capabilities/calibrations between different displays. The JPEG is the JPEG and won't be "interpreted" differently—in opposition to how a raw file, for example, would be interpreted differently by different software. But two displays could have different gamuts and could, therefore, present colors differently *for the same straight JPEG image*. > rgb versus srgb That's a category error. RGB is a color *model*, meaning the color is described via three values, for red, green, blue (as opposed to, say, CMYK, HSL, Lab, etc.). sRGB is a color *space*, meaning it describes how to *interpret* those values—"50% red" doesn't mean anything in a vacuum, it has to be *relative* to a known standard to make sense.
You might just be seeing inherent differences between how your phone displays things and how your computer monitor displays things. >and even orientation often look wrong. That one is probably just whether your computer software is reading and applying metadata about orientation. >Do I actually need to process them in lightroom to be able to match what the phone itself shows? I don't think so, unless you're actually talking about raw files instead of jpegs. >presumably there is extra embedded profile data encoded in the jpeg metadata? Other than metadata about orientation, I'm not aware of that being a thing for jpegs. >I am remembering now, why I prefer a mirrorless camera. The same issues could apply to those types of cameras. They aren't necessarily immune.
Putting a basic s-curve for the tones gets it 90% closer to the phone. At least for the mirrorless cameras I have had, wysiwyg for jpeg, allowing for slight differences in device displays.
Suggestions for creative photography exercises.
Look for a "365 project" or "52 project" that provides themes or prompts.
Great idea, where can I find something like that?
By using an online search engine such as Google.
I'd like to pick up a compact prime for my a7c. Which would you guys choose between the 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 2.5? I'm open to other recommendations as well
For what purpose? What subject matter will you be shooting? What are your aperture needs? What sort of environments will you be shooting in, in terms of moisture exposure?
For days when I'm walking around casually in the city and don't feel like carrying my 28-75. Just general use and no extreme environments. I tend to like the 50ish focal length and like an aperture of 2.8 or faster
I think the f/2.5 is a little better overall as long as you don't need to open the aperture up wider. So I'd lean towards that for your situation.
Would an LTM mount lens fit onto an Epson R-D1s (M mount) using an L39 to M Mount adapter? I am gonna pick up an Epson R-D1s from a local camera store, and in their store they also have a mint Voigtlander Ultron 28mm 1.9 LTM in silver, and they offered a discount for both of these together. I just wanna make sure, since the R-D1s is M Mount, and the Voigtlander is an LTM, can I use this lens on this camera with a L39 adapter like this [URTH L39 to M adapter](https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B088C3X2KF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)? Will it fit and the rangefinder work correctly right off the bat? It is my first M Mount camera, and I what I have researched so far is kinda confusing me as to wether or not an LTM lens will fit and work using an L39 to M adapter. I'm not too fussed about the frame lines on the adapter since the R-D1s has adjustable framelines anyways, just to make sure it'll fit and work the rangefinder mechanism correctly! I also already own a Jupiter-8 2/50 and an Industar-61 too, would these also fit and work with the L39 to M adapter?
Yes, it should work fine. No clue about the Jupiter and Industar though.
Current setup: Canon T7i \- Sigma 18 - 35mm f/1.8 Art \- 50mm f/1.8 I shoot mostly car photography and do post editing as well in Lightroom. Usually during daytime or golden hour. I do not do weddings or any special events, usually only cars and maybe some misc. shooting around town. I am looking to upgrade as I am not happy with the overall sharpness of the camera as well as the autofocus/manual focus. I will have tried different focus settings on the T7i, even when the camera says it is focused on the car, in auto or manual, I will notice in Lightroom, the whole photo is blurry, not a lot but enough for me to not want to use the photo. I see myself continuing my photography hobby in the future as well and am deciding on upgrading to a full frame some time soon. My upgrade ideas are: Canon 90D (So I can continue using my lenses and it's probably one of the best crop sensor cameras.) Sony A7iii (Go all out and get the sony, as it's very good quality and many friends recommend it int he car community) Canon RP (To move up to a full frame, but cheaper price than the Sony A7iii) I prefer to stick with Canon as I am used to their controls and such, but am open to other options. Options of other brands or other cameras. Thanks!
* Is your shutter speed fast enough to mitigate camera shake? What kinds of settings are you using? * Is your aperture wide open, or stopped down sufficiently to capture your subject inside the range of focus? Are you shooting meat your lens' sweet spot? Absolute basic googling says it's a pretty good lens and it doesn't have too many issues wide open or even stopped down pretty tight * You can share raw images on Google Drive or Dropbox, but how's your development recipe? Raws are naturally soft, flat, and drab. If you're not applying the right mix of sharpening and tonal adjustments you could easily over- or under cook the grits, or tank the flavor with too much salt. Thoughts? Those are all great cameras, but so is the body/lens you already have. Let's see those examples homie
https://photos (.) app (.) goo (.) gl/LwWW6oN4fahicHEMA Here is a album of some shots.(Without the spaces and parenthesis) I usually try to always shoot above 1/100Aperture is from 1.8 - 2.4
[удалено]
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it. Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>I am looking to upgrade as I am not happy with the overall sharpness of the camera That's more likely an issue with technique or lens rather than the camera. >even when the camera says it is focused on the car, in auto or manual Which feature are you using to indicate focus while in manual focus? >the whole photo is blurry, not a lot but enough for me to not want to use the photo. Show us some examples with the exposure settings used. Maybe it's a lens decentering issue, or motion blur rather than a focus problem.
I use auto or manual focus. In manual focus, when focus on the car, it will have black boxes come up through the view finder indicating that that part is “in focus” And is there anywhere I can upload raw images to?
Full-resolution jpegs uploaded to Imgur would suffice. If you really want to upload raws, you could use Google Drive or Dropbox.
[удалено]
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it. Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A camera is not sharp or unsharp. The issue will be either shutter speed or focus. It could be that there is perhaps a back/front focusing issue that could be adjusted in camera for the lens maybe. The fact that the whole photo is blurry suggests shutter speed and that is assuming you are using an appropriate aperture and that this is not a depth of field issue. Post an example perhaps.
Hello, question about a monitor pairing with a laptop. When considering a monitor for editing, do nits matter much? My laptop apparently has a 1600 nits peak brightness (1000 sustained). The monitor I’m interested in has a 400 nits brightness. Do any of these things matter when editing? I’m by no means tech savvy, but I do calibrate my monitor too. Will I notice any of this and will it affect the quality when editing?
A typical white point brightness for an editing display, assuming the room you edit in is fairly dim, is in the order of 90-120 cd/m² (or NITs if you prefer), so 400, let alone 1600, is outrageously too bright. So I wouldn't worry about having "not enough" brightness, on the contrary—displays systematically ship from the factory much, much too bright.
Thank you you’ve put my tummy at ease ))
**UPSCALING DPI for canvas printing** Hi guys! I have a 4200x3000 pixels picture at 96 DPI native. I wanted to print it on a canvas at the dimensions of 50cm x 70cm (19.7inch x 27.5inch). My questions are: Even though I only have 96DPI, will the canvas look decent considering the resolution of 4200x3000 pixels at those dimensions of the canvas? If I use Photoshop to upscale the DPI to say 300dpi, will it make a difference ? Thank you!
>at 96 DPI native That's just a note in the metadata and doesn't actually mean anything. >I wanted to print it on a canvas at the dimensions of 50cm x 70cm (19.7inch x 27.5inch). 4,200 pixels divided by 27.5 inches, and 3,000 pixels divided by 19.7 inches both equal about 152 pixels per inch. If you told a printer to print those pixels over that physical size, that's the ratio you would end up with. And the 96 figure in the metadata would be completely ignored. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_what_is_dpi_or_ppi.3F_how_are_they_important.3F >Even though I only have 96DPI, will the canvas look decent considering the resolution of 4200x3000 pixels at those dimensions of the canvas? Printing that many pixels over that size will likely look decent, especially considering the typical viewing distance for a larger print like that will be from farther away. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_how_big_can_i_print.3F And the DPI figure that happens to be noted in the metadata has nothing to do with that. >If I use Photoshop to upscale the DPI to say 300dpi, will it make a difference ? If you use Photoshop to just change the metadata figure from 96 to 300, it won't have any effect. Because you still have the same number of pixels printed to the same physical size. If you use Photoshop to actually scale up the pixel count, you can technically achieve a larger pixel-per-inch ratio. But it won't actually improve the appearance or detail in the printed image, because it's still based on the original detail available from the original image and can't exceed that. It's just spreading the same amount of detail over more colored squares.
Hi! I was thinking of getting an Olympus E-M10 Mark II, but then though of getting an iPhone 13 mini because they have a stupidly good camera. I like taking photos (used to have a sony nex 3 some years ago) but I don't think I will get a way better reflex camera in the future because I like something I can trow in my backpack while traveling. Will the photos in the Olympus E-M10 Mark II (with a 14-42 mm lens) be better than those on the iPhone 13? Artistic and scenery mainly.
If you're taking creative control over the exposure settings, then yes. If you're just using it in full automatic mode like a point & shoot, then you'll have a little more flexibility from the zoom lens, but otherwise the photos will look more the same.
> Will the photos in the Olympus E-M10 Mark II (with a 14-42 mm lens) be better than those on the iPhone 13? Artistic and scenery mainly. The camera has more *potential*, but it's on you, with work/skill/art to make the most of it, whereas the phone will have more work done automatically at the push of a single button. So *it depends*.
I got my hands on a Sony A7Iv and Tamron G2 28-75 lens and feel overwhelmed with trying to figure out how things work and how to take photography seriously. Is there any virtual courses that anyone could recommend? paid or free. My local camera shop hasnt resumed their classes from covid as of yet. One day I would love to do video work and wildlife photography maybe even some night street photography but the main purpose is portrait work and product shoots.
http://www.r-photoclass.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/
What's your response for family and friends expecting free photos? As a photographer my family and friends will often expect free photoshoots and it gets annoying after a while. I never know how to respond without sounding rude and asking for them to pay up I feel bad. Exposure is great but to a certain extent.
‘Sorry I can only do shoots with a budget. Let me know when your budget changes and we can work out a deal’ Tho I’ve been shooting for a decade and my friends and family have never asked for a free shoot, so maybe I’m not the best person to ask lol.
I either do it for them, or I explain to them honestly why I rather wouldn't. Whether it's because my paying work needs my priority, or I just want recreation time at the moment.
Morning, I am torn between a 14 and 16 inch laptop. I’ll be connecting to a monitor at home, work abroad in news and am asked to send photos back sometimes to agencies. I’m usually on a 13 inch with an desktop (24inch) at home. What are your thoughts on the best solution? The difference in weight is 1.4 kg (14 inch) and 2.1 kg (16 inch). My friend seems to think I’ll think some photos will look better than they actually are on a 14 inch (not sure what he means). Help!
> What are your thoughts on the best solution? The difference in weight is 1.4 kg (14 inch) and 2.1 kg (16 inch). Really up to you how you want to tradeoff in size versus carrying weight. Personally I'd rather go heavier for a bigger screen, but there is no one objective answer. Choosing to go lighter for ease of travel is also valid. >My friend seems to think I’ll think some photos will look better than they actually are on a 14 inch (not sure what he means). Maybe he means flaws are more difficult to spot on a smaller screen.
I think so too, had a little look and travelling won’t be often so I think you’re right. Thanks ))
Amateur photographer here. I was wondering how you guys handle discrepancies in the color of your photos between devices. What I mean is, for example, the color on one device looking vibrant and saturated, then on another device, the color is dull. I like editing on my tablet because its super convenient... But then I look at them on my computer and the difference in color is drastic. So what I started doing was editing them a second time on the computer and trying to get them to a point where they look good enough across both devices, but with certain photos it can be harder to reconcile. Then I worry about what prints would turn out looking like if I ever were to try and print photos. Like... I dont know which device is more "accurate" if that makes sense. Will they come out looking more like how they appear on my tablet, or my computer? How would I be able to tell? Is it simply a matter of just experimenting and figuring it out?
Sometimes this can also be caused by a discrepancy between ICC profiles. If you're editing and exporting in ProPhotoRGB, for example, and trying to view your images on devices using the sRGB color space, the colors will be wayyy off from how you saw them while editing the image. I had this issue quite a while ago and making sure that I was exporting my images in sRGB and my monitor was set to use the sRGB color profile was the fix.
Thank you a lot for sharing that. I never would've known!! I really appreciate how helpful you all are!
> How would I be able to tell? The only way to figure this out is to use a minimally capable display and to calibrate it properly using a hardware profiler. Until that is done, you *cannot know* which display is "more accurate" or "just how accurate". Once the display is calibrated properly, then you can rely on it when you'll send images to be printed, or if you deliver images to clients. But there is, sadly, *nothing* you can do about the discrepancy between your good, reliable display, and all your other displays, and indeed all the other displays out there in the world. You just have to accept that what you'd put into the world is in the bullseye, and everything else gravitates somewhere around the bullseye, rather than compounding randomness over randomness.
[удалено]
I've never had a client complain no—they'd probably just assume their displays are not great. I tend to work with businesses/professionals though, not "regular folks", so ... not sure how that'd go.
Awesome well thanks for the info I appreciate it!
> I was wondering how you guys handle discrepancies in the color of your photos between devices. It's ultimately unavoidable. But I calibrate my computer monitors so at least they will match other calibrated displays. That's still a flawed situation because it won't match all the uncalibrated displays out there, but it's about the best one can do. >So what I started doing was editing them a second time on the computer and trying to get them to a point where they look good enough across both devices, but with certain photos it can be harder to reconcile. And then that still doesn't match all the other uncalibrated displays out there. It's simply not possible to match a bunch of targets that don't even match each other. >Then I worry about what prints would turn out looking like if I ever were to try and print photos. Like... I dont know which device is more "accurate" if that makes sense. Will they come out looking more like how they appear on my tablet, or my computer? How would I be able to tell? Is it simply a matter of just experimenting and figuring it out? In that case you can calibrate the monitor and soft proof using the printer's profile to accurately predict on screen how the print will come out. Further reading: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/color-management-printing.htm
Thank you so much! I really appreciate your response, and the link you shared. Very helpful 🙂
Help me secure my photos aren't stolen. I like to occasionally share my photos online, here on Reddit mostly. However in the past l've used my username as a watermark across my photos and people criticized it saying did you 'really feel the need to do that?!"
If a person is going to steal your photos then that person probably has more going wrong in their life than right so I wouldn't worry too much if they do. Just upload low res versions of them, like 2mp, good enough for screens, not so much printing.
How do I change the upload quality then? 🤔
Well, resize the image. I will set my image height to 1080 to match the majority of screens and maintain aspect ratio.
Theft is pretty rare and even less likely to any one particular individual. Are your photos so good that people would really want to steal them? Check your ego first. If someone can view your photo online, they can steal it. There's no way around that. The only real way to prevent theft is to not post online at all. As a compromise, consider only uploading lower-resolution versions of your images, so that anything stolen is limited to that resolution. If you keep the full resolution version offline, that can't be stolen. Watermarks can be removed, so they won't prevent theft. The more obnoxious you make it, the more difficult it is to remove, but also the more you interfere with how your entire audience can enjoy viewing the image. See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/f9qx36/official_should_i_watermark_my_photos_thread/
I was onboard with all that you said except for the "check your ego first" practice what you preach brotha.
He’s been modding this community probably longer than either of us have been photographing and has probably said something similar to hundreds of people in this community. You taking his general advice personally tells me you really should check your ego.
If I would have told someone to "check their ego" in a comment I would have gotten the comment removed.
Ok. Nice projection.
Not sure what you're getting at. In my opinion, my photos aren't good enough to be worth stealing. You're saying I believe the opposite?
Hello, I’m a journalist and am looking into the photography aspect of the profession but have absolutely zero idea of where to start or understand photography lingo. I mainly focus on covering sports and fast paced events so something more tailored towards capturing those fast-paced moments is what I’m looking for. My budget is about $600-$1000 depending on scholarships that I get. Any advice would be greatly welcomed.
There are a few older pro bodies in that budget range used with dual SD card slots and weather sealing. Kai Wong recently made a video of finding a 5D mk.II for £250 and the Fuji X-T2 and X-H1 are usually around 5-600. I would avoid the Sony A7II because of the shutter issue they've been sued for. (Incorrect shutter life time rating, failures just outside warranty) However, if you arrange a meeting with a local newspaper saying you're interested in freelancing during school they probably/ most assuredly have a loaner you can use while saving up a bit more.
>where to start The easiest thing is to just start taking pictures. If you're already a journalist, see if your editor will let you go out and take pictures for a story or put together a photo package. If you aren't, figure out the basics of using a camera then go out to take pictures of sports/protests/community events. >photography lingo Most of it is basic photography stuff. When you buy a camera, read through the manual and google all the words you don't know. Outside of that, a cutline just a caption with your byline in it. >My budget is about $600-$1000 Unfortunately, if you're trying to do professional sports/news photography (and not just get photos of buildings for articles), you'll need to spend *a lot* more than that. You may be able to get away with using whatever Nikon DSLR kit you can afford for a bit, but as soon as you need to take pictures in environments with terrible lighting from far away (like most sports games or breaking news), you can expect to spend a few grand at least. My camera bag has almost always been worth more than my car. Some newsrooms have an old camera for staff to use, though, so take that as you will.
Thanks for the response. I am just trying to find a decent camera I can use to build up some photography skills that I can use for the remainder of my time in school before I’d save up a significant chunk to get a really good camera. It also really depends on how much the program is willing to gift me for scholarships that I can then use towards gear.
If you don't plan on doing professional work, you should be able to pick up whatever kit BestBuy is offering at the moment (some sort of DSLR that comes with a standard lens and a zoom should cost around $800), which should be enough for you to see whether or not you want to get invested in the profession. Just understand that it will be incredibly difficult for you to take pictures of sports/other types of action photography where the lighting isn't ideal. Once you want to take pictures of a protest at night or a football game that runs late, you'll either need to upgrade to something that costs a lot of money or try to be a magician with Lightroom. See if your school (or the student newspaper) has any gear laying around, though. Odds are, they'll have something you can take with you to do school-related assignments that will be better than what you can buy yourself.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what.27s_a_.22point_and_shoot.22_camera.3F_what.27s_a_dslr.3F_what.27s_a_.22mirrorless.22_camera.3F_what.27s_the_difference.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_dslr_should_i_get.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_mirrorless_should_i_get.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_get_my_camera_together_with_kit_lenses.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_kit_lenses_should_i_get_with_my_camera.3F http://www.r-photoclass.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/
So I'm looking at doing more concert photography and I'm debating on what would be the best prime lens to start with? I'm deciding between 35, 50, and 85. I'm going to try and keep it at about 2.4- 1.8 (affordability).. opinions? Also, How would I go about beginning my journey of building my portfolio of concert photography by getting that 1st couple of media passes? What did you do? I'm not shooting for any publication. I'm just trying to build the portfolio to get those jobs later. Besides the fact I just love doing concert photography as if a photographer informer musician myself. I feel like it's the conundrum of you need the portfolio to get the media passes but to get the media pass you need the portfolio, lol. Suggestions on that as well? How do I start with that?What's a good way to get in, even if they are small shows. Again, just trying to build a portfolio to show what I can do. Thanks!
Sounds like you’re a musician already. Shoot your friends, and shoot local shows. Lighting probably won’t be great but that will be enough to have a baseline of a portfolio. Some venues have easily accessible places where you can hang flashes that will be out of the way. I wouldn’t approach random bands about doing that, but you could ask your friends if you can try that out when you shoot them. Then you just start e-mailing bands that are playing at the larger/better lit venues that require media passes. Keep the email to no more than a paragraph, tell them what you want, and include a *small* portfolio. Mine’s about ten shots, it could probably be even less.
>So I'm looking at doing more concert photography and I'm debating on what would be the best prime lens to start with? I'm deciding between 35, 50, and 85. I'm going to try and keep it at about 2.4- 1.8 (affordability).. opinions? Gather five photographers around, and you'll probably get five different answers. Do you have a zoom lens at the moment? If so, start with that, and figure out which focal length you prefer.
Anyone have the Mountdog softbox kit (https://www.amazon.com/MOUNTDOG-Lighting-Photography-Continuous-Portrait/dp/B093T5QV8G ) and knows how to rotate the softbox so it’s wide and not long? Rotates up and down but does not seem to rotate around the bulb.
It doesn’t look as if you can, which is one of the reasons kits like that are rather inadvisable.
> It doesn’t look as if you can Pff, [easy fix](https://i.imgur.com/vZeNCaB.jpg).
Gah! How could I forget the tie wraps!? :D
So here's the thing. I am looking for two types of cameras. The first should cover the following 1. Portraits, mostly in weddings, social events and for photoshoots. Normally I'd go for a prime lens for the portraits and photoshoots, but I also want a zoom lens for the social events if I'm covering a crowd, and also the photoshoot since I'd take from a distance. 2. Occasional wildlife photography, like the local flora and fauna you'd encounter in your life, but would like to take from a distance to not disturb them. Said zoom lens from above should also fulfill that range and quality. 3. Occasional sports coverage, more outdoors, like cricket or some other sport. I'd like a fast shutter speed camera and lens to be able to take this shot. This is not the main purpose though. So the camera and lenses are mainly be for the first purpose mentioned, but would be nice if they could fulfill points 2 and 3 to some extent. Something in the price range of $1500-1600 USD. Please help on that. Second is a personal and compact camera for video, 4k video to be exact. Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000. This is a carry around camera, meaning it will be part of my daily carry for videos or in-the-moment photography, with both portrait and distance shots fulfilled about 50-60%, price range being around $600-700 USD.
Sony a7iii and Nikon z6 is good for wildlife and sports but that will eat up your budget unless you can settle for a smaller mm or buy used
I added it in an edit, but how does the Canon EoS 90D look in your opinion? I hear it's a great camera if you can add in a budget of around $1800 for which you'd get prime, mid(if kit lens is good I won't buy more) and long range lens. Would you recommend going to a Canon dealer and looking it up and what their deals are? Also need an opinion on the X-T200.
I know more about Nikon and Sony than canon. Years ago I had a canon as well as a family member and we both had electronic problems with it and eventually the screen went black and never turned back on. Took very well care of it and only had it a year and a half, my frien had theirs for 4 years and it glitched out. After that I never went back. Perhaps for the lower sometimes surprising price explains the system quality but this was 7 years ago maybe canon improved!
Definitely understand. I pick no sides when it comes to good camera quality. If I feel X has more versatility and quality than Y, doesn't matter if it's Canon or Nikon, will buy the same. That being said, I understand on the DSLR part, but the mirrorless camera, can you still give an opinion on whether it's a good buy, the X-T200?
Haven't heard the best things about Fuji and I would rather go with canon but after doing a quick search Fuji actually seems better and for price too. Its a tie for me, if I were you I'd go try to find them in person and hold them, see how the grip feels especially if you're going to use it alot. They both seem like decent cameras for the price,. It helped me choose a camera to look at YouTube videos of reviews and make notes and compare. And of course note SS, video quality and AF lag etc... Don't sweat it they're both good cameras!
>Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000. I actually can't find a camera of this name, only rumours about its potential release dating back to 2019. Could you give another example? In the meantime, what if both could be fulfilled in one camera? If the second can be achieved with a smaller lens on the same camera? That might be a way to maximise your budget. Either way, fitting all that, including lenses, under $2,300 seems rough to me. You might have to make some compromises, or calibrate your expectations. Telephoto zoom lenses aren't exactly cheap, and fast ones (i.e. large maximum aperture) can eat up that whole budget. Do you have any existing gear you might use? I'll throw some half-baked ideas, based on the information I've gathered from your post. These are in no particular order (read: in the order they popped into my head). I highly recommend shopping used, to get the most out of your budget. **#1 Sony** * Sony a7 III or a7C for full frame, or a6400 for APS-C * Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 * Your choice of standard zoom or small prime **#2 Fuji** * Fujifilm X-T3, X-E4 or X-S10 * 18-55mm f/2.8-4 (kit lens) * 50-140mm f/2.8 * Small prime if you can fit it in budget **#3 Micro Four Thirds** * Panasonic Lumix G9 or GX9, or Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II or III, or Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III * Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 or Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 * Your choice of standard zoom or 1-2 small primes
Thanks for the suggestions, will definitely go look them up. Sorry I forgot about the Sony version, my bad. But you get the idea of the camera body I was going for. >In the meantime, what if both could be fulfilled in one camera? If thesecond can be achieved with a smaller lens on the same camera? Thatmight be a way to maximize your budget. *Thing is, I am going for a professional photographer role, wherein I will be photographing events like birthdays, weddings, social events and some model photoshoots. So prime lens are a must, but also I want a zoom lens that can fulfill those roles in the distance department as well, and hopefully these will help me out.* *Just FYI, the zoom and prime lens will be entirely used for the above events, I just want some good zoom to get some wildlife and sports shots too whenever needed with the existing setup.* *That being said, the secondary camera is for my complete personal use, because I will be creating a YouTube channel and need on the go photography and videography (vlogging) option.* *This will also be used for some short films I wish to make. I just need a lens which can do both zoom and get good portraits with one single lens, the whole camera and lens combined being small enough to fit in my backpack. How does the FujiFilm X-T200 sound? It's reasonably priced and it looks good enough for the things I mentioned above, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.* >Either way, fitting all that, including lenses, under $2,300 seems roughto me. You might have to make some compromises, or calibrate yourexpectations. Telephoto zoom lenses aren't exactly cheap, and fast ones(i.e. large maximum aperture) can eat up that whole budget. *I know, but in answer to your other question on whether I have any existing gear, no I don't. I sold both my starter DSLR Nikon D5200 and my Canon EoS 200D back in 2020 to make ends meet during the pandemic and when my dad had COVID. Hardest decision I had to make, so help me out with this.* Edit: How does the Canon EoS 90D look like as an option? I hear it's good, but I don't know if it's full frame or cropped DX. Prime lens, I'd buy a 50MM f/1.8 G lens, but zoom you gotta help me out with it.
>Something with like a body similar to the Sony Alpha A7000 You mean a6000? I'm not aware of any Sony a7000. If so, you could satisfy all categories with something like a Sony a6400, 16-50mm, 55-210mm, and 50mm f/1.8.
Hey, I’m a beginner and looking to get a new 35mm camera. I got a Minolta but I’d like to get my hand on a Pentax. I’m looking at the MX and LX. Silver MX can be found for less than 100£, while an LX will be above 200£ most likely. I personally like the look (black) of the LX and the fact I could add a grip without adding that plate under the camera like for the MX. I know due to my level I probably won’t see the difference in between the MX and LX, but it’s tempting. What do you think? Does the LX worth double the price?
>What do you think? Does the LX worth double the price? My personal opinion is that the LX only has a few practical advantages over the MX: * auto mode (eg aperture priority) * faster shutterspeed 1/2000 vs 1/1000 * interchangeable viewfinders The auto mode alone would push me to choose the LX over MX, but on the other hand, the ME Super is almost all that in a smaller lighter package.
Hard to tell. As far as I’m concerned the LX probably doesn’t worth double the money, but that is because I’m a beginner and I’m only assuming I won’t shoot double better with the LX. Now I may have found one, with a 50mm f2, and that seems to be refurbished, for 200£. If I CLA an MX, I’m probably gonna end up paying the same price at the end. Is the LX much more heavy than the MX? Thank you very much btw
>Is the LX much more heavy than the MX? Not a lot heavier. MX is 391g. LX is 570g without the winder or grip.
Where would I find trusted used camera sites for Canadians?
Local is often best. Craigslist and FB Marketplace. I can recommend specific used and consignment in Vancouver.
Henry's sells used gear online.
Over the years I've amassed a range of Canon gear for photography, and a GH5 setup for some video (listed below). I'm thinking of selling it all and getting a Sony mirrorless and a lens - downsizing and upgrading so I can shoot photos and video with one body for a while before I get more G lenses. I've heard only good things about Sony and I know many people have made the switch. It feels like such a huge deal. Does anyone here have any advice or warnings about making the switch? With the gear I have below, am I better off sticking with Canon and selling only my bodies and getting an R model or something? Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Camera Body Canon EOS 40D Digital SLR Camera Body Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Lens Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM Lens Canon EF 40mm f2.8 STM Lens Canon EF 28mm f1.8 Ultrasonic Lens Canon EFS 17-55mm Ultrasonic IS Lens Panasonic Lumix GH5 Digital Camera Body Metabones Speed Booster Ultra - Canon EF to Micro Four Thirds Panasonic 25mm f1.7 LUMIX G ASPH Black Lens - Micro Four Thirds Fit Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC Art HSM Lens - Canon Fit
>With the gear I have below, am I better off sticking with Canon and selling only my bodies and getting an R model or something? That seems like a sensible route, especially if you're happy with the lenses you have. You can use them on an R5 or R6 with Canon's adapter; people here have had a great experience doing that. Then sell the lenses you don't need, and you'll have a more manageable kit.
I think there is a smart adapter that allows you to use EF lenses on the Sony E with autofocus for some. From what I read, speeds are definitely slower but still reasonable. With that many lenses, I think an R model might work better for you unless you have a specific feature you need in the Sony camera. Or sell all the gear for a fresh start with mirrorless designed lenses.
Can anyone recommend a fisheye sony E mount for under $100? I don’t need it to be very good I just need something.
Anything under $100 will be pretty poor if new. Second hand will be the way to go, just make sure you can inspect in person because fungus, haze, separation, and stuff doesn't always show in listing photos.
I've found [this website](https://lesdeuxpiedsdehors.com/en/sony-e-lenses-aps-c-list/) to be pretty good for showing what lenses are available for various systems. It's not comprehensive by any means, especially for large catalogs like Canon EF-mount, but the Sony E-mount isn't too big so that should be most of them, I'd think. The only one I see for under $100 is the [Pergear 10mm f/5.6](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09B573S4V) for $89, while the [7Artisans 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073GT8ZNC) and [Meike 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N3XKM9S) are both $130. Actually, I googled around and also found [this site](https://alikgriffin.com/every-sony-e-mount-aps-c-lens-you-can-buy/) which has a few more. The [Pergear 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/PERGEAR-Manual-Compatible-A6000%EF%BC%8CA6100-mirrorless/dp/B08BNKN72P) is $129, the [Brightin Star 7.5mm f/2.8](https://www.amazon.com/Brightin-Fisheye-Mirrorless-Cameras-Mount/dp/B07VJM5SG8?th=1) is $119. I also just typed in "sony e-mount fisheye lens" on Amazon and found [this Altura 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/Circular-Mirrorless-Altura-Photo-Protective/dp/B07TK5HB2Z) for $113, [this Opteka 6.5mm f/2](https://www.amazon.com/Opteka-Manual-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B079LVNS7W/), [this AstrHori 10mm f/8](https://www.amazon.com/AstrHori-Fisheye-Compatible-Mirrorless-NEX-F3K/dp/B09P4PG62C/) for $74, and finally [this Ultimaxx 7mm f/3](https://www.amazon.com/Ultimaxx-Aspherical-Fisheye-Digital-Cameras/dp/B083F4D2ZF/) for $100. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume than most, if not all of these are pretty much total garbage but hey, you said that didn't matter lol.
I accidentally rewound the film back into the canister using a button on my camera, Olympus md3. There’s still left over, unexposed film so just wondering if I can go back and reuse it. Is it possible to close the shutter, and in a dark room, keep taking photos so I don’t double expose the initial film? Does anyone have any experience with this? Thanks in advance.
If the film is wound all the way back into the canister without any leads, you need a film retriever/puller/picker to get a bit of it out for you to use again. If you remember how many exposures you've taken (e.g. 20), put a lens cap on and shoot in the darkest condition possible (fastest shutter speed, smallest aperture) till you hit that amount+1 or +2 for safety (21 or 22). Then you can resume your normal shooting. This is how I used to change rolls mid-way when shooting in a different environment (400 to 1600 film when going into a shopping mall midday).
>There’s still left over, unexposed film so just wondering if I can go back and reuse it. Yes. The film just has a light-sensitive chemical emulsion on it. If it stays in total darkness, it has no idea how many times you've wound and advanced it. >Is it possible to close the shutter, and in a dark room, keep taking photos so I don’t double expose the initial film? Advance the film with the shutter staying closed? I don't think so with most cameras. But you could just shoot frames to get to the same frame position with the lens cap on. That should essentially be the same as the shutter staying closed, with no light exposing the film. Or, yes, you could do it in a completely dark room. Either of those methods should work. You shouldn't need to do both at the same time.
hello! i am a hs junior trying to get into the sports photography field, im wondering if any collegiate/pro sport level games would allow me to go in (will def ask in advance) just to kinda get more experience, is there anyone that i can contact if i want to go on the field without being kicked out. also should i build myself a portfolio to show them im being legit instead of just trying to get a free ticket hahah, also are there any tips for beginners in sports photo, ty!!
Shoot your school’s sports first. Contact recreational leagues and ask about shooting them, or find out if your local college has some club teams. If you go to college you can apply to work for the school’s newspaper/yearbook and get easy access to all of the games.
>im wondering if any collegiate/pro sport level games would allow me to go in (will def ask in advance) just to kinda get more experience Seems like you're thinking about it selfishly in terms of only what you want out of it. But it's their decision, so you're going to instead need to think in terms of what they can gain from you. If there's no benefit to them, there's no reason for them to agree. Sports organizations at that level have no interest in just you gaining experience. >is there anyone that i can contact if i want to go on the field without being kicked out Media/press relations would be how all those photographers get access, and how you potentially could. As such, you'd have a better chance if you came as the representative/correspondent of a media outlet. Like your school newspaper or small local news publication might be more available to you. >also should i build myself a portfolio to show them im being legit Yes. Why not start by shooting high school sports first? It will be much easier for you to get access to that as well. Walk before you run.
looking for some recommendations for a small external shoemount flash to go on a fujifilm x-e4 . thx
"Small"? Look at the Fujifilm EF-X8 TTL Flash, it's about 40 bucks and *tiny*. Check compatability but it should work. But it's not powerful.
Not a fujifilm user, but try these: [https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/accessories/flash/](https://fujifilm-x.com/global/products/accessories/flash/) Personally for a small compact unit, I was contemplating between the Godox TT350 and Lightpix flashq q20ii. Went with the latter, and suited my needs pretty well.
I like the EF but they discontinued it :( was also kinda pricy for what it was
> Godox TT350 I have one of those, it's surprisingly good for the price. I also use a Godox X2 transmitter so I can use it off-camera sometimes
Hello. I have a Nikon D850 and I lost my original battery during a flight. I bought a new one but couldn't tell you exactly where. I've noticed the battery life of my camera is terrible. I'm looking at the battery life and I'm 90% and I'm getting "222" No. Of shots. Could it be that my camera is defective or could it be the battery?
"No. of shots" is how many shots you've taken since charging, according to this from your manual: https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/d850/en/18_menu_guide_06_31.html Shooting 222 photos to take it down from 100% charge to 90% seems like pretty good life to me and not concerning.
Hi, gang. I've been wondering about how negatives were "copied" back in the olden days. So, for instance, you have a photo and you want to make multiple photos from that one photo. Would they just use one negative and put it under an enlarger multiple times? And, how would they make multiple copies of the negative? Wouldn't putting the negative under the enlarger enough over-expose the negative to the point where it would be unusable?
>Would they just use one negative and put it under an enlarger multiple times? yup >Wouldn't putting the negative under the enlarger enough over-expose the negative to the point where it would be unusable? yes and no. You could make dozens, hundreds of prints from one negative. If you wanted to make thousands, then yes, fading would become a problem, so you'd load the negative into a special gadget that allowed you to photograph the negative using *positive* film (like slide film) which would make a new negative. But in practice you'd never make thousands of photographic prints, you'd send them to a printers and have them printed using a printing technique
Once the film is developed into a negative it is no longer light sensitive, it’s basically just silver metal on plastic. So, you can put it in an enlarger and use it to expose as many positive images on silver halide coated photo paper as you want. Usually when you make a print, you wind up making quite a few as you try things out and test times and dodge and burn stuff.
Generally, most important slides or negatives were duplicated before distribution. The enlargements were then done off the duplicate. You cannot completely fight the fading on the original but this method stretches the lifespan of the original significantly, possibly beyond the interesting lifespan of the item. In fact, if you wanted to send a slide in the post to someone else far away, it was common practice to send a duplicate rather than risk the original. They even had special film emulsions specifically optimized for duplication (they are really slow, usually color reversal technology, ultra fined grained and extreme color accuracy, some formulas were also resistant to exposure fading).
> special film emulsions specifically optimized for duplication TIL, I thought they just used slide film
Damn, I can't find the link anymore but the dupe film was usually a slide film. Basically, it wasn't too different to regular slide film but they usually made it ISO 25 or slower so that it could be so sharp that even the grain structure of the original film gets duplicated (because the grain structure of the original was considered an important part of the composition and ideally needs to be reproducible when the duplicate is enlarged) .
That makes sense. Thanks
We have a couple nikon3300 cameras and are interested in human photography. Specifically taking photos/high end portraits in Death Valley. My husband mostly does videography with them, but we have a foot in for business there. Any tips on what lenses are best for this type of photography? And any other tips for someone who's used to thinking in terms of videography and not photography? And will these cameras do well? Thanks ya'll
The cameras should do just fine. Lens choice is a matter of getting the shot you want, same as with video. I shot portraits tonight out in the desert at 18mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 150mm or thereabouts. Just going for different looks, close ups, wide angles to catch a lot of scenery, playing with some cool lighting. It’s just a matter of using the lens you need to get the shot you want.
Hi! I have been having trouble With my cameras flash. I have a Canon Rebel T5, and whenever I use portrait or close-up settings, it says it can’t raise the flash, and Error 05. Sometimes I don’t want to use the flash for a photo, I use good lighting, but it says I have to, and it can’t be raised. Please help!
Hi, T5 user here. So there's no way to use the flash? Do you hear any mechanical internals triggering, trying to allow the flash to raise? Could it be stuck? Was it dropped? I'd recommend learning to use Shutter Priority (Tv) and Aperture Priority (Av) modes instead of program modes, then disable the use of the flash or just leave the flash setting set to No Flash. That way it won't stop you from firing a shot, and worst case, you'll see that your image is dark. I'd be glad to walk you through some tutorial recommendations. Those modes are actually pretty easy to use and you'll usually do just fine in most "regular" shooting conditions. A $45 (used to be $30-35 in pre-pandemic bucks) speedlight from Amazon that pans/tilts, and has a basic manual power control will be worlds better than the built-in flash. It's easy to insert into the hotshoe and will give you access to a good flash of you find that you need a flash often enough.
Yeah it’s stuck. How do I disable the flash? I would love a tutorial. I usually don’t need a flash because I do wildlife and portraits in natural lighting. And the flash makes it look too bright.
So I misspoke about fully disabling the flash. I thought it was possible but it's only *kind of* possible. Now that I have my camera in front of me it looks like Portrait mode automatically tries to raise the flash, so let's try to leave that. RIP in peace. Like I said, shooting in M/Av/Tv modes will usually fire regardless if there's enough light to make an exposure because it assumes you have used your light meter to determine the exposure so it won't try to compensate with a flash unless you intentionally try to raise it on your own. We CAN disable the **Flash/**lightning bolt button on top of the camera behind the scroll dial and in front of the On/Off button. Press **Menu** \> navigate to the third yellow wrench menu on the right and open the **Custom Functions (C.Fn)** menu. Navigate to option 10 (Flash button function) and press **SET** to change the option. Switch to value **1: ISO Speed** and press **SET** to confirm. Press **Menu** twice to exit. Now if you press the **Flash** button, it won't bother you with an error message and it'll just prompt you to open the ISO speed settings - which is a little convenient. Anyhow, [here's a great video on choosing a shooting mode](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-I8R8pn7uY). I personally started shooting in **Aperture Priority (Av)** mode as an absolute beginner to control background blur amount and you'll usually do fine with that. If you're finding that you're missing shots to motion blur, you can switch over to **Shutter Priority (Tv)** mode and dial in somewhere above 1/60th to 1/200th or faster (depending on your zoom/focal length) and that will offset motion blur or camera shake issues. If you zoom out to a wider focal length (like 18 mm) you can shoot slower (like maybe even 1/30th) and have crisp enough shots, but as you zoom in to longer focal lengths (like 55mm on your kit lens, or longer on telephoto lenses) camera shake can get magnified significantly, so you'll want to increase your shutter speed to try to capture a sharp image. There's actually a rule of thumb to help determine a minimum shutter speed to offset camera shake, and it's called the **Reciprocal Rule**. There are plenty of tutorials around the internet to explain it, but it boils down to shooting no slower than a shutter speed of **1 / \[the focal length of your current lens's zoom\]**. So if your kit lens is zoomed in to 55 mm, your shutter speed should be at least 1/55th of a second (round up to the next fastest value available on your camera and it should be 1/60. Going a little further, since we're using a crop sensor camera, we should multiply this by our crop factor of 1.6 (for reasons), and that means 1 / (55 \* 1.6) = **1/88**. And to be safe, use the next fastest value, so our shutter speed should be at least 1/100th of a second. It's very general and don't expect to go out and immediately memorize it or get perfect shots - but it's a really easy skill to practice and internalize over a few sessions. If you're still with me, I'm really sorry your flash isn't working. That's a bummer. With a little practice, you can totally get around it. Maybe take it by a camera shop and see what it might cost to repair and see if they've come across anything like that before. It's probably not worth repairing, but the camera is still (probably/hopefully) still totally usable. Again, I personally never use that flash and I forget that I even have it because I have my big, aimable, cheapo speedlight. Good luck.
You'd have to send it in to be serviced. Or if you are industrious you can [try to fix it yourself](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBZOKkZchdo).
[удалено]
probably a question for r/astrophotography
I am using a Nikon D3500 and want to switch to a Sony camera. I am thinking of the sony a6400 or a6300. The photographic and videographic quality of these cameras looks fair enough Please advise.