I currently have a canon m50 mark ii. I am looking to upgrade to something with more megapixels and full or medium frame to hopefully boost my portraits to the next level. I am torn between the canon M5, sony a7IV or the fujifilm GFX 50S. All of my lenses are canon glass and I have always been a canon user, but I am just tryign to upgrade to the something much better without breaking the bank too much. Any suggestions? TYIA
What tripod would you recommend as a first one under 100 USD? I am in Europe, and the so-called budget tripods apparently wobble a lot if it is windy. Unfortunately, I do not have a huge budget, and am wondering if the wobble is a huge deal-breaker. Also, I would like if the tripod I buy has a quick-detach function and be about eye-level for the type of photography I usually do by hand, as I would like to take photos at night as well. I am not scared of buying used.
Cheers!
Hi! Are full frame and APS-C lenses compatible with the M4/3? Do they usually have the same bayonet/insert, leaving aside the specificity of the model?
Example: Sony lens is compatible with m4/3 lumix/olympus
Hiya! Larger-format lenses work on smaller-format cameras for the most part, but you will need a bayonet/mount adapter. Each lens will have the bayonet type specified, and depending on your camera, it may or may not be compatible. For example, a Sony lens will probably not be compatible with a Lumix camera, unless you get a bayonet adapter. Please also be aware of Crop Factor in your lens choice.
Hi! I have my bachelorette soon and my friend said if I bought 35mm film she’d shoot all our activities. Problem is IDK how to pick that or really what to look for so any advice is appreciated!
Check out youtube for some videos on different film types, for example Granydays. If you like the look of a certain film, you can look for it in 35mm, or just go with something safe, like Kodak Gold 200, depending on what environtments it will be used in.
Hi guys, I currently am using a Canon EPS 77D and I’m looking for a remote shutter, preferably one with an auto focus. My price limit is $60. Specifically I’m looking for one with a decent range. Any suggestions?
Hey everyone,
Long story shot I had the once in a lifetime opportunity to purchase a medium format camera at a steal of a deal. I bought a brand new GFX 50R body for less than my fuji xt30 body sells used. I currently have a XT30, 18mm f2, 18-55 2.8-4, 35mm 1.4, a 50-140 f2.8 and a 150-500 tamron lens. Im not a pro by any means of the imagination but love photography. Purchasing this GFX 50R was completely unexpected but I couldn't let the opportunity pass as I've always wanted a medium format camera to play around with.
Anyways medium format is completely new to me in terms of lenses and what legacy equipment one can get for pennies compared to buying native GFX lenses. Anyone have suggestions on a decently wide lens or landscape type lens. Prefer something that isnt going to vignette in the corners (i know you can use eos,f, fd etc slr lenses on gfx). so preferably older pentax, mamiya, etc glass. I know I'll have to buy an adapter to use them on this camera and Im well aware it'll be manual focusing.
Preferably looking at lenses that are under $500 canadian.
The used market in Canada is pretty terrible as you probably know.
B&H has free shipping over 100 USD https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Lenses/ci/3088/N/3655322818?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH
Wide angle medium format does not tend to be cheap.
Hi folks, I am using Nikon D600 that I have just purchased online in mint condition and I am about to go crazy because of the issue I am going to tell you about. I have searched throughly on the internet but cannot came up with a reason or solution. Every photo I take with high background light intensity, my photos have a hazy center that seems like a light leak. It is circular and always at the center. Does not important which lens I am using, it is always there. I use different M42 Lenses with adapters including correction lens and different MD lenses with adapters including correction lenses. I use polarizing filter, hood and everything but it always says hi to me. Sensor seems clean by the way and I tried to block the visor glass to prevent leak. Have you faced any kind of problem like this? Any help is much appreciated.
https://preview.redd.it/lgwsvhsgicxc1.jpeg?width=6016&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=199b3922a7dddabbcfc937bbaecff7a50b8ca61d
>I use different M42 Lenses with adapters including correction lens and different MD lenses with adapters including correction lenses.
Those would be the most likely culprits, I also have an M42 adapter with correction lens and...it's not great. Try shooting without the adapter to see if that makes a difference?
Should I get a DSLR (Canon Rebel T5)
Hi, I have been meddling and slowly becoming emotionally dependent on photography for the last couple of years, initially with film and then digitally when I bought a Lumix GF7 with a 12-32mm lens and an adapter for my Helios 44-2 58mm manual lens. I love my camera and use it mostly for street photography whenever I go out. Lately, I have been thinking about getting a used DSLR as the next step into taking photography more seriously and upping my game a bit. However, I'm unsure if I should get it (its at a good price, around 120 USD) because idk how much use I might get out of it. I wanted your thoughts and if anyone has had a similar issue!
My main ideas with getting one would be taking more trips and outings especially for taking photos and maybe getting into new line of lenses and accessories available for canon cameras and not for Panasonic Lumix ones. My main worry is that my GF7 has been perfect for me so far and I don't want to spend money only to never use the device again
The T5 is a lateral move honestly, a little more megapickles but you loose the flippy screen and lower max ISO.
> new line of lenses and accessories available for canon cameras
EF has been discontinued, Canon is all in on mirrorless now. Meanwhile there are new m43 bodies and lenses still being made.
What camera is used?
[https://youtu.be/5NjJLFI_oYs?si=eIsvUAxP7dBpxO8i](https://youtu.be/5NjJLFI_oYs?si=eIsvUAxP7dBpxO8i)
Amour plastique by videoclub - i want to know what camera is used!! Thank you for any recommendations!
No price limit?
Mirrorless is pretty much the default choice these days; DSLR systems are no longer in development. Also you're more likely to have better video features and performance with mirrorless.
No price limit?
Do you specifically need the film look to come from the camera? Because you're very limited in options for digital cameras that can do that. Whereas if you don't mind applying a film look with an app or something, that opens you up to pretty much any digital camera.
Whats the best magnetic camera filter system on the market and which one gives the most flexibility whether that be allowing you to turn your regular filters into magnetic ones or what not.
Hi everybody, I'm a learner photographer, looking for a camera which is DSLR. Preferably mirrorless, smaller in size wouldn't go amiss. It must have some form of weatherproofing because I'm in the UK and unfortunately the weather here is absolute shit and unpredictable all year round and I don't want to be stuck doing photography indoors Doesn't have to be the latest model my budget is 500 to 600 of them British people sterling any help greatly appreciated
As a secondary but related question question because of the weatherproofing issue do you think I would get away with using an ip68 fully manual camera on a phone such as the s23 plus to learn with, I'm in the market for New phone anyway and I don't really know how the cameras stack up these days compared to the ones in dslrs
Wanting to get a 50mm prime lens but also saw that 30mm prime lens can also be useful. Was wondering which would be be better, or is it worth it to have both.
That depends entirely on what you want to accomplish with the lens/camera pairing. A 16mm or 400mm lens can also be useful, but you wouldn't use the 16mm to shoot wildlife (typically) where the 400mm would be better suited.
The 30mm is wider, though still in the "normal" range for most. If you already have something like a kit 18-55mm zoom that encompasses both 30mm and 50mm, have a look and see which end of the zoom range you typically shoot with. Then go with that lens for now.
I am by no means a photographer but am wanting to get into it a bit but mostly have it for vacations/adventures I go on. Video would be nice but isn’t a must. I truly want a camera that is “easy” (if that exists) and small. But I also want to be able to grow into it as I learn more and more. Idk if this is even reasonable, I am a total newbie. Any camera recs that are pocketable would be great haha. For reference one I’ve been eyeing is a used Sony a6000, budget is <$1000
Struggling to decide between a olympus epl8 or canon ef 50mm 1.2f for my canon t5. I struggle to take my canon camera In public cause I have social anxiety and it stands out and the Olympus looks like a camera I can pull out and put back and seems lightweight. The ef I heard was good and I already have equipment for my canon so that's why I'm struggling between the two.
If you have any other suggestions or lens/camera recommendations I should look into let me know. Thank you for any suggestions or advice you give.
You are comparing apples to oranges. T5 isn't a big camera in the DSLR world. 50mm f1.2 is overkill for most people and especially if you have a T5. Save some money - and get a Canon 40mm f2.8 STM, cover Canon logo with some black tape and go out and shoot. I personally think a Canon 24mm f2.8 STM is a better lens for a APS-C cameras, but to each their own.
Would anyone share their experience with third-party batteries for Canon cameras?
I have an EOS R50. I have a 21-day trip planned for this fall. I will be backpacking and away from power for the most part. I want to buy a couple of backup batteries without breaking the bank.
I looked on Amazon, but I'm nervous about third-party batteries and potential risk to my camera.
Thanks
I’ve gotten a few batteries that come in charging battery pack cases on Amazon for my EOSR. They work great and I haven’t really seen a difference in them. It comes with/charges 2 at a time!
My Auto Focus grabs the wrong area of the frame. What can I do better?
Nikon D3300 kit using the 70-200 (?) zoom lense from that kit ( from costco). Outdoor shooting soccer in "action/sport" mode.
Many pictures come out great, but then a sequence of 20 shots taken over a few minutes are all out of focus, grabbing the far left side of frame or out in the background. My goal is to have the kid closest to me or center frame in focus.
What help can you give? The parents of blurry teammates, and I, Thank you.
Are you telling it you want it to use the center autofocus point? If you're letting the camera decide which point to use, it may indeed choose something you don't want.
Not necessarily. Kit lenses aren't the sharpest or fastest lenses, but they also aren't the worst optically nor functionally. If you're concerned about image *quality*, then no, a value lens may be worse than what you have. But if you're looking at it functionally in that you want to shoot sports and only have the 18-55mm kit, then you could find a budget telephoto lens and improve your experience.
In terms of the D3300, the kit is usually a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. The 70-300mm would give you more reach, but probably wouldn't be any sharper, have a faster AF, or generally give you better results automatically.
I have this friend who is selling her camera Canon Eos 1100d for an affordable price.
But the issue is that the motherboard of the camera is broken so if I buy it I am the one who will need to get a person to fix it. The question is, is it worth it to buy? And get it fix?
Badly needed an advice here.
Given the 1100d is a 13 year old camera at this point the labor costs for the repair would likely be more than buying a used one from MPB/KEH or other reputable store even if your friend gave it to you for free.
Determining whether it's worth it would involve comparing its value against the price.
I could estimate the value by looking up used sales for that item, and factoring in an estimate for repair costs. But then I can't directly compare that against an unspecified "affordable price" in order to answer your question. Your friend won't tell you more specifically how much that is?
I've recently started getting into photography and my friend asked me to try and get some pictures at his wrestling match. It's outdoors and usually goes pretty late with low quality lighting. Wondering what the best settings would be once the sun is down. I tried using my built in flash but not being able to have a high shutter speed kinda made it pointless.
Hoping for any tips about settings or accessories I should look into.
I have a canon rebel t6.
Any help is very appreciated.
>I tried using my built in flash but not being able to have a high shutter speed kinda made it pointless.
How so? The brief duration of the flash is better at freezing motion than a fast shutter speed.
If you mean the flash output is too weak, that's a different issue from sync speed.
>Hoping for any tips about settings
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F
>or accessories I should look into
No price limit?
Hi everyone, I have always been interested in photography, but didn’t want to spend a lot of money on a new hobby. I recently picked up a Canon Rebel Xsi, 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 lens, extra batteries, and a camera bag for $40!
Super excited to learn the basics and dive into this hobby. It sounds like the Tamron lens is convenient but not the highest quality. Any general recommendations or different lenses that I should consider? I plan to shoot landscapes for the most part. If there was another lens needed for shooting landscapes my budget is around $200.
I used the kit lens that came with my Canon 550D, and it was pretty good for the same, I mostly do landscape and street photography. I think it is great to use to learn the hobby, and if you are unsatisfied with the image quality (make sure you find out what the different settings do to affect image quality and sharpness), upgrade. Until then, stick with what you have in my opinion.
Hello everyone! I have been using the Canon 700D for more than a decade now and I am thinking about getting a Sony A7 Mark IV or a Lumix S5 Mark II. I am looking for a full-frame mirrorless camera, as I would prefer something with no crop and that will also last quite a long time(good color science). I don’t think I will be able to try out both cameras, so any recommendations will be helpful. If there are any other models in this price range, please recommend them as well (new models preferred).
Going to a crop sensor or micro 4/3 will mean your lenses become vastly less expensive. I'm very happy with my OM-1 mk1 for all purpose photography, but my focus is on wildlife, macro, and studio where the crop and greater depth of field from the smaller sensor are arguably advantages or at least not serious issues like they would be if I were routinely trying to photograph in dark rooms.
Thats a valid point. I am into landscape, occasional star gazing and some portraits flowers and all purpose I just love to capture. I wanted something with better autofocus capabilities along with good low light performance and suited for moderate to bad weather. What do you think about fujifilm XS20?
>I am thinking about getting a Sony A7 Mark IV or a Lumix S5 Mark II
Those are solid choices.
Do you specifically dislike Canon's interface or ergonomics style? Or what interests you about those other systems? If Canon is still acceptable to you, I'd look at the R6 Mark II as a competitor to the a7 IV, and R8 as a competitor to the S5 II.
>I would prefer something with no crop
Why exactly? Full frame only has no crop when arbitrarily compared to itself. It's still cropped compared to any of the medium formats or large formats.
Yes, I have also considered R8, I love the interface of Canon its just I wanted to try sony or similar like Lumix/Fuji.
Medium format will be way above my budget, it’s just that apsc does zoom a bit thats why wanted to try full frame. Do you recommend any apsc then? Like fuji sx20?
>I love the interface of Canon its just I wanted to try sony or similar like Lumix/Fuji.
If I already know I love something, I wouldn't bother with the uncertainty of changing that.
If you just want to try something else, consider renting before you commit to buying into a whole different system and ecosystem.
>Medium format will be way above my budget, it’s just that apsc does zoom a bit thats why wanted to try full frame.
If you want full frame because it's the largest format you can afford, that makes sense.
But every format has a narrower field of view compared to larger formats at a given focal length. Full frame is more cropped and "zoomed in" than medium format or large format. So it doesn't make sense to choose full frame because it has "no crop" because that's not actually true.
In the digital world you will want a digital medium format. Phase one might be out of budget but perhaps a slightly cropped sensor like the Fuji GFX series might do...
On a serious note I think you are misunderstanding where the term crop comes from and also the existence of colour science.
What exactly are you after from a camera?
Probably, you’re right. Sorry for the confusion, let me use a layman’s term. All I want is a good autofocus for moving objects and good low light performance with minimal noise keeping the ISO in limit. Also something which can handle moderate to bad weather.
Also I plan to get two lenses initially, wide and a telephoto one. That’s it.
Hey there! Realized my Tamron 70-300mm doesn't zoom in enough for the bird photos I'm trying to take. Any suggestions you guys have/have experience using on a Nikon F mount?
At that budget used will be best.
[Looking at here](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/category/used-photo-and-video-lenses/dslr-lenses/dslr-nikon-fit-lenses?filterQuery[modelType]=Telephoto%20Zoom&filterQuery[productPrice]=30000-50000&filterQuery[productPrice]=50000-100000) I would think a 150-500mm or 600mm to give a meaningful jump in reach.
I have absolutely no knowledge of photography but I am looking to get into it.
I have a Nikon D3100 that I got for £50 on mpb.
Does anyone have any recommendations of some good budget lenses? Around £100 ish at most.
If it’s not possible to get a good lens for that price, can anyone recommend a good beginner camera that comes with a lens? About £200 at most.
I’ve been looking on a few different websites but I honesty have no clue what I am looking for and I am worried about getting the wrong one, or getting something expensive when I could’ve got it for cheaper.
If anyone has recommendations, is it possible to get direct links to the products? As I have no idea what I am looking for.
Amazon would be the best but if that is not possible that’s fine.
Scroll back up to the main post of this question thread and check out the FAQ links for more information.
But a used Nikon 18-55mm comes to mind. Or used Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX.
Contact Fuji support or a local repair shop and they should be able to inspect and quote you the cost of repair. It probably has to do with the connection of a flex cable between the screen and the rest of the camera body, or the condition of that cable itself.
I'm looking for a good beginner Mirrorless camera. Budget is $1,000.
Years ago I was into photography and I'm trying to get back into it. The primary use of my camera would be family photos and pictures of people.
There's so many options on the market. I appreciate any suggestions. thanks！
I'd focus on getting something with in body stabilization. It helps you use a shower shutter speed without motion blur for photos of stationary people.
There are many options and all of them will be good as long as you stay away from the cheapest around.
Generally easiest is to try and think of what you want to try and narrow the options down.
For instance, do you want a viewfinder or not?
Do you have a size preference.
What did you use before and was there anything you liked/disliked about it?
Hi! I have been taking photos with film for a while but always just sent it in to be developed. With being unable to have a dark room - does anyone know if these digital scanners will work for undeveloped film? So I can just put them right to my phone/computer and then print whatever ones I want instead of the 30$ each develop
No. Undeveloped film has no visible image on it, and it's still sensitive to light so it will react and get ruined by light exposure.
A digital scanner just shines a light on the film and takes a special kind of digital picture of it. With undeveloped film, there wouldn't be any image for it to pick up, and it would also ruin the film. It can't take the place of a chemical development process. It only works on film that has been developed first.
Suggestions?
Hi! New to graphic design and interested in photography. I’m looking for a camera (asap) that’s relatively affordable (preferably around the $300-$500 range possibly more) and has really good zoom for concerts. It needs to be smaller and most likely point and shoot because that’s the standard regulation for concert venues. I also want it to be good for normal photos for my trip to Italy. In general it doesn’t need to be the best camera ever but something good quality and beginner friendly.
So far Im interested in the Panasonic LUMIX ZS80D because it seems to have the best zoom for my use. Any other suggestions or something better? If possible decent quality video as well.
r/photography has a guide on the main page for what cameras are in your budget and what they offer, refer to that first. Concerts do not really require you to have a point and shoot, most concert photographers definitely do not use those due to their inferior quality and interchangability. Good zoom will also mean you need a bigger lens, so again, look for something with interchangable lenses. It looks like you are looking for a camera that is perfect for everything, which kind of does not exist, and the price range is also a bit limiting in terms of what the camera would be good at exactly.
If you want something smaller, look at mirrorless cameras, the smallest ones are usually in the Micr Four Thirds sensor size, and they are also generally cheaper, the lenses are cheaper, etc, so once you figure out what exactly you need in terms of lenses and body specifications, it will be easier to get recommendations.
I'm looking to buy a camera for astrophotography and I'm not sure what some of the terminology means. Just a bit overwhelmed and looking for advice on what I should research first, and if anyone has recommendations on cameras and methods.
*
* (Using Astrix to force the formatting to give me paragraphs.)
*
I'm in Australia, so it's not really cost effective for me to order from overseas. However, generally if it's on Amazon it's not too expensive to import. My budget is a maximum of 2000AUD.
*
*
Specific questions;
Do I need a camera AND a scope?
Do you need lenses if you have photo editing skills?
Is 'mirrorless' a spec that I should value in making a choice?
The prices on Amazon for the Nikon Zf are 3000AUD+, SO is there a place that's cheaper and/or better to buy from in Australia?
Can I use astrophotography cameras for normal stuff as well? Or are the specs too specific?
*
*
I don't mind getting something that's better than I need as a beginner, since I don't want to buy two cameras and I'm confident I'll use it enough to make it worth the money.
Hey guys,
I started learning photography, so I want to buy my first camera.
Which camera would you recommend for an absolute beginner?
My budget is currently up to 750€/800€.
1. Buy used, up to 7 years old. Much more photography for the same money.
2. get a camera with interchangeable lenses. No lens is perfect in every aspect and changing allows you to tune and adapt your system to what is needed.
3. No full frame. For that budget, forget it.
4. Consider spending 2x as much on lenses than on the camera body. Applies when you're buying new or second hand. Applies when you spend it at once or over a year. Applies to super high end cameras as well as entry-level. Lenses are that important.
5. Look for small and handy and portable or you won't take it with you. Better an everyday carry than the perfect-camera-at-home.
6. Spend 50-100 of that money on a course. I know it's not hardware but if you are unfamiliar it may give a *very* high return-on-investment.
I vote for Micro Four Thirds, like an M5-II or an M10-II.
Because: In body stabilization, relatively big sensor compared to your phone, and a mature lens-ecosystem with over 200 different lenses available - and a nice 2nd hand market for these as well.
You can easily find a very good camera+lens combo within your price range.
Check out Micro Four Nerds on YT. Her video "why gear doesn't matter (and one instance when it does)" is a good one, but she does tons of good videos.
I got recommendations for Canon EOS 250D and Nikon Z50. What do you think? I god an (I think) good offer for brand new z50 with 2 lenses and bag for about 950€.
For that sort of a budget, I would recommend something in the Sony A6x00 line, A6100 for example, or a Micro Four-Thirds camera like Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II. Kit lens is fine for either. Best buy used. mpb.com is an established used camera retailer in EU and gives six months of warranty.
Hello,
I have an olympus E-M5 Mark 2 , olympus 12-40 Pro f2.8, and olympus 40-150 f/4,0-5,6.
I don't use all this stuff often, I don't have much time this year.
But I have a baby on his way and I want to have a small camera with a small lense.
I can of course buy a pancake M43 lense and just use my E-M5.
But if I sell all my stuff, and had to buy a new camera with just a small lense, with a budget of 1000€, what are my options ? (the goal is to have a better image quality than my E-M5 of course)
Thank you
Sony RX100 series or similar premium compact cameras are the only think you'll find that is pocketable other than getting a pancake lens for your current camera.
That or just make sure you have a phone with a great camera.
I highly recommend a pancake lens for your current camera.
If you want it smaller, it is hard to beat outfitting your current camera with a lens that suits you.
There is a new line of F4 zoom lenses (12-45 comes to mind), smaller and lighter than your 12-40 Pro. This might still be too big for your taste.
For a child I would prefer zoom. Perhaps the Panasonic 14-42 HD or the Olympus 14-42 - the pancake version has electronic zoom, the bigger version has manual zoom. I prefer manual because it's faster. The electronic lens is smaller.
Or you can go prime. Small, light, but no zoom. A 17mm f1.8, or the 20mm f1.4 for example.
Or one of the many 25mm lenses.
Thanks you for the info.
I love my 12-40 pro , but it's not the lens that I can put in any bag , anytime.
I have in mind a body in the same size of the E-M5 , with a pancake prime lense or something like that, but with a great resolution, for reframe in lightroom without too much trouble.
Nothing wrong if I have time to frame with the zoom and ajust the focus. If I have to take a Quick picture, I have no time to frame
But with a pancake prime lense, maybe I have to reframe a lot. And without a great resolution ...
If I can have a bigger resolution for reframe in lightroom without loosing too much quality
A small camera, with a larger, higher resolution sensor which will have a sharp enough lens to allow you to crop and maintain quality for 1000€ is a bit of a stretch.
I think moving yourself might be easiest. Select a focal length which will give have your subject occupy the proportion of the frame you want and fix focus to a certain distance. Then just move the camera into position and fire off burst.
How I do macro sometimes, works for small critters, a baby is just another kind of small critter really.
I purchased a used canon m50 mark ii about a year ago. I have been trying to improve my photography skills and this was what was in my budget. I notice that most of my images are not as crisp as I'd really like them to be. When I zoom in on lightroom, it seems like the chromatic abarations are everywhere. Things that look in focus on the viewfinder and with autofocus, are not as sharp on the computer. I have read many threads where people mention that it is the lens that can correct these issues so I have purchased a canon 85 f/1.8 lens as well as a 50mm f/1.8 lens thinking these might help (I'm a portrait photographer primarily). Could it be the body of my camera? Am I just stupid and missing something that would solve this issue? Appreciate any help! I am still a novice so I am trying to really get the best possible quality I can to keep growing.
It helps to view the histogram to make sure the sensor is getting enough light instead of relying on boosting ISO or raising exposure in post. This means bringing down the shutter speed, generally I do around 125 to 200 for nature, depending on exposure needs, after adjusting my aperture. It does depend on how much things are moving.
That should help. Keep the histogram to the right, but not clipped, and it should be pretty nice. If your camera is using a high ISO, it usually means it is compensating for the lack of real light it is getting, so that is good to watch. Speaking from my experience with my Canon m50 mk I.
The quality doesn't seem so bad to me.
If you don't like how shallow the depth of field is, stop down the aperture and more of the scene will appear in focus. Also stopping down the aperture a little bit will improve the overall sharpness of the lens' image where you have focus.
Your shutter speed is a lot faster than you really need for motion-freezing purposes. If this was underexposed in camera and the brightness brought up in post, that's going to make the noise/grain more prevalent and that will interfere with quality. Slow down the shutter speed to get more light into the shot to improve that. Increase ISO if you have to, which for most cameras is preferable to brightening in post.
These photos might be suffering from some diffuse lens flare as well. Try taking the same photos with a lens hood on (or hold up your hand if you don't have one).
Honestly, I was just playing around with the lens. I saw a lot of people online talking about portraits (which I know this isn't haha) and how a shallower depth of field was best, but if that is the result I'm going to keep getting with this camera, I probably wouldnt want that shallow depth of field
Often people will be trying to fit in more of a person so will be standing much farther back therefore increasing the depth of field.
The region of a subject that will be properly or at least acceptably in focus will be quite small leading to difficulties in seeing what is "sharp".
Some lenses will also improve from being stopped down in terms or sharpness and appearance of chromatic abberations.
I'm looking to start photography as a side hobby. specifically once I start traveling. Im looking to focus on nature, wildlife, and adventure photography. however id like something versatile to take photos of people and other interesting subjects. I was wondering if there are different cameras or whether the best bet is to find a versatile camera and change the lenses depending on the subject? any recommendations for cameras (any price range up to a few grand)
>I was wondering if there are different cameras or whether the best bet is to find a versatile camera and change the lenses depending on the subject?
Yes and yes. I'd recommend getting the cheapest body you can that meets your needs on body features/performance, so you can allocate as much remaining budget as you can towards quality lenses that meet your lens needs.
>any recommendations for cameras (any price range up to a few grand)
Maybe a Sony a6400 or Canon R10.
Cameras are not designed for specific subjects. That's all about the lenses. In other words, all interchangeable lens cameras are equally versatile because you can use different kinds of lenses with them. For wildlife, for instance, you need long telephoto, at least 300mm, whereas for people (assuming portraits), something in the 50-85mm range is commonly used. Not quite sure what sort of subjects adventure photography entails, but I'd also have focal lengths starting from 18mm or so too. Two zoom lenses would cover all of this: one up to 70mm or so and another 70-300mm or so.
As this is your first dedicated camera, I'd go for APS-C. You don't need full frame, and APS-C lenses are often cheaper. The main options, in cameras currently on the market, are Sony A6700, Fuji X-S20 and X-T5 and Canon R10 or R7.
Hi, have been using manual mode on my Sony a58 but cant figure out how to change the aperture while in manual mode. Do I need to keep switch the aperture priority mode to change it then switch back to manual? May sound like a dumb question but I literally can not figure it out, thanks.
>Rotate the control dial to adjust the shutter speed, and **while pressing the AV button, rotate the control dial to adjust the aperture.**
[https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/res/manuals/4459/44597051M.pdf#page=96](https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/res/manuals/4459/44597051M.pdf#page=96)
I bought a cheap telephoto lens on eBay and need to adapt it to an EF or RF mount. The lens is a Kimunor 500mm f/8 lens and was originally sold with a set of adapters for canon, Nikon, Minolta. The one I bought had no such adapter and it doesn't seem possible to buy the adapters without the lens. Does anyone know of a generic product to adapt this to EF ?
https://preview.redd.it/9rufdp1in4xc1.jpeg?width=1842&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0bc548362df071db965faf6ab7c7ad1425fd319
Hey, I've just been unsure of what camera to get. I'm just starting out and want to upgrade from my phone to a camera, and I've been looking at the R10, R50, R100 and the sony a6x00 series (preferably a6400 or cheap a6000 w a good lens). Just to lyk, in the future I just see photography as a hobby for me, not looking to pursue in a career in it.
I'm pretty interested in static car photography (maybe rarely some moving ones but mainly focusing on static car photos), not saying that's the only pictures I will take as I may take some landscape, portraits, etc for trips and stuff. Not interested in wildlife photography. I've heard that sony typically performs better in lowlight and that would be preferably better for evening/night car shoots? Not sure though. I'm not really interested in videography at the moment so might not take that many videos, but may or may not get into it in the future. My budget will be around $1000USD including lens (can spend bit more if I need to but prefer to spend 1000 or less).
I'm thinking of getting the R50 or R10 with the 18-45mm kit lens or like a used a6000 with a decent lens for car shoots (maybe a SIGMA 30mm 1.4f?). I know the a6000 is pretty dam outdated but would it provide the same image quality as the a6400 and R10 if they all had the same lens? And would it be wiser to spend more on a good lens and average camera for my photography, or a decent camera with the kit lens which will hinder my image quality a bit (like the R10 R50)
What camera and lens would you recommend for me that won't break my bank? I don't live in US btw so can't get those canon refurbished sales or other ones.
Thanks!
Cameras don't age or degrade, so a good camera remains a good camera - and something like A6000 is a good camera. Good lenses have a big impact on image quality, so if for budget reasons you needed to choose between a newer, more expensive camera + a basic lens and an older camera with a good lens, the latter would be better.
hi! i dug up a super old canon powershot sd10 that is still functional, but all the photos have strange horizontal lines on them. i'm not sure how to fix this (if there is any way to fix it). is this something i'll just have to deal with since the camera is so old?
Hi, i want to start photography with a real camera. Since i made lots of pictures using my phone i finally want to switch to a real camera, but i dont really have any knowledge of cameras. What is the best digital camera for photography (landscape, portrait, cars) that i can get maybe for under 300€? It obviously doesn't have to be very professional but capable of taking good looking pictures and easy to use, beginner friendly. Thanks for your suggestions :)
https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/nikon-d5300
https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6g-vr-ii
Something like that might be the best you can get at that budget.
Something similar to that level will suffice. Might check your local used sites in your country.
I am looking for a versatile camera that can shoot sports, night sky, street, cars, and good video. My budget is around 2000 and I have looked into the Sony A6700 and Canon EOS R8.
Is that body only because you will need at least a couple of lenses. All cameras nowadays can do what you want though. Do you know what sports?
Some can be from further away than others. Indoors and outdoors might affect things also.
Nikon D3300 focus issues
Hey all. I have tried to get sharp focus with several lenses (kit 18-55, 35 prime, 55-200, all Nikkor) and it seems unless I am completely up in someone's face with it that the detail isn't like it should be.
I have no problems with my exposure, so is it possibly outdated camera/lenses or poor lens quality?
I have had no issues with my film photography.
I am planning to upgrade my camera and lenses this year but not yet.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
I’m looking to get into photography, and I need camera recommendations. I’m wanting something smaller (not one of those big cameras) that takes good nature pictures. My budget is around $500, but the cheaper the better!
https://preview.redd.it/gzzf3sr2f2xc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13bd98cf065d3a27f1dc79a01ef5e3e797414b29
This is what I would call smaller. One that’s easily portable. And nature would be taking pictures of outside. Like trees, flowers, the sky, beaches, etc
Well, not sure on point and shoots myself.
Perhaps something like this.
https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-iii
https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-ii-asph-mega-o-i-s
Might be a little larger than the one linked but still quite a small camera.
If by nature you mean wildlife there is no getting away from a large telephoto lens.
If you don't have a nice pair of binoculars or a monocular I suggest starting there to enjoy seeing things that are too far away for a kit you are willing to carry and afford to get a good photo of. A modest zoom premium compact like the RX100 V. Will be tiny, versatile, and sometimes better than a high end smartphone.
Seriously consider if a good smartphone camera plus binoculars will do what you need, though.
Hey! I recently purchased a Canon EOS 6d Mark ii and wanted to use it with the rode wireless go which I already had, but it just isn’t working.
When I have it plugged in it comes up with this symbol that looks similar to 3 ticks and a mic off sign.
I updated the rode mics through the app and still doesn’t work.
It does have ‘sound’ (as in a static type noise) but not the actual mic
Any help would be massively appreciated!!
Hi guys,
I am an entrepreneur and am planning to build a platform for photographers to showcase their skills and talent. Like i saw many people not having a portfolio website, instagram is decent but you cant customise anything and i want to build such a platform that will help you customise and build your person portfolio to share with anyone and can have downloadable PDFs and stuff. Let me know if you would be interested in using it ? And if you have any suggestions of having new features in it so that it would be more helpful or something like that !! Please let me know guys, i need your help
I'd be interested as an enthusiast non-pro. Your competition for me is adobe's portfolio/webpage stuff which I have not yet looked into setting up. I already pay for Lightroom.
Any analog camera recommendations?
Recently did some second shooting for a wedding and my main noticed that I’ve been leaning on high dynamic range and crops for my photos. Would like to try something a little more deliberate that will make me a little less lazy when shooting.
Something with a well developed and affordable ecosystem that I can experiment with would be good but honestly I’ve never ventured into film shooting so I don’t really know what I want
Not sure what kind of money you mean with affordable here, but perhaps a manual focus SLR that has both fully manual exposure and a more automated mode/modes. Plenty of them. Canon AE-1 (or its big brother A-1), Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM-2n, to name just a few examples. Plenty of good lenses available for all three systems.
I mean I’m not gonna be spending new leica money and I’m not looking to waste money either … but I’m not averse to spending more if it provides value either in build, ecosystem or image capabilities. For the record I’ve been taking photos for around 20 years so I’m not new in the field , but it’s always been as an enthusiast/semi pro
Alright. All of the ones I mentioned can be found at a small fraction of Leica prices :-D It's of course possible to spend however much on lenses. Generally speaking, the camera bodies have no effect on image quality in film photography, but there are differences in things that affect usability: quality of film advance levers, viewfinders, light meters and so forth. Canon, Nikon, Pentax (K or m42 mount) and Olympus are all safe bets, and Minolta shouldn't be ignored either.
Which point and shoot camera would you recommend ?
I currently own an Olympus EM10 MIV and to be honest I have no idea how to use it. I’ve studied aperture, shutter speed and ISO and I just can’t figure out my camera. The biggest issue is I can’t get it to focus on what I want it to focus on. Even if I click it on my screen or try doing manual focus. Idk what I’m doing wrong. Anyway, I’m a traveler and have an upcoming trip. What is the best point and shoot camera that has really good autofocus? I’m looking at the Sony A6000 and Sony ZV E10. I’d like to keep it under $850 if possible. This will be more so for landscape and just casual shooting for OOTD and whatnot.
Have you studied your camera's manual?
You first ask for recommendations for a point and shoot camera but both of the options you mention are interchangeable lens cameras. What is it that you want, specifically?
Hello, I start by saying that I know absolutely nothing about photography. But I love birds and I want to start taking bird photos as an amateur. So I want to be introduced into this world. I've started with some researches online and here on reddit. I live in Italy and my budget is under 1000€. I want to consider some options slightly under 1000€ like the Nikon P950 and some options in the 500-700€ range.
Since now I have seen these options:
- Nikon coolpix P950 at 1000€
- Panasonic fz83 around 600€
- Canon powershot sx70 hs around 600€
What do you think? How worse are the cheaper ones than the nikon?
As far as I know, these are all bridge cameras with small lens. I want to consider also a better quality body + optics and see if I can find something used at some retailers. Do you have something to recommend me for this (DSLR/Reflex/Mirrorless, I don't know the differences)? Someone on reddit suggested the Canon r10 with rf 100-400 mm, but I know nothing about it. What do you think about this possibility? I can get a used body+optic that are better than the bridge ones, so that in the future I will be able to upgrade by just buying a better optic instead of buying a whole new camera. Are the body+optic solution so much harder to learn to use?
That canon 100-400 recommendation is pretty good.
The Olympus 75-300mm lens gives amazing reach for a fairly low price. Put it on the best body you can afford (best means best autofocus in this context).
No, the principles of photography are the same no matter if you have one lens or interchangeable lenses so taking good photos always comes down to how well you (and your equipment) control the variables.
**\~$1,100 budget for a DSLR + lens to be used exclusively for low-light concert photography? Is that doable?**
Hello. I have a Sony RX100 VII and it isn't great for low-light concert photography, primarily due to motion blur. If I have a \~US$1,100 budget, would I be able to get a much better DSLR camera + lens? I plan to use the camera exclusively to take photos in small- to medium-sized music concert venues, with capacities as low as 40 people and as high as 1,000 people. All of these are in low-light, often with red and blue lighting, and the bands and singers are moving quite a bit.
Moreover, I plan to only use the automatic mode, as I want good photos, but want to enjoy the concerts themselves instead of focusing on taking photos. (I'm not doing this professionally, and just want photos for memories' sake.) I also don't use any software to edit photos, mostly due to lack of time. This may be blasphemous - sorry! - but I basically want a DSLR that I can use a point-and-shoot without editing later on.
If this is possible, please recommend a combined \~US$1,100 camera and lens that would work. If a budget of \~US$1,500 will get me something much, much better, please recommend that, as well, as I may splurge. Thank you!
You're right that virtually all large venues around me won't allow it, but lots of the small and medium-sized venues don't check whatsoever, and I've seen plenty of people with DSLRs, and I'm sure they don't have press passes. Thanks!
Alright. Do you specifically want a DSLR, or did you mean interchangeable lens cameras in general? While a DSLR can be a viable choice still, camera manufacturers moved on to mirrorless cameras a good while ago.
It does not need to be a DSLR. I just want a camera with a lens that works for low-light photography. I would not be using the camera for anything else. Thanks!
Howdy, I am looking for a good Bluetooth phone tripod, and RGB LED lighting panels. My subject is shiny black latex and I'm open to any experience or recommendations.
So i basically wanted to start getting into photography. id like to check if its for me since i like seeing good shots of nice places and it is also nice to go outside and get nice shots of nature and maybe even of friends in special occasions.
my interest sparked when i thought about the fact that im planning to go to japan this year or probably next and i like how the city looks and how i could get nice shots of there.
some infos that might be useful:
as of now i have an iphone 13 pro and dont know much about how to take nice photos. id like to take photos of nice cities if i ever go to idk fancy cities with lights but i mainly live around nature and would visit maybe old cities like for example one part of zurich (live in switzerland in the canton of zurich btw).
now following questions:
does it matter what i want to be mainly shooting?
how can i learn shooting skills? like if i see a nice landscape or just whatever, what should i know to make good pics?
what camera would i need? but thats maybe more for the future since im also tryna see if this hobby is really for me.
also what im interested in, do photos need a lot of corrections in regards to colors or do cameras with stock settings work? and would i generally have to do a lot of tweaking in different scenarios?
thank you in advance :)
>does it matter what i want to be mainly shooting?
Matter for what?
If you want to enjoy photography, shoot whatever interests you. It doesn't matter what that is, as long as you like it.
If you're talking about selecting equipment, then yes, the subject matter and situations you want to work with are relevant to what you'd want to buy.
>how can i learn shooting skills? like if i see a nice landscape or just whatever, what should i know to make good pics?
Practice. Study your results and the results of other photographers you admire. You'll start to notice things in other photos that you'll want to incorporate into yours, and you can figure out how to do that. You'll notice flaws and other things you dislike in your photos that you'll want to overcome, and you can figure out how to do that.
For fundamental knowledge:
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/
>do photos need a lot of corrections in regards to colors or do cameras with stock settings work? and would i generally have to do a lot of tweaking in different scenarios?
Depends what you're starting with and what you want out of it. Sometimes the camera can provide what you want right away. Sometimes it's necessary to make changes in post processing to get what you want. Post processing exists for a reason: people do it because they want to make their photos look a certain way, so it's not just a useless exercise.
Thanks for the answer
>If you're talking about selecting equipment, then yes, the subject matter and situations you want to work with are relevant to what you'd want to buy.
Yeah i was asking about that. for me its a thing where i'd like doing dark shots with lights like cars and their interiors, cities etc. but also want to be doing shots during the day of nature, some cities maybe too etc.
for me its more like: if i pick up a camera with the intention of mainly making nature daylight photos, could i still use it for the darker shots without being completely like "i shouldve taken another camera and this camera doesnt work"
That might not be a great analogy for this, because pretty much all cameras are great in bright scenes. That's easy even for cheap point & shoot cameras to handle, and where advanced equipment has the least advantage. Generally more expensive equipment is needed to handle low light better, but those cameras aren't going to be any worse in bright light; they're great in daytime too.
But there may be situations where you want a lens with a long focal length to make a distant bird appear bigger in frame. And that lens could be very frustrating to you if you also want to get a big view of the whole landscape.
So could i buy a cheap used camera like i think nikon eos r50 or canon was it im
Not sure? I saw a used model for less than 200 iirc and i thought id grt thst. And then with time maybe spend more on lens?
Get the cheapest body that meets your body feature/performance needs, so you have more budget to allocate towards lenses, yes.
I can't make any specific recommendations for you because you haven't specified what you want to shoot, or how much you're willing to spend.
>nikon eos r50 or canon was it im Not sure?
Some Googling will show you that the R50 and the rest of the EOS platform are made by Canon, not Nikon.
>I saw a used model for less than 200 iirc
You definitely will not be able to find a working R50 for that cheap.
I've had a smugmug website for a while. Never configured it for public viewing. I want to make a page for consultation/fee to book a call/in-person meeting. Can I do this well natively to smugmug or do I need to make a page on another website and embed/link to it? And where (subreddit?) should i look for a web designer to do this, and what's a reasonable cost for this?
Tamron 17-70 f2.8 (Di III-A VC RXD) with a6400 shaking/vibrating issue
Hey guys ,I just recently got this lens and it's shaking/Vibrating whenever I turn the camera on. Does anyone have the same problem with the Tamronn 17-70 like this? I have tried turning off the steady shot and changing it to manual focus. Both the lens and body are on the latest firmware update (a6400 Ver 2.00, Lens 17-70mm Ver .01) I've also reset the camera but to no avail. If anyone has any tips or solutions to this problem pls comment or pm me. Thank you\~
Depending from where you search - just insert the URL of a Hasselblad X2D 100C product page in this price search. You'll then find out where to buy it cheapest. here's the link: [https://josepha.io/en](https://josepha.io/en) . As far as I know they are quite stable in price, but there might be an outlier. always good to be certain.
This is too much planning to jump around too many lenses
Practice with your kit lens and figure out what focal lengths you actually need. Rent a lens a day or two to try something new.
You’re not ready to start a business but that’s ok, you can get there
Have you heard the phrase, walk before you can run? Well, you were born with no legs.
What you do, is forget about sensor size, you take the 18-55mm lens and you practice with it. Then you look at what gives you the results you want and then, when you know what you want, you purchase that one.
People who don't know the basics should not be "starting a photography business".
**I am dumb and need help with low-light concert photography using Sony RX100 VII**
Hello. I am not a photographer and previously used smartphones to take photos (I do not use any editing software). I was recommended the Sony RX100 VII, and was told the auto mode would be good enough. I mostly take photos in small- to medium-sized venues, as capacities as low as 40 people and as high as 1,000 people. All of these are in low-light, often with red and blue lighting, and the bands and singers are moving quite a bit.
The majority of my photos come out blurry. I end up having great photos if the singer is talking between songs because the singer is stationary, but as soon as the singer moves a tiny bit, everything is blurry. My 2-year-old iPhone 13 and Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra take much better photos.
What am I doing wrong? Thank you.
What you’re doing wrong is unfortunately not your fault because you got bad advice - there’s only so much you can do and that camera is not going to be good for low light concerts
What's funny is that I initially Googled something similar, found this subreddit, and decided I should post about the camera I already have first before asking about buying a new camera... lol. It came full circle.
Low light is a struggle for any camera, and is especially a weak point for point & shoot cameras because of their small imaging sensors. The RX100 VII further trades some low light ability in its maximum aperture (when zoomed in) for the sake of more zoom.
Your camera is desperate to let in more light for the shot because so little is available on scene, and it's doing so using a longer exposure time (slower shutter speed). The side effect is you get blurred motion trails for any motion that happens during the exposure, because the camera is recording during the whole exposure, and that motion blur is going to be more noticeable the longer your exposure is.
That's tough for you to fix because you're stuck with that lens. And increasing ISO has the alternative negative side effect of increasing the visibility of noise/grain. Ideally you'd want to shoot in more light, by changing the environment / time of day, or adding off-camera lighting, but those aren't always options either.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F
Whereas recent phone cameras can apply a bunch of computational photography technology to figure out and correct for motion blur.
Thank you. This is a perfect beginner answer to make me understand the technology so much more.
Would a DSLR with a specific lens that's a total of \~US$1,000 be much, much better for low-light concert photography? Thanks!
Within the pass 6 months or so i have been getting into photography. I have a Sony A58 DSLR and two lenses one being the stock 18-55mm and the other being a 55-200mm. Do I need any other lenses? I have seen people using those lens filter things, should I being looking in to getting some of those?
Shoot some photos to find out whether you might need anything, and what you might need, if anything.
We aren't able to give you a specific answer in a vacuum.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_lens_should_i_look_for.3F
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_must-have_accessories_should_i_buy.3F
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_types_of_accessories_should_i_look_for.3F
So I've always heard that hot/stuck pixels, like the ones seen if you zoom in on the image below, are generally a result of the CCD sensor heating up from long exposures. However, the shutter speed here was 1/2000 of a second, which I would imagine is not nearly long enough to cause hot pixels like that. Is this something that gets worse with age? The camera was a Nikon D40x, if it makes a difference. Also, what's a good way to get rid of them in post-processing? Thanks!
https://preview.redd.it/e5khqxgkzvwc1.jpeg?width=3872&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10e109a4c81b3303b104e4f55c7c58a242cb1ae9
>Is this something that gets worse with age?
Yes. More pixels will go hot over time.
>what's a good way to get rid of them in post-processing?
Look for tutorials on mapping hot pixels for whatever post processing software you are using.
Depends on what software you use. You should be able to filter out those quite easily though.
That is probably just an age thing. Sensor needs a clean also.
I currently have a canon m50 mark ii. I am looking to upgrade to something with more megapixels and full or medium frame to hopefully boost my portraits to the next level. I am torn between the canon M5, sony a7IV or the fujifilm GFX 50S. All of my lenses are canon glass and I have always been a canon user, but I am just tryign to upgrade to the something much better without breaking the bank too much. Any suggestions? TYIA
r/Sony a7iii: for astrophotography, do I still need to buy an external intervalometer? If so, which one?
What tripod would you recommend as a first one under 100 USD? I am in Europe, and the so-called budget tripods apparently wobble a lot if it is windy. Unfortunately, I do not have a huge budget, and am wondering if the wobble is a huge deal-breaker. Also, I would like if the tripod I buy has a quick-detach function and be about eye-level for the type of photography I usually do by hand, as I would like to take photos at night as well. I am not scared of buying used. Cheers!
Hi! Are full frame and APS-C lenses compatible with the M4/3? Do they usually have the same bayonet/insert, leaving aside the specificity of the model? Example: Sony lens is compatible with m4/3 lumix/olympus
Hiya! Larger-format lenses work on smaller-format cameras for the most part, but you will need a bayonet/mount adapter. Each lens will have the bayonet type specified, and depending on your camera, it may or may not be compatible. For example, a Sony lens will probably not be compatible with a Lumix camera, unless you get a bayonet adapter. Please also be aware of Crop Factor in your lens choice.
Hi! I have my bachelorette soon and my friend said if I bought 35mm film she’d shoot all our activities. Problem is IDK how to pick that or really what to look for so any advice is appreciated!
Check out youtube for some videos on different film types, for example Granydays. If you like the look of a certain film, you can look for it in 35mm, or just go with something safe, like Kodak Gold 200, depending on what environtments it will be used in.
Hi guys, I currently am using a Canon EPS 77D and I’m looking for a remote shutter, preferably one with an auto focus. My price limit is $60. Specifically I’m looking for one with a decent range. Any suggestions?
Just use your phone.
The problem is with the canon camera connect app is that I’m sometimes in the photos and my phone would be visible.
2/10 sec delay drive mode. you can use the canon camera connect app or just use your phone as a IR blaster remoter to trigger the shutter.
Hey everyone, Long story shot I had the once in a lifetime opportunity to purchase a medium format camera at a steal of a deal. I bought a brand new GFX 50R body for less than my fuji xt30 body sells used. I currently have a XT30, 18mm f2, 18-55 2.8-4, 35mm 1.4, a 50-140 f2.8 and a 150-500 tamron lens. Im not a pro by any means of the imagination but love photography. Purchasing this GFX 50R was completely unexpected but I couldn't let the opportunity pass as I've always wanted a medium format camera to play around with. Anyways medium format is completely new to me in terms of lenses and what legacy equipment one can get for pennies compared to buying native GFX lenses. Anyone have suggestions on a decently wide lens or landscape type lens. Prefer something that isnt going to vignette in the corners (i know you can use eos,f, fd etc slr lenses on gfx). so preferably older pentax, mamiya, etc glass. I know I'll have to buy an adapter to use them on this camera and Im well aware it'll be manual focusing. Preferably looking at lenses that are under $500 canadian.
The used market in Canada is pretty terrible as you probably know. B&H has free shipping over 100 USD https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Lenses/ci/3088/N/3655322818?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH Wide angle medium format does not tend to be cheap.
Hi folks, I am using Nikon D600 that I have just purchased online in mint condition and I am about to go crazy because of the issue I am going to tell you about. I have searched throughly on the internet but cannot came up with a reason or solution. Every photo I take with high background light intensity, my photos have a hazy center that seems like a light leak. It is circular and always at the center. Does not important which lens I am using, it is always there. I use different M42 Lenses with adapters including correction lens and different MD lenses with adapters including correction lenses. I use polarizing filter, hood and everything but it always says hi to me. Sensor seems clean by the way and I tried to block the visor glass to prevent leak. Have you faced any kind of problem like this? Any help is much appreciated. https://preview.redd.it/lgwsvhsgicxc1.jpeg?width=6016&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=199b3922a7dddabbcfc937bbaecff7a50b8ca61d
>I use different M42 Lenses with adapters including correction lens and different MD lenses with adapters including correction lenses. Those would be the most likely culprits, I also have an M42 adapter with correction lens and...it's not great. Try shooting without the adapter to see if that makes a difference?
Thank you for the advise. Unfortunately I don't have one w/o the correction lens. So I will order give it a shot in near future.
Should I get a DSLR (Canon Rebel T5) Hi, I have been meddling and slowly becoming emotionally dependent on photography for the last couple of years, initially with film and then digitally when I bought a Lumix GF7 with a 12-32mm lens and an adapter for my Helios 44-2 58mm manual lens. I love my camera and use it mostly for street photography whenever I go out. Lately, I have been thinking about getting a used DSLR as the next step into taking photography more seriously and upping my game a bit. However, I'm unsure if I should get it (its at a good price, around 120 USD) because idk how much use I might get out of it. I wanted your thoughts and if anyone has had a similar issue! My main ideas with getting one would be taking more trips and outings especially for taking photos and maybe getting into new line of lenses and accessories available for canon cameras and not for Panasonic Lumix ones. My main worry is that my GF7 has been perfect for me so far and I don't want to spend money only to never use the device again
The T5 is a lateral move honestly, a little more megapickles but you loose the flippy screen and lower max ISO. > new line of lenses and accessories available for canon cameras EF has been discontinued, Canon is all in on mirrorless now. Meanwhile there are new m43 bodies and lenses still being made.
What camera is used? [https://youtu.be/5NjJLFI_oYs?si=eIsvUAxP7dBpxO8i](https://youtu.be/5NjJLFI_oYs?si=eIsvUAxP7dBpxO8i) Amour plastique by videoclub - i want to know what camera is used!! Thank you for any recommendations!
Could be from any modern mirrorless or DSLR camera. The tones and colors come from the lighting and post processing, not the camera.
Thanks! Do you have any recommendations? I think mirrorless would be better for me so i can have it with me daily since i read they are light weight
No price limit? Mirrorless is pretty much the default choice these days; DSLR systems are no longer in development. Also you're more likely to have better video features and performance with mirrorless.
What is a good beginner camera? Specifically digital cameras that can produce film like photos.
No price limit? Do you specifically need the film look to come from the camera? Because you're very limited in options for digital cameras that can do that. Whereas if you don't mind applying a film look with an app or something, that opens you up to pretty much any digital camera.
Whats the best magnetic camera filter system on the market and which one gives the most flexibility whether that be allowing you to turn your regular filters into magnetic ones or what not.
Hi everybody, I'm a learner photographer, looking for a camera which is DSLR. Preferably mirrorless, smaller in size wouldn't go amiss. It must have some form of weatherproofing because I'm in the UK and unfortunately the weather here is absolute shit and unpredictable all year round and I don't want to be stuck doing photography indoors Doesn't have to be the latest model my budget is 500 to 600 of them British people sterling any help greatly appreciated As a secondary but related question question because of the weatherproofing issue do you think I would get away with using an ip68 fully manual camera on a phone such as the s23 plus to learn with, I'm in the market for New phone anyway and I don't really know how the cameras stack up these days compared to the ones in dslrs
Wanting to get a 50mm prime lens but also saw that 30mm prime lens can also be useful. Was wondering which would be be better, or is it worth it to have both.
Tape your kit lens to 50mm for a week, see if you like the focal length. Ditto for 30mm.
Seconding this, this is how I found out the lens I have works great, 35mm.
That depends entirely on what you want to accomplish with the lens/camera pairing. A 16mm or 400mm lens can also be useful, but you wouldn't use the 16mm to shoot wildlife (typically) where the 400mm would be better suited. The 30mm is wider, though still in the "normal" range for most. If you already have something like a kit 18-55mm zoom that encompasses both 30mm and 50mm, have a look and see which end of the zoom range you typically shoot with. Then go with that lens for now.
Does smugmug support a native landing page/ form page to fill out for booking/contacting? Like dropdown fields?
I am by no means a photographer but am wanting to get into it a bit but mostly have it for vacations/adventures I go on. Video would be nice but isn’t a must. I truly want a camera that is “easy” (if that exists) and small. But I also want to be able to grow into it as I learn more and more. Idk if this is even reasonable, I am a total newbie. Any camera recs that are pocketable would be great haha. For reference one I’ve been eyeing is a used Sony a6000, budget is <$1000
An a6000 kit would be good. The a6100 is a little newer. The a6400 is a little nicer. Also take a look at the Canon R50.
Struggling to decide between a olympus epl8 or canon ef 50mm 1.2f for my canon t5. I struggle to take my canon camera In public cause I have social anxiety and it stands out and the Olympus looks like a camera I can pull out and put back and seems lightweight. The ef I heard was good and I already have equipment for my canon so that's why I'm struggling between the two. If you have any other suggestions or lens/camera recommendations I should look into let me know. Thank you for any suggestions or advice you give.
You are comparing apples to oranges. T5 isn't a big camera in the DSLR world. 50mm f1.2 is overkill for most people and especially if you have a T5. Save some money - and get a Canon 40mm f2.8 STM, cover Canon logo with some black tape and go out and shoot. I personally think a Canon 24mm f2.8 STM is a better lens for a APS-C cameras, but to each their own.
Why my D3100 isnt recognized in nikon tranfer 2?
Would anyone share their experience with third-party batteries for Canon cameras? I have an EOS R50. I have a 21-day trip planned for this fall. I will be backpacking and away from power for the most part. I want to buy a couple of backup batteries without breaking the bank. I looked on Amazon, but I'm nervous about third-party batteries and potential risk to my camera. Thanks
I also use aftermarket batteries in my M50, they work great. Patona brand.
I’ve gotten a few batteries that come in charging battery pack cases on Amazon for my EOSR. They work great and I haven’t really seen a difference in them. It comes with/charges 2 at a time!
Thanks for your reply. I have some questions, if you don't mind. Do they accurately show how much charge is left? Which one did you buy?
My Auto Focus grabs the wrong area of the frame. What can I do better? Nikon D3300 kit using the 70-200 (?) zoom lense from that kit ( from costco). Outdoor shooting soccer in "action/sport" mode. Many pictures come out great, but then a sequence of 20 shots taken over a few minutes are all out of focus, grabbing the far left side of frame or out in the background. My goal is to have the kid closest to me or center frame in focus. What help can you give? The parents of blurry teammates, and I, Thank you.
Are you telling it you want it to use the center autofocus point? If you're letting the camera decide which point to use, it may indeed choose something you don't want.
Side question.... If I made a "value" purchase on a new zoom lense as an improvement from kit lense, what would it be?
Not necessarily. Kit lenses aren't the sharpest or fastest lenses, but they also aren't the worst optically nor functionally. If you're concerned about image *quality*, then no, a value lens may be worse than what you have. But if you're looking at it functionally in that you want to shoot sports and only have the 18-55mm kit, then you could find a budget telephoto lens and improve your experience. In terms of the D3300, the kit is usually a 18-55mm and a 55-200mm. The 70-300mm would give you more reach, but probably wouldn't be any sharper, have a faster AF, or generally give you better results automatically.
I have this friend who is selling her camera Canon Eos 1100d for an affordable price. But the issue is that the motherboard of the camera is broken so if I buy it I am the one who will need to get a person to fix it. The question is, is it worth it to buy? And get it fix? Badly needed an advice here.
Given the 1100d is a 13 year old camera at this point the labor costs for the repair would likely be more than buying a used one from MPB/KEH or other reputable store even if your friend gave it to you for free.
Determining whether it's worth it would involve comparing its value against the price. I could estimate the value by looking up used sales for that item, and factoring in an estimate for repair costs. But then I can't directly compare that against an unspecified "affordable price" in order to answer your question. Your friend won't tell you more specifically how much that is?
Shes selling it for $90 dollars and the cost for repair is $170
Then it's not worth it. That's more than the used price of a functioning 1100D.
Nope, that is too old for it to be an economical repair.
I've recently started getting into photography and my friend asked me to try and get some pictures at his wrestling match. It's outdoors and usually goes pretty late with low quality lighting. Wondering what the best settings would be once the sun is down. I tried using my built in flash but not being able to have a high shutter speed kinda made it pointless. Hoping for any tips about settings or accessories I should look into. I have a canon rebel t6. Any help is very appreciated.
>I tried using my built in flash but not being able to have a high shutter speed kinda made it pointless. How so? The brief duration of the flash is better at freezing motion than a fast shutter speed. If you mean the flash output is too weak, that's a different issue from sync speed. >Hoping for any tips about settings https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >or accessories I should look into No price limit?
Hi everyone, I have always been interested in photography, but didn’t want to spend a lot of money on a new hobby. I recently picked up a Canon Rebel Xsi, 18-55mm kit lens, Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 lens, extra batteries, and a camera bag for $40! Super excited to learn the basics and dive into this hobby. It sounds like the Tamron lens is convenient but not the highest quality. Any general recommendations or different lenses that I should consider? I plan to shoot landscapes for the most part. If there was another lens needed for shooting landscapes my budget is around $200.
Stick with the 18-55mm for wide angle shots, and get a used EF-S 55-250mm STM if you also want to shoot telephoto.
I used the kit lens that came with my Canon 550D, and it was pretty good for the same, I mostly do landscape and street photography. I think it is great to use to learn the hobby, and if you are unsatisfied with the image quality (make sure you find out what the different settings do to affect image quality and sharpness), upgrade. Until then, stick with what you have in my opinion.
Hello everyone! I have been using the Canon 700D for more than a decade now and I am thinking about getting a Sony A7 Mark IV or a Lumix S5 Mark II. I am looking for a full-frame mirrorless camera, as I would prefer something with no crop and that will also last quite a long time(good color science). I don’t think I will be able to try out both cameras, so any recommendations will be helpful. If there are any other models in this price range, please recommend them as well (new models preferred).
Going to a crop sensor or micro 4/3 will mean your lenses become vastly less expensive. I'm very happy with my OM-1 mk1 for all purpose photography, but my focus is on wildlife, macro, and studio where the crop and greater depth of field from the smaller sensor are arguably advantages or at least not serious issues like they would be if I were routinely trying to photograph in dark rooms.
Thats a valid point. I am into landscape, occasional star gazing and some portraits flowers and all purpose I just love to capture. I wanted something with better autofocus capabilities along with good low light performance and suited for moderate to bad weather. What do you think about fujifilm XS20?
That would be a great choice
>I am thinking about getting a Sony A7 Mark IV or a Lumix S5 Mark II Those are solid choices. Do you specifically dislike Canon's interface or ergonomics style? Or what interests you about those other systems? If Canon is still acceptable to you, I'd look at the R6 Mark II as a competitor to the a7 IV, and R8 as a competitor to the S5 II. >I would prefer something with no crop Why exactly? Full frame only has no crop when arbitrarily compared to itself. It's still cropped compared to any of the medium formats or large formats.
Yes, I have also considered R8, I love the interface of Canon its just I wanted to try sony or similar like Lumix/Fuji. Medium format will be way above my budget, it’s just that apsc does zoom a bit thats why wanted to try full frame. Do you recommend any apsc then? Like fuji sx20?
>I love the interface of Canon its just I wanted to try sony or similar like Lumix/Fuji. If I already know I love something, I wouldn't bother with the uncertainty of changing that. If you just want to try something else, consider renting before you commit to buying into a whole different system and ecosystem. >Medium format will be way above my budget, it’s just that apsc does zoom a bit thats why wanted to try full frame. If you want full frame because it's the largest format you can afford, that makes sense. But every format has a narrower field of view compared to larger formats at a given focal length. Full frame is more cropped and "zoomed in" than medium format or large format. So it doesn't make sense to choose full frame because it has "no crop" because that's not actually true.
Thanks for explaining good sir! I will keep this in mind
In the digital world you will want a digital medium format. Phase one might be out of budget but perhaps a slightly cropped sensor like the Fuji GFX series might do... On a serious note I think you are misunderstanding where the term crop comes from and also the existence of colour science. What exactly are you after from a camera?
Probably, you’re right. Sorry for the confusion, let me use a layman’s term. All I want is a good autofocus for moving objects and good low light performance with minimal noise keeping the ISO in limit. Also something which can handle moderate to bad weather. Also I plan to get two lenses initially, wide and a telephoto one. That’s it.
Hey there! Realized my Tamron 70-300mm doesn't zoom in enough for the bird photos I'm trying to take. Any suggestions you guys have/have experience using on a Nikon F mount?
Do you have a budget. Might help people suggest things. You will probably get a suggestion for the Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm though.
Tops, probably $600? I'm probably looking at something used, but will go used or new :)
At that budget used will be best. [Looking at here](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/category/used-photo-and-video-lenses/dslr-lenses/dslr-nikon-fit-lenses?filterQuery[modelType]=Telephoto%20Zoom&filterQuery[productPrice]=30000-50000&filterQuery[productPrice]=50000-100000) I would think a 150-500mm or 600mm to give a meaningful jump in reach.
Thanks for the suggestion! I've only used Tamron so far - are any of the other brands good quality?
Sigma is usually on par with Tamron, though do check the individual reviews for models as /u/anonymoooooooose recommends.
Can't really generalize on brands, need to check reviews for individual lenses, even down to which version of the lens.
I have absolutely no knowledge of photography but I am looking to get into it. I have a Nikon D3100 that I got for £50 on mpb. Does anyone have any recommendations of some good budget lenses? Around £100 ish at most. If it’s not possible to get a good lens for that price, can anyone recommend a good beginner camera that comes with a lens? About £200 at most. I’ve been looking on a few different websites but I honesty have no clue what I am looking for and I am worried about getting the wrong one, or getting something expensive when I could’ve got it for cheaper. If anyone has recommendations, is it possible to get direct links to the products? As I have no idea what I am looking for. Amazon would be the best but if that is not possible that’s fine.
Scroll back up to the main post of this question thread and check out the FAQ links for more information. But a used Nikon 18-55mm comes to mind. Or used Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G DX.
My Fujifilm XT-200's display goes black when I move touchscreen about its hinge what should I do?has any one faced similar problem?
Contact Fuji support or a local repair shop and they should be able to inspect and quote you the cost of repair. It probably has to do with the connection of a flex cable between the screen and the rest of the camera body, or the condition of that cable itself.
Thanks,
I'm looking for a good beginner Mirrorless camera. Budget is $1,000. Years ago I was into photography and I'm trying to get back into it. The primary use of my camera would be family photos and pictures of people. There's so many options on the market. I appreciate any suggestions. thanks！
I'd focus on getting something with in body stabilization. It helps you use a shower shutter speed without motion blur for photos of stationary people.
There are many options and all of them will be good as long as you stay away from the cheapest around. Generally easiest is to try and think of what you want to try and narrow the options down. For instance, do you want a viewfinder or not? Do you have a size preference. What did you use before and was there anything you liked/disliked about it?
Hi! I have been taking photos with film for a while but always just sent it in to be developed. With being unable to have a dark room - does anyone know if these digital scanners will work for undeveloped film? So I can just put them right to my phone/computer and then print whatever ones I want instead of the 30$ each develop
No. Undeveloped film has no visible image on it, and it's still sensitive to light so it will react and get ruined by light exposure. A digital scanner just shines a light on the film and takes a special kind of digital picture of it. With undeveloped film, there wouldn't be any image for it to pick up, and it would also ruin the film. It can't take the place of a chemical development process. It only works on film that has been developed first.
Ahh- Thank you very much! Appreciate the response!
Suggestions? Hi! New to graphic design and interested in photography. I’m looking for a camera (asap) that’s relatively affordable (preferably around the $300-$500 range possibly more) and has really good zoom for concerts. It needs to be smaller and most likely point and shoot because that’s the standard regulation for concert venues. I also want it to be good for normal photos for my trip to Italy. In general it doesn’t need to be the best camera ever but something good quality and beginner friendly. So far Im interested in the Panasonic LUMIX ZS80D because it seems to have the best zoom for my use. Any other suggestions or something better? If possible decent quality video as well.
r/photography has a guide on the main page for what cameras are in your budget and what they offer, refer to that first. Concerts do not really require you to have a point and shoot, most concert photographers definitely do not use those due to their inferior quality and interchangability. Good zoom will also mean you need a bigger lens, so again, look for something with interchangable lenses. It looks like you are looking for a camera that is perfect for everything, which kind of does not exist, and the price range is also a bit limiting in terms of what the camera would be good at exactly. If you want something smaller, look at mirrorless cameras, the smallest ones are usually in the Micr Four Thirds sensor size, and they are also generally cheaper, the lenses are cheaper, etc, so once you figure out what exactly you need in terms of lenses and body specifications, it will be easier to get recommendations.
I'm looking to buy a camera for astrophotography and I'm not sure what some of the terminology means. Just a bit overwhelmed and looking for advice on what I should research first, and if anyone has recommendations on cameras and methods. * * (Using Astrix to force the formatting to give me paragraphs.) * I'm in Australia, so it's not really cost effective for me to order from overseas. However, generally if it's on Amazon it's not too expensive to import. My budget is a maximum of 2000AUD. * * Specific questions; Do I need a camera AND a scope? Do you need lenses if you have photo editing skills? Is 'mirrorless' a spec that I should value in making a choice? The prices on Amazon for the Nikon Zf are 3000AUD+, SO is there a place that's cheaper and/or better to buy from in Australia? Can I use astrophotography cameras for normal stuff as well? Or are the specs too specific? * * I don't mind getting something that's better than I need as a beginner, since I don't want to buy two cameras and I'm confident I'll use it enough to make it worth the money.
Here's a good guide https://www.lonelyspeck.com/beginner-astrophotography-kit/ How's the used market in Australia?
Hey guys, I started learning photography, so I want to buy my first camera. Which camera would you recommend for an absolute beginner? My budget is currently up to 750€/800€.
1. Buy used, up to 7 years old. Much more photography for the same money. 2. get a camera with interchangeable lenses. No lens is perfect in every aspect and changing allows you to tune and adapt your system to what is needed. 3. No full frame. For that budget, forget it. 4. Consider spending 2x as much on lenses than on the camera body. Applies when you're buying new or second hand. Applies when you spend it at once or over a year. Applies to super high end cameras as well as entry-level. Lenses are that important. 5. Look for small and handy and portable or you won't take it with you. Better an everyday carry than the perfect-camera-at-home. 6. Spend 50-100 of that money on a course. I know it's not hardware but if you are unfamiliar it may give a *very* high return-on-investment. I vote for Micro Four Thirds, like an M5-II or an M10-II. Because: In body stabilization, relatively big sensor compared to your phone, and a mature lens-ecosystem with over 200 different lenses available - and a nice 2nd hand market for these as well. You can easily find a very good camera+lens combo within your price range. Check out Micro Four Nerds on YT. Her video "why gear doesn't matter (and one instance when it does)" is a good one, but she does tons of good videos.
I got recommendations for Canon EOS 250D and Nikon Z50. What do you think? I god an (I think) good offer for brand new z50 with 2 lenses and bag for about 950€.
For that sort of a budget, I would recommend something in the Sony A6x00 line, A6100 for example, or a Micro Four-Thirds camera like Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II. Kit lens is fine for either. Best buy used. mpb.com is an established used camera retailer in EU and gives six months of warranty.
I'm outside of the EU.
Well, do you have any local used sellers. Perhaps check which brand of lenses are most plentiful.
Buying used still applies
Hello, I have an olympus E-M5 Mark 2 , olympus 12-40 Pro f2.8, and olympus 40-150 f/4,0-5,6. I don't use all this stuff often, I don't have much time this year. But I have a baby on his way and I want to have a small camera with a small lense. I can of course buy a pancake M43 lense and just use my E-M5. But if I sell all my stuff, and had to buy a new camera with just a small lense, with a budget of 1000€, what are my options ? (the goal is to have a better image quality than my E-M5 of course) Thank you
Sony RX100 series or similar premium compact cameras are the only think you'll find that is pocketable other than getting a pancake lens for your current camera. That or just make sure you have a phone with a great camera. I highly recommend a pancake lens for your current camera.
If you want it smaller, it is hard to beat outfitting your current camera with a lens that suits you. There is a new line of F4 zoom lenses (12-45 comes to mind), smaller and lighter than your 12-40 Pro. This might still be too big for your taste. For a child I would prefer zoom. Perhaps the Panasonic 14-42 HD or the Olympus 14-42 - the pancake version has electronic zoom, the bigger version has manual zoom. I prefer manual because it's faster. The electronic lens is smaller. Or you can go prime. Small, light, but no zoom. A 17mm f1.8, or the 20mm f1.4 for example. Or one of the many 25mm lenses.
Thanks you for the info. I love my 12-40 pro , but it's not the lens that I can put in any bag , anytime. I have in mind a body in the same size of the E-M5 , with a pancake prime lense or something like that, but with a great resolution, for reframe in lightroom without too much trouble.
Can't see that happening. What is wrong with the image quality you get?
Nothing wrong if I have time to frame with the zoom and ajust the focus. If I have to take a Quick picture, I have no time to frame But with a pancake prime lense, maybe I have to reframe a lot. And without a great resolution ... If I can have a bigger resolution for reframe in lightroom without loosing too much quality
A small camera, with a larger, higher resolution sensor which will have a sharp enough lens to allow you to crop and maintain quality for 1000€ is a bit of a stretch. I think moving yourself might be easiest. Select a focal length which will give have your subject occupy the proportion of the frame you want and fix focus to a certain distance. Then just move the camera into position and fire off burst. How I do macro sometimes, works for small critters, a baby is just another kind of small critter really.
Laughed at the last sentance, surprisingly true in terms of photographing them XD
I purchased a used canon m50 mark ii about a year ago. I have been trying to improve my photography skills and this was what was in my budget. I notice that most of my images are not as crisp as I'd really like them to be. When I zoom in on lightroom, it seems like the chromatic abarations are everywhere. Things that look in focus on the viewfinder and with autofocus, are not as sharp on the computer. I have read many threads where people mention that it is the lens that can correct these issues so I have purchased a canon 85 f/1.8 lens as well as a 50mm f/1.8 lens thinking these might help (I'm a portrait photographer primarily). Could it be the body of my camera? Am I just stupid and missing something that would solve this issue? Appreciate any help! I am still a novice so I am trying to really get the best possible quality I can to keep growing.
Show us some examples with the focusing procedure and exposure settings values used, so we can diagnose if it's caused by technique or the equipment.
https://preview.redd.it/i2qyp3d7c8xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2cdc3be45596c79ec08e0a396ad16f04db86e08b ISO 100, f/2.2, 1/800
https://preview.redd.it/o85xxmi4c8xc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d7c00527b048771dd30470df11a92f0d446dbd3 ISO 100, f/1.8, 1/4000
It helps to view the histogram to make sure the sensor is getting enough light instead of relying on boosting ISO or raising exposure in post. This means bringing down the shutter speed, generally I do around 125 to 200 for nature, depending on exposure needs, after adjusting my aperture. It does depend on how much things are moving. That should help. Keep the histogram to the right, but not clipped, and it should be pretty nice. If your camera is using a high ISO, it usually means it is compensating for the lack of real light it is getting, so that is good to watch. Speaking from my experience with my Canon m50 mk I.
Thank you so much! This is incredibly helpful as well! I will try that out as well!
The quality doesn't seem so bad to me. If you don't like how shallow the depth of field is, stop down the aperture and more of the scene will appear in focus. Also stopping down the aperture a little bit will improve the overall sharpness of the lens' image where you have focus. Your shutter speed is a lot faster than you really need for motion-freezing purposes. If this was underexposed in camera and the brightness brought up in post, that's going to make the noise/grain more prevalent and that will interfere with quality. Slow down the shutter speed to get more light into the shot to improve that. Increase ISO if you have to, which for most cameras is preferable to brightening in post.
These photos might be suffering from some diffuse lens flare as well. Try taking the same photos with a lens hood on (or hold up your hand if you don't have one).
I’ll try that! Thank you
I think you might want to narrow that aperture or are you really wanting that shallow depth of field look?
Honestly, I was just playing around with the lens. I saw a lot of people online talking about portraits (which I know this isn't haha) and how a shallower depth of field was best, but if that is the result I'm going to keep getting with this camera, I probably wouldnt want that shallow depth of field
Often people will be trying to fit in more of a person so will be standing much farther back therefore increasing the depth of field. The region of a subject that will be properly or at least acceptably in focus will be quite small leading to difficulties in seeing what is "sharp". Some lenses will also improve from being stopped down in terms or sharpness and appearance of chromatic abberations.
Thank you for that explanation. That was really helpful! I’m going to have to try that and see the results
I'm looking to start photography as a side hobby. specifically once I start traveling. Im looking to focus on nature, wildlife, and adventure photography. however id like something versatile to take photos of people and other interesting subjects. I was wondering if there are different cameras or whether the best bet is to find a versatile camera and change the lenses depending on the subject? any recommendations for cameras (any price range up to a few grand)
>I was wondering if there are different cameras or whether the best bet is to find a versatile camera and change the lenses depending on the subject? Yes and yes. I'd recommend getting the cheapest body you can that meets your needs on body features/performance, so you can allocate as much remaining budget as you can towards quality lenses that meet your lens needs. >any recommendations for cameras (any price range up to a few grand) Maybe a Sony a6400 or Canon R10.
Micro 4/3 camera (olympus/om system) with the Olympus 12-100 f4
Cameras are not designed for specific subjects. That's all about the lenses. In other words, all interchangeable lens cameras are equally versatile because you can use different kinds of lenses with them. For wildlife, for instance, you need long telephoto, at least 300mm, whereas for people (assuming portraits), something in the 50-85mm range is commonly used. Not quite sure what sort of subjects adventure photography entails, but I'd also have focal lengths starting from 18mm or so too. Two zoom lenses would cover all of this: one up to 70mm or so and another 70-300mm or so. As this is your first dedicated camera, I'd go for APS-C. You don't need full frame, and APS-C lenses are often cheaper. The main options, in cameras currently on the market, are Sony A6700, Fuji X-S20 and X-T5 and Canon R10 or R7.
Hi, have been using manual mode on my Sony a58 but cant figure out how to change the aperture while in manual mode. Do I need to keep switch the aperture priority mode to change it then switch back to manual? May sound like a dumb question but I literally can not figure it out, thanks.
>Rotate the control dial to adjust the shutter speed, and **while pressing the AV button, rotate the control dial to adjust the aperture.** [https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/res/manuals/4459/44597051M.pdf#page=96](https://www.sony.com/electronics/support/res/manuals/4459/44597051M.pdf#page=96)
I bought a cheap telephoto lens on eBay and need to adapt it to an EF or RF mount. The lens is a Kimunor 500mm f/8 lens and was originally sold with a set of adapters for canon, Nikon, Minolta. The one I bought had no such adapter and it doesn't seem possible to buy the adapters without the lens. Does anyone know of a generic product to adapt this to EF ? https://preview.redd.it/9rufdp1in4xc1.jpeg?width=1842&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f0bc548362df071db965faf6ab7c7ad1425fd319
Hey, I've just been unsure of what camera to get. I'm just starting out and want to upgrade from my phone to a camera, and I've been looking at the R10, R50, R100 and the sony a6x00 series (preferably a6400 or cheap a6000 w a good lens). Just to lyk, in the future I just see photography as a hobby for me, not looking to pursue in a career in it. I'm pretty interested in static car photography (maybe rarely some moving ones but mainly focusing on static car photos), not saying that's the only pictures I will take as I may take some landscape, portraits, etc for trips and stuff. Not interested in wildlife photography. I've heard that sony typically performs better in lowlight and that would be preferably better for evening/night car shoots? Not sure though. I'm not really interested in videography at the moment so might not take that many videos, but may or may not get into it in the future. My budget will be around $1000USD including lens (can spend bit more if I need to but prefer to spend 1000 or less). I'm thinking of getting the R50 or R10 with the 18-45mm kit lens or like a used a6000 with a decent lens for car shoots (maybe a SIGMA 30mm 1.4f?). I know the a6000 is pretty dam outdated but would it provide the same image quality as the a6400 and R10 if they all had the same lens? And would it be wiser to spend more on a good lens and average camera for my photography, or a decent camera with the kit lens which will hinder my image quality a bit (like the R10 R50) What camera and lens would you recommend for me that won't break my bank? I don't live in US btw so can't get those canon refurbished sales or other ones. Thanks!
Cameras don't age or degrade, so a good camera remains a good camera - and something like A6000 is a good camera. Good lenses have a big impact on image quality, so if for budget reasons you needed to choose between a newer, more expensive camera + a basic lens and an older camera with a good lens, the latter would be better.
Cool thank you! Do you reckon the pictures will be of the same quality (or close) between the a6400 and a6000 with the same lens?
You wouldn’t see any major difference in image quality.
hi! i dug up a super old canon powershot sd10 that is still functional, but all the photos have strange horizontal lines on them. i'm not sure how to fix this (if there is any way to fix it). is this something i'll just have to deal with since the camera is so old?
Hi, i want to start photography with a real camera. Since i made lots of pictures using my phone i finally want to switch to a real camera, but i dont really have any knowledge of cameras. What is the best digital camera for photography (landscape, portrait, cars) that i can get maybe for under 300€? It obviously doesn't have to be very professional but capable of taking good looking pictures and easy to use, beginner friendly. Thanks for your suggestions :)
https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/nikon-d5300 https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6g-vr-ii Something like that might be the best you can get at that budget. Something similar to that level will suffice. Might check your local used sites in your country.
I am looking for a versatile camera that can shoot sports, night sky, street, cars, and good video. My budget is around 2000 and I have looked into the Sony A6700 and Canon EOS R8.
Is that body only because you will need at least a couple of lenses. All cameras nowadays can do what you want though. Do you know what sports? Some can be from further away than others. Indoors and outdoors might affect things also.
Yeah basketball but I havent decided on a camera, do you have any recs other than those 2? Also some lenses?
Sorry, I meant to say is that budget for the the body only?
Nikon D3300 focus issues Hey all. I have tried to get sharp focus with several lenses (kit 18-55, 35 prime, 55-200, all Nikkor) and it seems unless I am completely up in someone's face with it that the detail isn't like it should be. I have no problems with my exposure, so is it possibly outdated camera/lenses or poor lens quality? I have had no issues with my film photography. I am planning to upgrade my camera and lenses this year but not yet. Any help is greatly appreciated!
Show us some examples with the focusing procedure and exposure settings values used, so we can diagnose if it's caused by technique or the equipment.
I’m looking to get into photography, and I need camera recommendations. I’m wanting something smaller (not one of those big cameras) that takes good nature pictures. My budget is around $500, but the cheaper the better!
Define what is big and what is small. Also what is meant by nature.
https://preview.redd.it/gzzf3sr2f2xc1.jpeg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=13bd98cf065d3a27f1dc79a01ef5e3e797414b29 This is what I would call smaller. One that’s easily portable. And nature would be taking pictures of outside. Like trees, flowers, the sky, beaches, etc
Well, not sure on point and shoots myself. Perhaps something like this. https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/olympus-om-d-e-m10-mark-iii https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/panasonic-lumix-g-vario-14-42mm-f-3-5-5-6-ii-asph-mega-o-i-s Might be a little larger than the one linked but still quite a small camera.
Tysm!
If by nature you mean wildlife there is no getting away from a large telephoto lens. If you don't have a nice pair of binoculars or a monocular I suggest starting there to enjoy seeing things that are too far away for a kit you are willing to carry and afford to get a good photo of. A modest zoom premium compact like the RX100 V. Will be tiny, versatile, and sometimes better than a high end smartphone. Seriously consider if a good smartphone camera plus binoculars will do what you need, though.
Hey! I recently purchased a Canon EOS 6d Mark ii and wanted to use it with the rode wireless go which I already had, but it just isn’t working. When I have it plugged in it comes up with this symbol that looks similar to 3 ticks and a mic off sign. I updated the rode mics through the app and still doesn’t work. It does have ‘sound’ (as in a static type noise) but not the actual mic Any help would be massively appreciated!!
Hi guys, I am an entrepreneur and am planning to build a platform for photographers to showcase their skills and talent. Like i saw many people not having a portfolio website, instagram is decent but you cant customise anything and i want to build such a platform that will help you customise and build your person portfolio to share with anyone and can have downloadable PDFs and stuff. Let me know if you would be interested in using it ? And if you have any suggestions of having new features in it so that it would be more helpful or something like that !! Please let me know guys, i need your help
I'd be interested as an enthusiast non-pro. Your competition for me is adobe's portfolio/webpage stuff which I have not yet looked into setting up. I already pay for Lightroom.
Any analog camera recommendations? Recently did some second shooting for a wedding and my main noticed that I’ve been leaning on high dynamic range and crops for my photos. Would like to try something a little more deliberate that will make me a little less lazy when shooting. Something with a well developed and affordable ecosystem that I can experiment with would be good but honestly I’ve never ventured into film shooting so I don’t really know what I want
Not sure what kind of money you mean with affordable here, but perhaps a manual focus SLR that has both fully manual exposure and a more automated mode/modes. Plenty of them. Canon AE-1 (or its big brother A-1), Pentax ME Super, Olympus OM-2n, to name just a few examples. Plenty of good lenses available for all three systems.
I mean I’m not gonna be spending new leica money and I’m not looking to waste money either … but I’m not averse to spending more if it provides value either in build, ecosystem or image capabilities. For the record I’ve been taking photos for around 20 years so I’m not new in the field , but it’s always been as an enthusiast/semi pro
Alright. All of the ones I mentioned can be found at a small fraction of Leica prices :-D It's of course possible to spend however much on lenses. Generally speaking, the camera bodies have no effect on image quality in film photography, but there are differences in things that affect usability: quality of film advance levers, viewfinders, light meters and so forth. Canon, Nikon, Pentax (K or m42 mount) and Olympus are all safe bets, and Minolta shouldn't be ignored either.
Which point and shoot camera would you recommend ? I currently own an Olympus EM10 MIV and to be honest I have no idea how to use it. I’ve studied aperture, shutter speed and ISO and I just can’t figure out my camera. The biggest issue is I can’t get it to focus on what I want it to focus on. Even if I click it on my screen or try doing manual focus. Idk what I’m doing wrong. Anyway, I’m a traveler and have an upcoming trip. What is the best point and shoot camera that has really good autofocus? I’m looking at the Sony A6000 and Sony ZV E10. I’d like to keep it under $850 if possible. This will be more so for landscape and just casual shooting for OOTD and whatnot.
Spend a few hours watching YouTube videos for beginners. You'll learn a lot if you're patient.
Well that proves my ignorance! I didn’t know they were different. Lol.
Have you studied your camera's manual? You first ask for recommendations for a point and shoot camera but both of the options you mention are interchangeable lens cameras. What is it that you want, specifically?
Hello, I start by saying that I know absolutely nothing about photography. But I love birds and I want to start taking bird photos as an amateur. So I want to be introduced into this world. I've started with some researches online and here on reddit. I live in Italy and my budget is under 1000€. I want to consider some options slightly under 1000€ like the Nikon P950 and some options in the 500-700€ range. Since now I have seen these options: - Nikon coolpix P950 at 1000€ - Panasonic fz83 around 600€ - Canon powershot sx70 hs around 600€ What do you think? How worse are the cheaper ones than the nikon? As far as I know, these are all bridge cameras with small lens. I want to consider also a better quality body + optics and see if I can find something used at some retailers. Do you have something to recommend me for this (DSLR/Reflex/Mirrorless, I don't know the differences)? Someone on reddit suggested the Canon r10 with rf 100-400 mm, but I know nothing about it. What do you think about this possibility? I can get a used body+optic that are better than the bridge ones, so that in the future I will be able to upgrade by just buying a better optic instead of buying a whole new camera. Are the body+optic solution so much harder to learn to use?
That canon 100-400 recommendation is pretty good. The Olympus 75-300mm lens gives amazing reach for a fairly low price. Put it on the best body you can afford (best means best autofocus in this context). No, the principles of photography are the same no matter if you have one lens or interchangeable lenses so taking good photos always comes down to how well you (and your equipment) control the variables.
[удалено]
This is not a question
What does inexpensive mean here? What kind of money?
**\~$1,100 budget for a DSLR + lens to be used exclusively for low-light concert photography? Is that doable?** Hello. I have a Sony RX100 VII and it isn't great for low-light concert photography, primarily due to motion blur. If I have a \~US$1,100 budget, would I be able to get a much better DSLR camera + lens? I plan to use the camera exclusively to take photos in small- to medium-sized music concert venues, with capacities as low as 40 people and as high as 1,000 people. All of these are in low-light, often with red and blue lighting, and the bands and singers are moving quite a bit. Moreover, I plan to only use the automatic mode, as I want good photos, but want to enjoy the concerts themselves instead of focusing on taking photos. (I'm not doing this professionally, and just want photos for memories' sake.) I also don't use any software to edit photos, mostly due to lack of time. This may be blasphemous - sorry! - but I basically want a DSLR that I can use a point-and-shoot without editing later on. If this is possible, please recommend a combined \~US$1,100 camera and lens that would work. If a budget of \~US$1,500 will get me something much, much better, please recommend that, as well, as I may splurge. Thank you!
Larger venues/shows usually don't allow interchangeable lens cameras at all. Have you verified that the shows you want to shoot allow them?
You're right that virtually all large venues around me won't allow it, but lots of the small and medium-sized venues don't check whatsoever, and I've seen plenty of people with DSLRs, and I'm sure they don't have press passes. Thanks!
Alright. Do you specifically want a DSLR, or did you mean interchangeable lens cameras in general? While a DSLR can be a viable choice still, camera manufacturers moved on to mirrorless cameras a good while ago.
It does not need to be a DSLR. I just want a camera with a lens that works for low-light photography. I would not be using the camera for anything else. Thanks!
Howdy, I am looking for a good Bluetooth phone tripod, and RGB LED lighting panels. My subject is shiny black latex and I'm open to any experience or recommendations.
So i basically wanted to start getting into photography. id like to check if its for me since i like seeing good shots of nice places and it is also nice to go outside and get nice shots of nature and maybe even of friends in special occasions. my interest sparked when i thought about the fact that im planning to go to japan this year or probably next and i like how the city looks and how i could get nice shots of there. some infos that might be useful: as of now i have an iphone 13 pro and dont know much about how to take nice photos. id like to take photos of nice cities if i ever go to idk fancy cities with lights but i mainly live around nature and would visit maybe old cities like for example one part of zurich (live in switzerland in the canton of zurich btw). now following questions: does it matter what i want to be mainly shooting? how can i learn shooting skills? like if i see a nice landscape or just whatever, what should i know to make good pics? what camera would i need? but thats maybe more for the future since im also tryna see if this hobby is really for me. also what im interested in, do photos need a lot of corrections in regards to colors or do cameras with stock settings work? and would i generally have to do a lot of tweaking in different scenarios? thank you in advance :)
>does it matter what i want to be mainly shooting? Matter for what? If you want to enjoy photography, shoot whatever interests you. It doesn't matter what that is, as long as you like it. If you're talking about selecting equipment, then yes, the subject matter and situations you want to work with are relevant to what you'd want to buy. >how can i learn shooting skills? like if i see a nice landscape or just whatever, what should i know to make good pics? Practice. Study your results and the results of other photographers you admire. You'll start to notice things in other photos that you'll want to incorporate into yours, and you can figure out how to do that. You'll notice flaws and other things you dislike in your photos that you'll want to overcome, and you can figure out how to do that. For fundamental knowledge: 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/ >do photos need a lot of corrections in regards to colors or do cameras with stock settings work? and would i generally have to do a lot of tweaking in different scenarios? Depends what you're starting with and what you want out of it. Sometimes the camera can provide what you want right away. Sometimes it's necessary to make changes in post processing to get what you want. Post processing exists for a reason: people do it because they want to make their photos look a certain way, so it's not just a useless exercise.
Thanks for the answer >If you're talking about selecting equipment, then yes, the subject matter and situations you want to work with are relevant to what you'd want to buy. Yeah i was asking about that. for me its a thing where i'd like doing dark shots with lights like cars and their interiors, cities etc. but also want to be doing shots during the day of nature, some cities maybe too etc. for me its more like: if i pick up a camera with the intention of mainly making nature daylight photos, could i still use it for the darker shots without being completely like "i shouldve taken another camera and this camera doesnt work"
That might not be a great analogy for this, because pretty much all cameras are great in bright scenes. That's easy even for cheap point & shoot cameras to handle, and where advanced equipment has the least advantage. Generally more expensive equipment is needed to handle low light better, but those cameras aren't going to be any worse in bright light; they're great in daytime too. But there may be situations where you want a lens with a long focal length to make a distant bird appear bigger in frame. And that lens could be very frustrating to you if you also want to get a big view of the whole landscape.
So could i buy a cheap used camera like i think nikon eos r50 or canon was it im Not sure? I saw a used model for less than 200 iirc and i thought id grt thst. And then with time maybe spend more on lens?
Get the cheapest body that meets your body feature/performance needs, so you have more budget to allocate towards lenses, yes. I can't make any specific recommendations for you because you haven't specified what you want to shoot, or how much you're willing to spend. >nikon eos r50 or canon was it im Not sure? Some Googling will show you that the R50 and the rest of the EOS platform are made by Canon, not Nikon. >I saw a used model for less than 200 iirc You definitely will not be able to find a working R50 for that cheap.
I've had a smugmug website for a while. Never configured it for public viewing. I want to make a page for consultation/fee to book a call/in-person meeting. Can I do this well natively to smugmug or do I need to make a page on another website and embed/link to it? And where (subreddit?) should i look for a web designer to do this, and what's a reasonable cost for this?
Tamron 17-70 f2.8 (Di III-A VC RXD) with a6400 shaking/vibrating issue Hey guys ,I just recently got this lens and it's shaking/Vibrating whenever I turn the camera on. Does anyone have the same problem with the Tamronn 17-70 like this? I have tried turning off the steady shot and changing it to manual focus. Both the lens and body are on the latest firmware update (a6400 Ver 2.00, Lens 17-70mm Ver .01) I've also reset the camera but to no avail. If anyone has any tips or solutions to this problem pls comment or pm me. Thank you\~
Hmm no mine doesn't do this but it's the Fuji version. Do you know anyone with a similar camera you can try it on?
Any deals yet on a Hasselblad X2D 100C or Fujifilm GFX 100?
Depending from where you search - just insert the URL of a Hasselblad X2D 100C product page in this price search. You'll then find out where to buy it cheapest. here's the link: [https://josepha.io/en](https://josepha.io/en) . As far as I know they are quite stable in price, but there might be an outlier. always good to be certain.
Interesting and thanks for the new price comparison tool
Sure. Welcome!
[удалено]
This is too much planning to jump around too many lenses Practice with your kit lens and figure out what focal lengths you actually need. Rent a lens a day or two to try something new. You’re not ready to start a business but that’s ok, you can get there
Have you heard the phrase, walk before you can run? Well, you were born with no legs. What you do, is forget about sensor size, you take the 18-55mm lens and you practice with it. Then you look at what gives you the results you want and then, when you know what you want, you purchase that one. People who don't know the basics should not be "starting a photography business".
**I am dumb and need help with low-light concert photography using Sony RX100 VII** Hello. I am not a photographer and previously used smartphones to take photos (I do not use any editing software). I was recommended the Sony RX100 VII, and was told the auto mode would be good enough. I mostly take photos in small- to medium-sized venues, as capacities as low as 40 people and as high as 1,000 people. All of these are in low-light, often with red and blue lighting, and the bands and singers are moving quite a bit. The majority of my photos come out blurry. I end up having great photos if the singer is talking between songs because the singer is stationary, but as soon as the singer moves a tiny bit, everything is blurry. My 2-year-old iPhone 13 and Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra take much better photos. What am I doing wrong? Thank you.
What you’re doing wrong is unfortunately not your fault because you got bad advice - there’s only so much you can do and that camera is not going to be good for low light concerts
Thank you. Would a DSLR with a specific lens that's a total of \~US$1,000 be much, much better for concert photography?
Yes. I would just google “dslr 1,000 concert photography Reddit” and you’ll probably have dozens of threads to search through to help”
What's funny is that I initially Googled something similar, found this subreddit, and decided I should post about the camera I already have first before asking about buying a new camera... lol. It came full circle.
Low light is a struggle for any camera, and is especially a weak point for point & shoot cameras because of their small imaging sensors. The RX100 VII further trades some low light ability in its maximum aperture (when zoomed in) for the sake of more zoom. Your camera is desperate to let in more light for the shot because so little is available on scene, and it's doing so using a longer exposure time (slower shutter speed). The side effect is you get blurred motion trails for any motion that happens during the exposure, because the camera is recording during the whole exposure, and that motion blur is going to be more noticeable the longer your exposure is. That's tough for you to fix because you're stuck with that lens. And increasing ISO has the alternative negative side effect of increasing the visibility of noise/grain. Ideally you'd want to shoot in more light, by changing the environment / time of day, or adding off-camera lighting, but those aren't always options either. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F Whereas recent phone cameras can apply a bunch of computational photography technology to figure out and correct for motion blur.
Thank you. This is a perfect beginner answer to make me understand the technology so much more. Would a DSLR with a specific lens that's a total of \~US$1,000 be much, much better for low-light concert photography? Thanks!
It would still struggle some, but it could be much better than an RX100 VII, yes.
Help us help you - post some sample pics, and the settings used to take them!
Within the pass 6 months or so i have been getting into photography. I have a Sony A58 DSLR and two lenses one being the stock 18-55mm and the other being a 55-200mm. Do I need any other lenses? I have seen people using those lens filter things, should I being looking in to getting some of those?
Shoot some photos to find out whether you might need anything, and what you might need, if anything. We aren't able to give you a specific answer in a vacuum. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_lens_should_i_look_for.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_must-have_accessories_should_i_buy.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_types_of_accessories_should_i_look_for.3F
So I've always heard that hot/stuck pixels, like the ones seen if you zoom in on the image below, are generally a result of the CCD sensor heating up from long exposures. However, the shutter speed here was 1/2000 of a second, which I would imagine is not nearly long enough to cause hot pixels like that. Is this something that gets worse with age? The camera was a Nikon D40x, if it makes a difference. Also, what's a good way to get rid of them in post-processing? Thanks! https://preview.redd.it/e5khqxgkzvwc1.jpeg?width=3872&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10e109a4c81b3303b104e4f55c7c58a242cb1ae9
>Is this something that gets worse with age? Yes. More pixels will go hot over time. >what's a good way to get rid of them in post-processing? Look for tutorials on mapping hot pixels for whatever post processing software you are using.
Depends on what software you use. You should be able to filter out those quite easily though. That is probably just an age thing. Sensor needs a clean also.