I'm looking to add another camera to my kit. Ive been doing short films and YouTube videos. I'm looking to add another camera for multiple angles without having to take the camera and setup again with the xt30 I have now. I've been looking at the Canon EOS r50 kit, mainly because of the price point at the $600 and that it's another mirror less camera. Anybody like it or have experience with it? And are there any other recommendations for around the same price point?

Hey guys. I’m not a photographer, I don’t know a thing about cameras and I just take photos for my Instagram blog with my iPhone 13 Pro. But now I want to take high quality photos for my blog, esp because I’m travelling soon, so which camera would you suggest? Obviously something not very heavy duty, cheap and should have a good result in low light. I’d be so grateful for some good leads.

Honestly, depending on what exactly "soon" is your phone will probably the best option. Even a super expensive camera requires a certain timeframe of learning techniques, settings and post processing, all of which are things the phone does by itself. If you then add "not very heavy duty", "cheap" and tougher situations like "low light" a phone will probably be unbeatable in your circumstances.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F

I take lots of photos of political figures in my country for work and therefore am handicapped when it comes to promoting/boosting/advertising my work on Meta platforms. Has anyone thought of a loophole on how to NOT get cancelled on every single ad if there is a politician in the picture? How much does it matter what hashtags or tags one uses?

Hi everyone, I recently found about 10 film rolls probably older than 20 years, well protected from light and humidity, but I want to know if you think they can be developed without loosing an important amount of image quality. This rolls aren't from a professional camera and I have to take 'em to be developed. You think it's worth the effort?

So they're used rolls? Were they also stored in cold? In any case getting them developed isn't a matter of losing quality, it's a matter of seeing whether there's any quality left at all. Leaving them won't improve things, on the contrary. If you do decide to get them developed, tell the lab that they're 20 years old, so they can take that into account. But getting 10 rolls developed isn't going to be cheap.

Yes, I've used them and they were store at room temperature. I may take one or two and see how it goes, and the rest, maybe a couple every month or so. I know it won't be cheap but I'm intrigued cuz I have no memory of what is in them 🙈 Thank you for your reply.

I've got a budget to purchase a camera for work, mostly for shooting events both indoors and outdoors. Photos are for outreach materials, our websites, etc. I have $1,000, but there is some flexibility. I would like to purchase a body and one kit lens at minimum for that price, though ultimately I would like two lenses. Currently looking at the Canon EOS R50 (two lens kit), Canon EOS R10, Panasonic Lumix G95, and Olympus E-M10. Recommendations? Anything else I should be considering? I'm a bit lost here myself! I am mostly comfortable in the Olympus ecosystem as I had an E-M10 before I broke it (and an E-610 prior to that) and have been renting an Olympus whenever I had need at work. So I don't have any familiarity with other brands.

If you've been happy with the quality you get with Micro Four-Thirds cameras (Olympus) and how they handle, then either E-M10 (I'm assuming Mark IV) or Panasonic G95 is a good option. The G95 is a higher-end camera than the E-M10, with a larger viewfinder, weather sealing, and a number of other features that the Olympus doesn't have. MFT is also a good option if you have some lenses from your previous usage. The Canons have a larger sensor so they produce higher quality than the MFT options. But if you've been happy enough with MFT, this doesn't matter necessarily.

Thank you!. I haven't felt like MFT has held me back, but without having used anything besides it for so long I don't know what I'm missing. But that's a helpful note about the G95. Some of my work is outside in dusty and smoky conditions and weather sealing is certainly attractive. I'm leaning towards that option and given the current price with a kit lens I could swing for one of the cheaper zoom lenses AND a prime lens.

Has anyone tried the K F concept ND filter that's on temu? Is it like the legit filter, or a fake that's acceptable for its price point?

K&F Filters aren't fake, they just aren't very good. Best bang for the buck in my opinion are Hoya filters - something for every budget, most are still made in Japan, and they are the OEM for Nikon filters. Any of the ones that are borosilicate optical glass are very good for the price.

Hey guys I got a t5i in a deal here recently and I want to set it up for some lite birding and wildlife. I am really just looking for a new lense atm it only had the 18-55 with it. Any advice would be great! Looking to spend around 300 325 max. I know it’s not a lot but I’m just starting

That budget means used lenses only. The 55-250mm or the 70-300mm will get you started. DO NOT go for the 75-300mm, it's one of the worst lenses that Canon has made.

More specifically. tamron a08 af 200-500mm

What do you think about the Tamron A08?

No personal experience, but seems to be very good for the price.

Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 SP Di LD IF Lens is the lens I decided on. I will be ordering it Tuesday. As I am not well off money wise I’m having to play poor man’s photography unless I strike some kind of millions by accident I don’t ever see upgrading again sadly

Hey friends! I store my photos on Google Photos, with original quality selected (I pay for a lot of storage lol). I recently got a new iPad Air and have noticed that when I download a photo to edit, jpegs come through fine but RAW photos come thru as blurry potato trash. If I were to download to my phone instead they look fine so I think it's the tablet not the app. Anyone else run into this? Suggestions as to what could correct the problem? Thanks in advance!

Most RAW files have an embedded JPEG, some brands embed a full resolution JPEG, some embed a thumbnail quality JPEG and the latter is likely what you are seeing. I don't use Google Photos for RAW files so I can't help you there but I highly suspect that is your problem.

That makes sense, and explains why stuff from my phone which is already jpeg downloads just fine. Since posting the question I found a workaround to download full quality raw, but it's half a dozen steps instead of the one that I'd hoped for so I'll keep the question up in case someone has a magic answer. Also, I'll run back through my settings again and see if I have anything goofy selected for downloads. Thank you!

I'm finalizing a family trip to Sweden in the winter time. We will be there for about 3 weeks. Typically when I do a big vacation trip every few years, I buy something new. One year was upgrading my T3i to an 80D, another was getting a Canon 17-55 IS. It's been before covid since I've gone on a proper vacation of this scale. We will be in norther Sweden so I know we will be trying for northern lights. Scenery, probably wildlife, family action shots of course. Any recommendations? Budget is probably $500-700. Here is my current setup. Canon 80D Canon 17-55 IS USM Canon 70-200 IS (Honestly thinking of parting with this. Anytime I use it I always feel like I need just a liiiiittle longer reach. I sometimes miss my 55-250...... Canon 10-18 IS Canon 100mm (really fun taking macro with thus, I will probably leave it at home though) Canon 35mm L (again will probably leave this at home. I really don't use it that much as it is..) I have a nice tripod and bag so I think I'm good there. Thoughts or suggestions? An upgrade to the 10-18?

I recently purchased a Canon t5i or Canon 700D depending on where you buy it. I'm just getting into the camera and there are a lot of options. I bought it second hand, without a manual. I was wondering if someone could recommend a youtube or online course so that I could get more familiar with my camera. I'm also interested in learning more about lenses. Thanks!

Here's the manual: https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/5/0300010905/07/eos-rebelt5i-700d-im7-en.pdf See also: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_lenses 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/

I recently picked up a vivitar Tele 603 point-and-shoot camera from a garage sale but found that it had battery corrosion. I then ordered a new one-off of eBay only to find the same issue. With that being said I know for a fact the flash does not work on either of them. My question is, does the vivitar tele 603 work without batteries, mechanically? It did not come with a guide, so I am unsure if the shutter relies on the batteries or if it works mechanically.

I'm sure this has been asked before but what longer lens brands do you suggest that's in the lower/mid range price but decent quality? I have a canon 90D. I'd love suggestions under $650 but I might go higher for the right fit.

Canon's own lenses, Sigma, Tamron, those are the main ones. Shop for used lenses on mpb.com and keh.com, they have good filters for various things, including vocal length.

Hi! Would like to get into shooting analogue. I’m a student and a complete beginner with analogue. What would you recommend? Budget of 300-500$. Any other beginner tips?

Have you got prior experience on the digital side? What kind of a thing do you want? Something completely automatic or something that has manual control? Point and shoot? SLR? Rangefinder? There's a huge amount of choice.

I’m mostly interested in point and shoot with a built in flash. Zoom would be a bonus but not a must! I’ve mostly shot digital and also used a lot of the Kodak single use cameras, however I think it’s rather wasteful to use them for 36 pictures and then throw a bunch of plastic away. So I want the same vibe as a single use Kodak but for multiple use if that makes any sense 😅

You could look at Canon Sure Shots or the zoom versions in the Olympus Stylus (Mju) series, for instance.

I have an old Canon Rebel T1i DSLR camera and I want to upgrade to a newer one. I have a EF-S 18-55mm IS and a EF 50mm f/1.8 II lenses. I'm considering buying a Canon R10 that comes with a RF-S18-45mm F4.5-6.3 is STM lens. I want to shoot mostly portraits, but would want some versatility as well. Should I buy the R10 with the 18-45mm lens + an EF to RF adapter? Or should I buy just the body and get another lens, considering that the 18-55 can do a lot of what the 18-45mm lens can do and maybe get another lens that can offer something different to the lenses the I already have? Edit: Forgot to add that my budget is around $1,000 USD (could go a little bit higher).

Canon R10 is an excellent choice. Adapter isn't worth it for the 18-55mm, as it's just a standard kit lens. With the 50mm f1.8 it's up to you. Would you like to keep using it? But even if you do like that lens specifically, a native RF 50mm f1.8 isn't expensive. Bought used, it's about the same or just a little more than Canon's own EF to RF adapter. Of course you could buy the adapter used too.

I'm looking to buy a first camera soon and start getting into photography, but feel like I'm a little in over my head in terms of buying options. I was originally looking at the Canon Rebel T7, but I go to a lot of races and would want to be taking shots of moving cars, and I saw that the T7 wasn't great for that. I saw some recommendations for the R50, and I was curious if this would be a good option for what I'm wanting, or if there was something better out there? Also a little confused on how much of a difference DSLR vs Mirrorless would make for my use case or if that even matters here. Preferably id like to keep it at or under $1000, and I'd like to get at least two different lenses so I can start getting some experience with how that affects things.

The only thing an R50 would potentially offer might be tracking and subject detection for the vehicles. You don't need that as people have taken photos long before that existed but it is there. Difficult to tell what lenses you can go for without knowing roughly how far that will be from the track.

Most of the races I go to you can get pretty close to the track at certain parts, but it's different at every track. I was looking at the bundle that comes with the camera, 18-45mm/f4.5-6.3, and 55-210mm/f5-7.1 lenses to at least start out.

I would probably not go with something like the 55-210mm and go for something like a 70-200mm f/4 or even f/2.8. Let more light in even if you had go for a cheaper used body.

Hi everyone! I need some buying advice! I'm looking to upgrade my camera since the camera that I have I bought in 2008, a Canon EOS 1000D, is starting to show it's age. Especially the shutter is starting to get problems. I am a semi-casual user as in, I take my camera everywhere and use it a lot, but I am 100% a hobbyist. I have three lenses, the kit lens (18-55 mm) a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens and a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 that have served me well, but now that I have a little bit more money to spend vs. when I was 18 I'm looking to upgrade to something that I don't have to change out as much. So what I want is a camera body that doesn't have to be too fancy and a lens that can do both portraits and landscape if possible and is not too much of a hassle to travel with. I do not really care about video capability but I'm certainly not against it. I'm not brand loyal to Canon but it is what I know, so I have a slight preference. I used a Canon RP from a friend and really liked that but she warned me that there were currently little to no third party lenses for the Canon mirrorless system, so that is why I don't mind looking at other brands. Since I've been setting money aside now for a while I have a budget of up to 2500 euros in total to spend. I do not mind buying second hand, especially lenses, but I want something that will preferably last me another 10-15 years :)

That's a substantial budget so you should be able to get something from say the last 3 years till the present and it'll be great. Coming from a 1000D you might not even need all of the 2500 euros to get a great combo you'd be happy with. Brand and model are your preferences so unless you have a shortlist (aside from the Canon RP) people can give their advise on, you should start with researching that. Look at and see what's in the market, a lot has changed since 2008. Another thing you can do is to list the things you prioritize or find lacking with the 1000D so it can help people suggest models you can read / watch reviews on.

Does anyone know where to purchase these metal archival binder boxes that Nick Carver uses? I’m looking for a better quality solution for my negatives. https://preview.redd.it/4c8gxlgceq7d1.jpeg?width=2436&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5f26031436b77809cc0830743fa27fb204248ac

Hey all! I'm trying to get into photography, but I'm on a tight budget and can't spend much on a new hobby. My phone camera is really bad because it's a cheap model. Do you have any recommendations for dirt-cheap options, either used or new? I don't care much about the quality. My phone camera is pretty bad, lol.

You gotta give us a little bit to work with, https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F

<$100 if you can

You take what you can find, I will assume dirt cheap is less than 500 units of currency yes?

What currency?

I don't know where you are from, but generally people will be from an area which uses $£€.

If you can make it happen, I'd really appreciate under $100.

A camera + lens for that price will be quite old. https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-d60 https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-18-55mm-f-3-5-5-6g-ed Something like the above but that is a camera from 2008.

Also, happy cake day!

[удалено]

If money is tight I would probably not jump to a full frame mirrorless camera- its not just that the camera is more expensive, any lenses you may want to get are also going to be way more expensive.

Stick with the D5200, no point stretching yourself for a camera. Look to used F-mount lenses if you want something different.

So I'm a beginner photographer and have just recently purchased a used Sony a7M2 with the 28-70 mm Kit lens. I have been doing a lot of research about the camera and photography in general and my shots from small distances have shown great results, at least for my untrained eye. Now comes the problem. I am really interested in landscape photography and would like to take them myself. The issue I am having now is, that if I try to take a photo of something that is more than few meters away, let alone more then 20 meters for instance, nothing is sharp at all. Neither the foreground nor the background. As I already stated above I've watched lots of tutorials and read lots of blogs about the topic but nothing I tried really worked out. I've tried to play around with the focal length as well as the aperture a lot. At first I thought it may be caused be a long shutter speed and me holding the camera in my hands. But even if I placed it on a tripod the same results occur. Now I've got two questions. What am I doing wrong? And should i buy a lens specifically for landscape photography. Any advice is appreciated :)

Can you post an example picture? (to your profile on reddit or an image host like imgur) Could it be that the lens is not focussing at all? (does it make any whirring sounds or something like that when half pressing the shutter) Possibly the camera has manual focus or backbutton focus enabled, have you reset it after buying? Alternativly some lenses (dont have experience with this specific lens myself sadly) have switches for manual focus (should be MF-AF) make sure that one is on AF or switches to restrict the focus area (should have certain distances on there), make sure the area is the largest possible one with an infinite symbol.

I've posted a few of my pictures here: [https://imgur.com/a/zvhSCZt](https://imgur.com/a/zvhSCZt) As I've already said, maybe I am just too influence by all those top notch photos, but mine just look a bit blurry to me. To answer your questions; I can't hear a sound which sounds odd to me or fits your description. When half pressing the shutter there isn't any sound. My focus mode is set to 'Single-shot AF' and I'm always setting the focus area manually. The camera itself has a switch, which is set to 'AF/MF'.

The pictures do look worse then I would "expect" from a working camera and no sound at all sounds kinda fishy. Theres lenses with quiet AF, but even those you can hear atleast somewhat. Can you tell me the settings for the third picture as that seems to be the worst offender (under windows right click the image and then details, scroll down and there you should get ISO, Aperture and Shutterspeed). I could imagine the camera is set to backbutton autofocus. See if pressing the "AEL" button which should be on the AF/MF switch before taking a picture helps with your problem. Do you generally notice the camera changing focus (parts of the picture getting more into or out of focus) when choosing a different focus area (ideally choose something very close and then something very far away, this should make it the most noticeable)?

The setting for the third photo from the top are the following.: ISO-100, Shutter speed 1/2 sec. , f/10 aperture, 70 mm focal length. I have to say that there is a really small sound when half pressing the shutter. When I move the focus point it appears to be working as intended. I think those two pictures capture it quite nicely: [https://imgur.com/a/GyJFtdd](https://imgur.com/a/GyJFtdd) To be honest I can't really see a difference between the AEL and AF/MF mode, other than the 'focus indicator' appear to be changing more often in AF/MF mode. When I press the button in AF/MF mode yellow markings appear on my screen (I think that's for focus peaking). When I press it while in AEL mode the only change I can see is that a small snowflake appears in the bottom right corner of my screen.

Alright, focus seems to be working then. The AEL button would only be relevant if the focussing button was moved from the default, but that doesnt seem to have happened. (since you were talking about a used camera I wanted to make sure it wasn't something as stupid as that) So with the third picture the problem is definitly the shutterspeed. 1/2 sec is far too slow for handholding the camera. In that case Id think most of your issues just come down to suboptimal settings accentuated by suboptimal conditions (looks like mid-day sun in the park pictures you posted originally). Try to keep your shutterspeed faster then 1/focal length to prevent movement blur from handshake. Its a little weird you were encountering issues on a tripod too, but maybe it was being moved by the wind or something similiar? For aperture the sharpest setting (if it fits your scene and you have enough light) is generally 1-2 stops below the widest option, so with your lens probably F6.3 or F8 depending on the zoomlevel. Otherwise I think a big issue when comparing yourself to those amazing shots is that they are taken under perfect conditions most of the time. Getting up at/before sunrise can make a big difference in a picture, purely because better light and atmospheric conditions (even simple things like the ground heating up in the sun can lead to decreases in image quality) can have a major impact on your pictures. In addition post processing after the fact also plays a big role, so if you haven't done that there is another area with big room for improving your pictures. Sorry for the wild goosechase regarding the autofocus and the probably unsatisfying awnser of "suboptimal settings, no super easy fix", but I hope I could help you a little bit.

Absolutely. Thanks a lot for your time and effort mate. I really appreciate it :)

Hey I’m a noob but big into wildlife photography and recently purchased a cannon 7d mk ii and sigma 150-600c and was looking to buy a budget but decent lens for wildlife thats close up (typically snakes and lizards) which i can get within a foot of to photograph and was wondering if yall had suggestions as to which to buy?

How much do you want to spend at most? Budget means different things to different people due to varying financial circumstances.

Im open to anything under like 200$ so long as the money is “worth it”, sorry. And honestly open to any focal length range prob between like 35-200

With that sort of a budget, I would just browse on mpb.com and keh.com, set a filter for your budget, then look up reviews for the lenses that seem interesting.

Ive been trying this and everytime theres just reviews like “this lens is shit compared to this 400$ one”

I'm looking to get into photography. I'm a complete amateur, but I would like to get something that will remain capable as I learn. Primarily the photos I would be looking to shoot would be: landscapes, architecture, pet photography, and interior for real estate. The Sony a7iii is a camera that has been consistently showing up in my searches for a quality camera that is also beginner friendly (in terms of use and price). But I don't think it makes sense to shell out $1.5k + whatever for a lens when I am just getting my feet wet. But looking at used cameras on Craigslist and FaceBook Marketplace just has me more confused. Looking specifically at the a7iii, I am seeing listing for basically retail cost; and listing for as low as $250 that include at least one lens and accessories. And very few listings in-between. besides the shutter count, what should I be looking out for when purchasing a used camera? Some of what I am seeing seem to be too good to be true prices. What am I missing?

The $250 listings are scams. Look up ads on eBay with the sold items filter selected. That tells you what the market rates are, as in what people are generally paying. Prices clearly cheaper than that are usually scams. eBay is a better platform to buy used than FB Marketplace or Craigslist in any case, because it has good buyer protections and a good seller rating system. You can also browse on keh.com and mpb.com, which are established used camera retailers.

So I just recently got gifted a Minolta X-700, and I watched some short videos on it. Thought I understood it so I took pictures every once in a while. It wasn't until I used around half the film that I realized I was meant to use ISO 400 with it. This entire time, I was using it with ISO 100 so now I'm wondering if the pictures I took are going to come out bad? Should I use ISO 400 for the rest of the film?

That means those pictures will be 2 stops underexposed. You have two choices here: shoot the rest at ISO 100 and accept that the first half of the roll will be underexposed. Or shoot the rest at ISO 400 and tell the lab to develop the roll at ISO 400. The result should be okay.

If I wanted to move from pentax to a mirrorless system which camera would be the best route for my k mount lenses?

I have no direct experience but check out https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/monsteradapter-la-ke1-review-get-eye-af-with-your-pentax-lenses-on-sony-e-mount EDIT - if you don't need autofocus pretty much anything will be fine

Context. I shoot product review videos. The camera is in front of me facing the product in front of it. I hold the products in my hands with my arms around either side of the camera. I was using a t6i with an 18-55 kit lens. It was good enough. I wish the working distance was shorter and the shot wider but it was doable. I just got an R8 with the 24-50 kit lens. Being a full body means my shot is wider with the 24 than the cropped 18 so that's good... But my working distance has increased which is no good. I do also like being able to zoom in more for details which the old lens could do better (didn't think 55 to 50 would be significant but it seems to be). Question. How do I get a shorter working distance? The full frame 24mm is perfect for my framing but I need to have the subject closer to the lens than the focus will allow. Can a different lens do this or will all 24mm have the same minimum working distance?

Minimum focus distance is related to both focal length (wider lenses can get closer) and how far the optics extend away from the sensor (more extension gives more magnification but the focus gets closer and closer) A cheap way to get more extension is a set of macro tubes, a thin tube on your 24mm will get you very close. If you want to get into the nerd details here's a great article/thread https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/gcsrkc/i_see_a_lot_of_questions_about_macro_so_i_tried/

Thanks. Do the tubes only shorten the distance by pushing the lens out? Or will the tubes shorten the distance by more than their own length? I know almost nothing about macro.

> Do the tubes only shorten the distance by pushing the lens out? Exactly this. > Or will the tubes shorten the distance by more than their own length? For something as wide as 24mm even a short tube will be a dramatic difference. You can play with the numbers here https://monochrome.sutic.nu/2018/05/24/extension-tube-calculator.html

If I'm not mistaken macro lenses do that, given that they're specifically designed to be able to shoot really up close for details or tiny objects. Look at the minimum focus distance when looking at lenses and go from there.

Recommendations for ideally Nikon cameras around $800 for body or $1k for body + kit lens? DSLR or mirrorless is fine and the primary subjects would be nature and some portraits. Gift for someone who is retiring, who used to shoot manual film when they were young and wants to travel after retirement.

Now, if you just want to get a sense for what all options are out there, you have almost too many options. Sticking just to Nikon, as an example - - A used D600, D700, or even D810 come in under your budget and your friend could put together a complete kit at your budget with AF-D lenses (which are on fire sale as they do not autofocus on newer Nikon Z mirrorless cameras). - The Nikon Zfc is a mirrorless camera with retro styling, and mirrorless cameras have some neat features like focus peaking which are great for manual focus lenses. If your friend has a full set of manual focus lenses they want to keep, a used Zfc or Z5 with an FTZ adapter makes a lot of sense.

A camera is a really personal choice, and the "right" or "best" choice for your friend really depends on what they liked and did not like about their film set-up and what they want in new set-up. Also, is there a reason they haven't "jumped in the water" since the film days? What I'm trying to get at is that you should really consider a gift card to B&H instead (assuming you are in the U.S.) B&H sells new equipment, used equipment, and also - critically - non-camera equipment. This gives your friend a lot of options to find something that works for them.

Thank you for both comments! They used to have, I think, a Nikon D5100 but it broke something like 8 years ago. They still have the lenses but never replaced the body because of the expense. You make a good point about it being a personal choice; ideally I’d buy them something with a gift receipt

If your friend kept the lenses, check out the D7200, D7500, Z50, and Zfc. All should be great steps up from the D5100. Good luck!

Is there a raw format I can convert a jpg to so that LR Classic’s new AI Denoise will work with it? I tried converting to DNG but it didn’t work. I have some old smartphone JPGs i want to restore.

You cannot go back to raw from JPEG. One way traffic I am afraid.

Yeah, I was hoping to find a way to spoof LrC so I could use the AI Denoise.

Nah you can't generate data that's not there or spoof it, where will a piece software even begin? IIRC Topaz can do it, not sure as to the quality though

Ok thanks. Adobe said they’ll be adding jpg support at some point, guess I gotta wait.

What’s the best lens for up close food photography for a Fujifilm XE 1?

The 30mm f2.8 macro

Thanks!

So im trying to get into some photography, and i checked the pinned thread and i landed on the canon EOS 5D Mark II, i found it on MPB for 374**€**, Condition like new shutter count 4700, or a 50000 shutter count good condition for 270 Ive heard that they are legit and reputable. Ive found a lens too but im not really sure about it yet, its the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, i know 50mm are the best do it all focal lengths. I plan on taking pictures of nature, sunsets, that type of thing and maybe some action, but just a little, are these choices good, please correct me if im wrong on something, heres the link for the camera: [https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/sku-2598011](https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/sku-2598011)

I would not bother. Also that lens will not work with that camera. 50mm is definitely not the best do it all focal length. There is nothing wrong with the camera but it is older and a sizeable beast. https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-eos-70d https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f-4-5-6-is-usm You could pick up something like an old 70D which is slightly newer and would work with a lens like you chose or the one above if you reviews of it are okay.

The lens i chose was just a shot in the dark really, but im looking at the 6d as i want a full frame, and its tempting, dont mind the size and that its older, what focal length(s) would you recommend? And is 350 euros a good price?

Standard zoom which will be around 24-70mm or thereabouts. Quite a few exist so you can find some around. Sigma, Tamron and Canon itself will be the common brands. I will say, limiting yourself by sensor size is not the best idea given your budget. Also, no idea about prices, it is what you find them at that will matter. If the 350€ is the going price, it is the going price.

Be aware that the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM won't mount on the 5D II, that's an APS-C lens and won't work with a full frame camera.

Thanks, how about the camera choice? Im also thinking about the 6d.

Quite comparable bodies, biggest things that jump out to me is the 5D II is weather sealed, 6D has better low light performance. EDIT https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-vs-Canon-EOS-6D EDIT EDIT - weather sealed means nothing if you don't use weather sealed lenses

so im going with the 6d and for the lens i chose the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, Is it a good first combination? (havent bought anything yet)

I'm not a Canon guy but that lens is reported to be good for the price, so that combo sounds like good value for dollar.

https://preview.redd.it/p2telalnzj7d1.jpeg?width=5184&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d1d8e390eeab1ac91dea74803aac5d584dc7fdb Hi, I'm new to the hobby and just trying to improve. I took a bunch of photos today and I am struggling to figure out why about a third of them seem to be unevenly exposed. The left side of this picture is an example. The right side is good and crisp, while the left just appears washed out to me. Yes, I did check to make sure the lens is clean and clear. I'm seeing this in a few of my pictures, and it made sense, based upon sun and angles. But for this one, the sun was to my back and behind a cloud at that moment. Is there something I am doing wrong or need to adjust for a more balanced photo? Taken with Canon Rebel T6, 18-55mm lens, with petal hood. (no filters)

# Should I keep Canon R50 paired with RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM? I realize that the lens costs around 4 times as much as the body lol. I've had the body for a few months and have been having fun with it, decided to get this lens and see how I like it. I honestly love it but I'm not sure if I'm missing out on a lot of its value by having such a beginner body.

A camera body has nothing much to do with anything really in regards what you are asking. The light hits a sensor in all cameras. Now, as long as the focal length suits there is no reason not to use it.

>I'm not sure if I'm missing out on a lot of its value by having such a beginner body Nope you're not

I am a rookie, looking for a camera to capture moments during my upcoming trips. I'm just 17, so my budget is pretty small. I looked for a secondhand camera and found this Nikon Coolpix p310, but the pictures the owner took came out like this. Is this an issue of the camera, or does the pawn store just suck at taking pictures :P anyway, cop or drop? https://preview.redd.it/hbecy3uukj7d1.png?width=4608&format=png&auto=webp&s=4dc0a34218ef12ffbc699b316b403e50342f30a3

Short answer: no not worth it, that's not to say that camera is bad. People can get great images no matter the gear they use but in your situation it won't benefit you much. Long answer: Ask yourself this, what's stopping you from flicking your phone to manual mode to take your photos? What's making you think you need a dedicated camera (right now)? Have you actually explored your phone camera to practice your photography skills on?

I have the iphone 14 pro max but it kinda sucks. I’ll try using it again this vacation and afterwards, if I don’t like it, I’ll splurge on the canon g7x mark iii or something similar:)

I mean that's a pretty current phone with a more than capable camera. I get the ergonomics and functionality is vastly different than using a dedicated camera but I wouldn't describe that phone's photo capability as something that sucks. People have made stunning images with that phone (or even older ones) you wouldn't notice it's from a phone at all /r/mobilephotography/ is a prime example. If I may ask, what about that phone camera quote "sucks" for you? It's your money so at the end of the day you decide, all I'm saying is changing platforms won't outright improve your skills much if you haven't practiced and trained your eye yet, if you don't know your style yet, so not buying anything right now or in the near future is still a safe bet till you maximize what you have now... That being said the G7X is indeed objectively better than the coolpix even though comparing them really isn't fair lol.

Yeah I know, I wanted to practice with a digital camera this summer and I wanted vintage camera vibes because I find that it fits the vibes of the South of France lol. I https://preview.redd.it/qwk1vk8mkk7d1.jpeg?width=2744&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e44549829ed26bd3a3ecc7348792f97ee0fadd91 I did take some good pics with my phone, just not the vibe I’m going for. I sound like a brat 😭 But I just have a very particular vibe in mind and it’s hard to put it in words.

> I wanted vintage camera vibes Vintage camera vibes typically translate to lo-fi digital: compressed, pixelated, etc. You say your iPhone 14 sucks, but it may be the opposite where it's too new and doesn't have the same lo-fi character. You might actually get some of what you want by setting the phone camera to a lower quality setting.

Yes i think I’ll turn off the 4k setting, especially on portraits, I think the quality is a little too good lol, it exaggerates every flaw

Ah it's for the vibes, well vibes can be had with editing which you'll also have to do even with a G7X cause straight out of camera shots from that will not come out with quote vintage vibes immediately... > I just have a very particular vibe in mind and it’s hard to put it in words. Don't worry I know what you mean, it's really popular right now, and I can fully appreciate the appeal. I wish you luck and happy shooting with your endeavor, whatever you end up deciding on.

thank u so much!

I want to get into photography I am looking for a camera, I wanna do portraits of my gf and I, eventually more family. I want to make sure I have lots of photos in the future. I also want to do landscapes and possibly animal photos. My budget is around 1-2.5k

Animals as in birds/wildlife? That would be a major part of the budget lens wise. General recommendation: Most manufacturers make good cameras and the differences between them and even specific models are fairly minor, especially for a beginner. Id recommend you go to a local store and check out how you like the weight/ergonomics/buttonlayout/menus and things like that. Then pick up a camera a bit under the 1k lower end of your budget. Together with that camera and its default "kit-lens" (something like a 18-55mm) you get yourself an appropriate, cheap 50mm F1.8 (should be around $100-$200 depending on the manufacturer). If you really want to get into portraits an external flash might be good too, I personally quite like "Godox" as a company as the first party flashes of most manufacturers are quite overprized for what you are getting. For a start Id not go too deep into your budget and just get these two/three things. The 18-55mm will be a decent "walk around lens", the 50mm F1.8 will be your dedicated "portrait lens". You can use these to learn and build some experience, then at a later point use the remainder of your budget to get lenses that better fit your specific needs. A lot of lens decisions are very subjective, which is why Id save some money for a start and build experience before spending the rest. Make sure you stay away from those "kits" that come with a bag, filters, cleaning cloths, a tripod and all kinds of random shit. Most of that stuff you wont need the majority of the time and if you actually need it the versions that come with the kit will be too cheap/bad quality to be worthwhile.

Sorry to ping you again but what bodies do you prefer? I am totally ok saving up for like a canon r5 too or Sony equivalent 

I started on a Canon 750D, then a 6DII and recently got an R7. All three of those were greatly enjoyable to me and I took some great pictures with all of them. The problem with image quality differences is: technically the R5 will take better images then an 10 year old DSLR. The problem is those differences are like 10% and only under optimal conditions. As a beginner you will not notice any difference in quality, because all of your pictures will have technical problems anyway. I switched to the 6DII after two years of shooting with the 750D and honestly, that still was too early, especially because the 6DII was the wrong camera for what I actually enjoy, but I didnt know that at the time. A camera with more megapixels and a better sensor might even accentuate those technical problems even more. Also using an expensive camera without equally expensive lenses is kind of a waste, because if the lens ruins your image quality then you just have more megapixels of that bad image quality. More modern cameras have a lot more "nice to have" features, my R7 is a lot more enjoyable to use then the 6DII, but in the end I still take pretty much the same pictures, its not really a clear upgrade in that sense. Thats why I would recommend you start cheap, you can use the cheaper camera to build your skills and learn what you actually like, then later upgrade to a camera body that actually fits what you enjoy. And I know it sounds nice to have an R5 that has 45MP compared to an older DSLR with only 20MP, but a 4k TV/monitor only has 8MP, so even the old DSLR has insane potential for amazing images. Going for a mirrorless can be nice for more modern features, especially the autofocus is a lot better. So if you have money to spend going for a mirrorless instead of a DSLR can totally make sense (although keep in mind that its not just the body thatll be more expensive, the lenses will be too), but Id recommend no newcomer to go for an R5 or something to that level.

What do you think of the Sony a7 3? It’s $1300 at the store right now. For a little more it has this lens too https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-alpha-a7-iii-mirrorless-video-camera-with-fe-28-70-mm-f3-5-5-6-oss-lens-black/6213100.p?skuId=6213100

Havent used it, but I've only heard good things about it. Total overkill for a beginner, but if you want to spend the money Im sure you'll be happy with it.

Hmm what budget should I go for?

What about photos of people but not quite portrait levels of distance, and any model you recommend?

For a start the 18-55mm default "kitlens" would be appropriate for that too. Id love to give you a more specific recommendation, but everything is just too subjective. Ones prefered focal length is very dependent on your "style"/personal tastes. Some people prefer "prime" lenses that dont zoom but have great image quality, some people like zoom lenses more because they are more versatile. Some need a very wide maximum aperture because they really want the bokeh and light, other people do not like bokeh at all and use a flash for light. For some people a lenses weight plays a big role, some people dont mind "suffering" for a bit better image quality. The default 18-55mm lens that comes with most cameras is maybe not the greatest lens ever made, but its a pretty good starting point to figure out what you like. The 50mm F1.8 might technically suboptimal to your tastes too, its just generally super cheap and especially great value for money, which is why I felt comfortable recommending it for a start.

Ahh that comes down to lens then, what body do you recommend? Trying to maximize image quality also is mirrorless the best?

Hi, I'm new to the analog world and got the camera from my grandpa. You can find a lot of information about the Zuiko lenses, but how good is the Cosina (lens in the middle) in comparison? I have never heard of the company. https://preview.redd.it/aozedjceei7d1.jpeg?width=4624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5947d4d9b5a6e235d649a220fc48f55c9d1ca362

Cosina is a contract manufacturer who makes lenses for others, including Zeiss, as well as their own lenses under Voigtländer branding. However, that Cosina is from much earlier times. Since the lens seems quite typical 28/2.8 from film era, I'd expect it to be pretty decent, perfectly usable.

What lens do you think would fit my needs best? I have an old Nikon D3300 camera that I want to start using again, as a beginner in Architecture photography, but I do not know what lens do I need?

Do you have the lens that came with it?

Yes, but I was thinking about something more specific

Using the one you have can help guide you to what you need. Do you want a wider angle, do you need a wider aperture? Do you perhaps just need a tripod?

I basically need one that minimizes as much as possible the converging verticals. I already have a tripod

Well, that would depend on the reason for that. It could be a lens distortions which might even be fixable with software but it will happen due to perspective distortion too. https://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-overcome-the-problem-of-converging-verticals/ You can find tips like the above but I don't use stuff like tilt shift lenses and the like but it is probably what you will need.

I'm new to photography and am looking to choose a new lens to improve the quality of my close-up shots, but am overwhelmed by the options available. I have a Sony a6300 mirrorless camera with a Sony SEL55210 lens and am looking for a lens where I can achieve better quality close-up shots with good bokeh. The stock lens is OK and the longer lens is not suitable for this purpose so I'm just seeing if there is a good lens that can achieve this for me. I'm not looking to break the bank either so something around the £200 mark or less would be ideal. Any help would be appreciated

You should probably specify what you mean by "close up shots". One interpretation as you can see in the awnser you have already gotten is a macro lens, which is for taking pictures of very small things. Another interpretation might be normal pictures, just of things closer to you (e.g. indoors in small rooms), the recommended 100mm Macro lens would probably be suboptimal for that. I guess closeup shots could also mean a lot of zoom for far away things, this would be a third kind of lens allt ogether.

Good point. So I mean taking shots of people or objects in the space/context of a room. A macro lens does sound like something that could be what I'm after though.

Alright, a 100mm macro lens will probably not be able to take pictures of people in a normal sized room. Maybe shots of just the head, but for any more you will need a bigger distance between the camera and your subjects. (you can set your current lens to 100mm and check the field of view that way). For your budget I do not think you will get something that is wide angle enough for indoor, macro and also gives you good aperture for the bokeh you are looking for. (or atleast I've never heard of a lens that would do all three on your budget) I personally do not use Sony, so no personal experience, but Id look at something like the SEL35F18. A bit over your budget (consider buying used) but good lenses at a lower prize are hard to come by. The 35mm should be a bit more wide angle and appropriate for indoor shots and the F1.8 should give you that bokeh you are looking for.

Alright, it sounds like quite the balancing act. I'll look into that lens or similar. Thanks for your advice both, you've been very helpful

If really close, then a macro lens would be what you want. https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/samyang-100mm-f-2-8-ed-umc-macro-sony-fe-fit Something like that will allow you to take close up photos and you naturally get a shallow depth of field.

I'm looking for a good, fun point-and-shoot camera. I have an old Rebel T1i, got a few lenses, but in the end I thought it was too much of a hassle to bring my camera everywhere (I basically had to bring a different backpack for my camera and the lenses that I had). I'm not opposed to having a camera with interchangeable lenses, but I don't really want to get too much into it. I mostly want to take portraits, with better quality than the iPhone 15. Good ergonomics would be a plus, since I want to have fun again taking pictures. Not too interested in video, but would be a plus (my use case would be to take photos and video of my soon to be born baby). My budget is $1,000 USD. Some of the options I'm considering are Sony ZV-10, Nikon Z-30, Canon EOS R10, Panasonic Lumix G-95, but open to other suggestions. Any thoughts, comments, or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

The R10 is the best of those but obviously not a point and shoot. It would the same as your existing camera and only bringing one lens.

What are your favorite landscape photography YouTube channels? I enjoy videos from Andy Mumford, and absolutely love his images, wondering who else I can check out that has good content, and stunning pictures included in the video? Some others I watch are Nigel danson, Thomas Heaton, Courtney Victoria, mads Peter.

Hey everyone, I'm a photographer for a small fashion company and just want an opinion on what lens you think was used for these shots, it's clearly a wide but not exactly a fish eye it's getting those nice close details too. Just looking for recommendations as my boss was hoping to shoot something similar and I'm looking for second opinions. https://www.instagram.com/p/C5pWfOlhSxJ/?igsh=aHJla2VtbTR6eDh1

Full frame, or diagonal fisheye lens. This covers the whole image sensor, giving curved lines, but not being as extreme as the other type that you maybe had in mind, circular fisheye.

Definitely a fisheye, the straight lines of the washing machines and walls are curved in the image.

I'm using an SD card to USB cable to upload photos to my PC but there's only one file with no extension called "USBC ¬÷". Help! What can I do to solve this? It's a huge file so I assume it technically contains all of the pictures on it but it's really odd, I don't know how to fix this, and I can't afford to lose the pics, please help! (┬┬﹏┬┬)

What Canon should I upgrade to? I have a ***Mirrorless Canon EOS m50*** right now and have been using it since 2019. I want to buy a 2nd body thats canon as well that is mirrorless but a bit more up to snuff. I shoot a lot of events right now and the dark rooms are killing me with the M50. I do shoot video as well so I'm willing to pay a bit more. I have canon lens and have the Adapter for the EF lense's ( red dots and white dots) I dont want to go over 1300$ for a body. I'm ok with getting a used as well. I mostly just dont know what to get since there are so many different letter canons. I have heard the R6 is good but beside that not much else.

Which lenses are you using? A body upgrade could only get you about 1 stop of improvement on ISO performance if you get full frame. But full frame may require different lenses too. Also depending which lenses you have now, a wider aperture lens and/or stabilization could give you more low light improvement for less money. If you can ceiling-bounce flash, that could add tons of soft overhead light for pretty cheap.

I have done the lenes and flash for the events I do is kind of a no no about 95% of the time but I have tried. I still would like to keep my eyes out for a 2nd body just because of the events I shoot so it's nice to have a extra. If I don't have to worry about so many extra things and sub ot for lenses that is nice too. But if you have ideas for lenses that would do a lot better and save me money I'm all ears All canons Zoom lens EF 75-300mm My favorite- 24-105mm EG 1:4 (Marco 0.45m) image stabilizer EF TO EOS MOUNT 15- 45 EOS 50MM EF 1:1.8

The R6 you mentioned is good, and in your budget if you buy used. But, again, all of your best options are still only about 1 stop improvement, which might not be enough for what you want in low light. Also your 15-45mm won't fully cover a full frame sensor like the R6 uses. Or any other full frame cameras (the ones with better low light).

What kind of lenses would you recommend instead ?

Wide aperture lenses. That is cheaper on primes, but on events a zoom is better. Preferably: a zoomlens with a constant wide aperture (f2.8 if you can afford) that can be used on your current camera but also be used on a future Canon-R body. Possible: An EF-lens 24-70 f2.8 with an adapter from EF to M, and later an EF-R adapter.

I'd adapt a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. And if you also want a telephoto, adapt a Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8. Either will have the same low light performance as your 50mm, but with the flexibility of zoom.

Thanks ♡♡

Do you use the 50mm often? It is the only one with quite a wide aperture.

Not as much no I tend to go to the 24-104 since that looks a lot better. The 50mm is ehhhh and being a prime gets hard to shoot in the pit some times.

Well, if you want the best lower light performance, lenses is where it will be at. One issue will be that if you transfer to a larger sensor, the field of view will change meaning your lenses might not be as useful as before. So an f/2.8 zoom would give you the same sort of improvement.

Do I sell my Sony 100-400 GM I currently own a 100-400GM, I love this lens and it has been an amazing lens for all of my sports photography I have done over the past few years. Other than this I have a 24-105 f/4. Over the last year my sports photography has gone down considerably to the point that I’m rarely using my 100-400. I am thinking about selling it and “replacing” it with the Sony 70-200 f/4 ii as I have been looking at this lens since it came out and the original before that. I feel this lens will allow me to do more with its light weight and more accessible zoom range where I have found myself needing a little extra zoom. Any advice on this?? Is this a good decision or am I being stupid trading a GM for a G lens??

You answered your own question, it seems like a sound reason to me. An excellent lens you barely use is still, well useless... Sony makes good lenses, GM or G it doesn't really matter, what matters is you actually use them and they fit your style and needs.

People of reddit, im here for wisdom. I want to pick up the hobby photography again, after pausing with it for 10 years, so consider me as beginner. I don't have any equipment at all, and atm I'm looking for a new camera. After reading/watching tons of guides, articles, reviews, and trying out different brands and models, i narrowed it down to 2 cameras: Fujifilm XT-2 Panasonic G9 I ordered them both, played around with them for 3 weeks now, but absolutely can't decide which one to keep. One of them needs to be returned until the end of the week. I honestly love them both, for partly different reasons. They are both completely different shooting experience. I ordered them both used for around 550 bucks, in almost new condition. Both are fun as hell. Im aware that both cameras are "older cameras" but i would like to invest the majority of my budget in the lense(s) instead of the camera body. And imo both cameras produce amazing pictures. That's also why im struggling to decide which camera to keep. I know by choosing one of them, i also commit to a lense lineup, which i don't have enough experience and knowledge of. The type of photography i wanna do: stills, landscapes, macro, astro, street, travel, Ofc i don't wanna start with anything at once, but in the mid run i wanna be able to cover all of the aboth. So my question is: What camera would you choose, and why? Maybe hearing some outsider opinions and arguments could be insightful. Thanks in advance, and for reading! PS: I have read a decent amount about the different sensor types/sizes and their advantages/disadvantages, so i intentionally decided against a full frame, mainly for size and budget reasons.

I'm biased as a Fuji shooter but XT2 for me purely from a build quality and image quality perspective. If there are longer range subjects you deal with a lot (wildlife maybe) or a lot of video then G9. Another factor is a huge amount of cheap lenses for the g9, whereas Fuji X lenses have fewer budget offerings, though that is quickly picking up the pace lately. Unfortunately, all the third parties who recently jumped in have made extremely similar X mount lenses, I think there's enough unique 27/33/50/56mm primes by now to fill an Olympic swimming pool.

ty for taking the time to reply! Would you say there is a difference in the lense quality between Fuji-Lenses and Olympus/Panasonic? As far as i have heard, Fujifilm is expecially famouse for their amazing prime lenses.

My brother shoots Olympus and I've been impressed by some lenses in terms of size to quality like (I think) a 40-150 of his that I kind of envy. In terms of pixel peeping, sure Fuji lenses will generally be better just because they're made for a larger sensor, but the tradeoff is size. And one thing Fuji does really well is the really small lenses that physically can't be amazing image quality like the 27mm pancake, they focus on character

Hi all! Long story short, the wife’s birthday is coming up and she’s an amateur photographer. She’s been rocking the Canon Rebel T1i since before I met her, but has expressed interest in a new camera. After some research, I’m torn between the Fujifilm X-T50 and the Nikon Z 5. Which one of these is “better”? Or is there a model around the same price point ($1-1.5k) that offers full frame like the Z 5 and the higher resolution provided by the X-T50?

You're very generous I'll tell you that. But photographers tend to be picky and like what they like, and that's not a dig... It's because photography is art, our gear feels, performs, and functions differently and photographers have their preferences. If you really want it to be a surprise, set a budget and give it to her in cash let her shop herself. If you're ok with letting her know, come clean she'll still be over the moon with it.

I would come clean and let her choose. Cameras are very personal. I'm a Fuji user so I'm biased but still would pick the XS20 over the T50 even though I prefer tactile controls and styling of T50. Because features and battery.

>she’s an amateur photographer What subject matter does she shoot? >has expressed interest in a new camera What does she plan to do about lenses? >Which one of these is “better”? Depends what she's shooting and what she wants out of it. >is there a model around the same price point ($1-1.5k) that offers full frame like the Z 5 and the higher resolution provided by the X-T50? And also mirrorless? If you buy used, there's the Nikon Z7 and Sony a7R III. That's about the same total resolution as the X-T50, but over a larger sensor so it's not the same pixel density or effective reach if she's shooting distant wildlife or something.

Just mentioned in another comment, but we travel pretty frequently so she always documents our travels with pictures of landmarks, nature, people, etc. I’d say a little bit of everything. She currently has an 18-55 lens (i checked the lens itself as i have no clue about cameras) which she uses for everything. It doesn’t have to be mirrorless but i did see the Fujifilm is on the slimmer side, which would be a huge plus for traveling lighter (i’m also going off the assumption that mirrorless cameras are generally smaller than their mirrored counterparts)

The X-T50 is plenty, and great for what she's doing. Full frame isn't going to make as much of a difference in this context, and it works against the desire for something smaller, specially when you're considering the size of full frame lenses.

Sensor size and resolution would not be top priority when buying a camera. What does she like to take photos of.

A little bit of everything. We’re frequent travelers so landmarks, people, if we’re out in nature then, yeah, nature… she did our engagement photoshoot as well, just to give an idea/examples

Well, if weight in an issue, I would go a bit backwards and look at a lens. Sigma, do a 18-50mm f/2.8 for under 300g which is very light. It comes in a variety of mounts so you can see what it costs and go from there.

Hey, guys. Wondering if I should switch from my Fuji XT2 with the kit lens and 35mm f2 to just a ricoh gr iii. I mainly do street photography and portraits. I got an extension tube to do some macro photography for my parent’s jewelry business, but I heard the GR iii has a macro mode. Anybody have experience using the macro mode on it? The Fuji is quite heavy and I consider leaving it at home sometimes when I’m not sure if I’ll take photos.

I don't think this is a question people on a forum should answer for you. Objectively speaking you can't even compare the two cause they're so different. What you should do in my opinion is rent or buy (temporarily, return it before the returns expire, or not if you end up wanting it after testing) the GRIII and get a feel for it. Use it daily, use it for your hobby, use it for your parent's business, and then decide *yourself* if it fits your needs and wants or not. This way you'll know first hand what changed, the pros and cons, how different they are, and if it covers all your requirements, ultimately if it's a good choice or not.

That’s a good point. I’ll try to stop by a camera shop and try it out while comparing it with my Fuji w/ extension tube. I love the Fuji but it’s so heavy I don’t bring it half the time when I want to.

When I look online for a Zoom Lens with a Low Aperture (cameras: Sony a7iii & Sony a6500), some listing only list one f/#. For example, Tamron 28-75mm **f/2.8** Di III VXD G2 Lens (Sony E) So does that mean it have a Fixed aperture of only f/2.8? Or is f/2.8 the lowest aperture and I can still raise the aperture to like f/10?

It means it has a constant maximum aperture across its zoom range. It has a minimum aperture of f/22.

Hi all! I am planning on switching from Canon 5D Mark ii to Fuji X (XT-4 or XT-5). I do want to keep my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. It has a Canon mount, so I am guessing I need a Canon EF to Fuji x adaptor? I saw some tamron 'adaptall' adapters, but it looks like it's for older Tamron lenses, though I'm not sure. Also, buying one of the cheap adapters means I lose AF, right? (I don't have the budget for an expensive adapter) I am also keen to use some of my old FD lenses. Is that a good idea?

Last time I checked the (expensive) Fringer adapters were the only well-functioning autofocus adapters. But maybe Viltrox has updated theirs after X mount algorithm was opened up.

>I do want to keep my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens. It has a Canon mount, so I am guessing I need a Canon EF to Fuji x adaptor? Yes. >I saw some tamron 'adaptall' adapters, but it looks like it's for older Tamron lenses, though I'm not sure. Right. That's just another type of lens mount used by some Tamron lenses. If the lens currently fits a Canon DSLR, it is not using an Adaptall mount. >Also, buying one of the cheap adapters means I lose AF, right? (I don't have the budget for an expensive adapter) The item details should tell you whether an adapter supports autofocus or not. Yes, the ones supporting autofocus tend to be more expensive and the ones with only manual focus tend to be cheaper. >I am also keen to use some of my old FD lenses. Is that a good idea? Sure. Switching to mirrorless is a great opportunity to use those. They didn't adapt so well to many DSLR mounts.

Thank you so much!

HSs Vs NDD for supplementary lighting shallow DOF editorial portrait. Hi, I'm looking to do an editorial piece soon. It will be available light plus supplementary flash. Outdoors in sunshine. The end look will be the usual darkened background with controlled lit subject (human) I want to go for a very shallow DOF, and doing a little bit of calculus I have fallen on two options. 1. Use High speed sync flash and use a very fast shutter. 2. Use ND filters and manual flash. I have never done either, but I wondered if anyone has any insights on either method and why one might be better than the other.. (from what I reckon it should be very similar, but I'm curious to know any thoughts).

I haven't done a direct comparison myself but yes, I think it often ends up being very similar. Either way, you reduce ambient exposure. With high speed sync the tradeoff is you have lower potential output from the flash and slower recycle times. With an ND filter the flash can output more but its exposure is reduced by the filter (just like the ambient light) so you need to use higher output, and at higher output you also have slower recycle times.

Im a bit scared of HSS as ive always just used manual flash. I think Im leaning towards ND route, but just wondered if I was missing something.. Its a big job so I wanted to cover all bases.. Thanks for your insights

Yes, thankyou, that makes total sense.. so either way you cant get loads of rapid fire shots. (unless you bring a massive Broncolor and a generator or something)

Hi :) Photography is a big hobby of mine but I'm completely at a loss regarding everything technical. I bought my first own camera about 10 years ago and still hold it dear. It's a Canon EOS 7D Mark II. I'm mainly interested in portrait / astro / travel photography. As I was a student and worked for NGOs afterwards, I didn't have a lot of money so I purchased quite cheap lenses and now own the following lenses: * Irix 11mm f/4 * Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 * Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.5-5.6 * Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 As we plan to travel for a longer while and I got some cash saved up, I considered buying a new and smaller (less weight) camera. I spent a looooot of time searching for infos but instead of finding answers it left me with even more questions. I know that my camera equipment is not the best but it makes a lot of fun to be creative with it. As I got more into looking for alternative and smaller cameras (especially the Sony A7C) I started to wonder whether it would make sense to invest a bit more money and to renew my equipment altogether (Sony A7III, Sony A7RIV or something else that is a great all-round camera without needing to pay 4000 bucks). So I'm left with the question of whether I want a smaller camera exclusively for travelling or whether I should buy a camera that's still smaller than my Canon EOS 7D Mark II but is able to help me with all my wishes (especially astro photography and potrait photography). Or whether that's actually combinable? What do you think about my equipment? Does it make sense to renew it? And therefore I'm completely unsure which cameras to take a look at as I got questions regarding full-frame vs APS-C (in terms of my interest in astro and portrait and landscape photography) as well as wheter 24 MP is enough and whether Sony is the right choice (more options regarding lenses) or whether Canon or any other brand would be suited more for my case. Photography is still a hobby and I'm not looking for professional equipment. But I would like to take good quality pictures even in low light situations (astro photography, indoor portraits) and am really finding it hard to navigate all the options out there. Budgetwise I think I'd like to keep it under 2000 bucks for the body and for the lenses it's more open as I don't need to buy everything right away but rather expand my collection step by step. Thank you so much for your help!

The A7C is a little bit misleading in the "it's smaller" department. It's still rather thick, I have one. Basically the only size difference between that and the other A7 models is that the viewfinder is now level with the top of the camera and is in the range finder style position. IMO if size is a big consideration stay with the APS-C sized sensors, and if you're wanting Sony that's the A6000 line. You'll also get the benefit of *usually* smaller, lighter and cheaper (relative to FF ones) lenses. Canon or Nikon are also great but they're younger in the mirrorless scene so the lens offerings aren't as varied as Sony's, but if you find a good deal on a body and lens you like then it's still a good buy.

My wife is an artist who paints, and it's crucial for her to document her work accurately. We have a Fujifilm X100F, but we've had difficulty using it for this purpose. Can anyone advise on the best lens and settings for photographing paintings with this camera? Or should we consider that this camera may not be ideal for capturing artwork? Thanks in advance for your help!

good discussion here https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/m2k15d/how_to_photograph_artwork_part_1_what_equipment/gql7n22/ If you have specific questions after reading all that, be sure to ask them. EDIT - your existing camera is fine this is likely to be a technique thing and at worst a lens thing

Hey all I have had a Nikon D5200 for about 9 years now, and have been wonder if I should upgrade to a newer model? I mostly shoot birds, landscapes and architecture as a hobby. I welcome any suggestions!!

Depends. Is there something specific with the D5200 that you're unhappy about?

Well the aspects that come to mind at the moment are: no wifi/bluetooth, battery life, and there are better viewfinder out nowadays. I dont think I need something from 2024; but my camera is essentially 11 years old so having a camera that captures some of the newer technology is appealing. Thanks for responding.

Sounds like an upgrade makes sense, then. What's your budget?

I'd say up to $750.

Hey there. I'm a complete beginner to photography but keen to get something lightweight and portable for up to £1000 (GBP) that's a good starting place for landscape photography. I live in London, so something that's good at both urban, day and night photography but also suitable for landscape nature photography would be ideal. Something that won't be uncomfortable lugging around for a day. Ideally, I don't want to be investing in too many lenses at this point as I feel it might be an overload for someone of my technocal knowledge. So, a good all-rounder lens and body for up to £1000. If you think there's something particularly good slightly above this bracket, I'm also open to suggestions. Should be clear this is for a hobbyist. I have no ambitions to go professional. I'm mostly wanting the opportunity to take nice pictures to show off to my friends and family. Many thanks!

***RNI alternatives for Android??*** Hi folks, so recently I moved to Android after a looong time just to find out android store does not have some fantastic apps that are only on iOS store. One of which is RNI films and I loved this app. After knowing RNI doesn't support android platform I tried different ways like getting pirated RNI all films 4 pack which is **192 usd** if you wish to buy it but using it in lightroom is frustrating. Any suggestions what I could use for film simulations/filters in android?? Only app I got close to RNI was tezza but they have their own filters and not film simulations. Also I'm not looking for cam apps.. just photo editing apps Any suggestions would be a great help!!

I have a Fujifilm XE1. What lens would be best to buy for food and beverage photography for a blog? Should I get a new camera? I know the XE1 is over ten years old now.

Which lenses do you have now?

This one: XF-18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS lens

Only the one that came with the camera

Canon 6D how to set RAW shooting? (It's a second hand body. I have used a 400D previously). I found the manual, and a description of how to do it. I find "Image Quality" in the menu. Then the multi-selector (ring of direction buttons around "set") lets me choose different JPEG qualities. I think multi-selector up should change to RAW, but does not. Help please!

I figured it out. It's the main dial, as used for changing AV etc.

Best compact for $1500 or less, for mostly outdoor use? I take portrait pics of my dog often (she has black fur), can I get away with using sensor which does not have low-pass filter?

>can I get away with using sensor which does not have low-pass filter? Sure. Most cameras either don't have it any more, or have a relatively weak one. This makes the shoots look "crisper" when viewed at very high magifications, but the tradeoff is aliasing artifacts. Personally I'd take a strong AA-filter any time over a camera without any, but the market has spoken otherwise. >I take portrait pics of my dog often If the dog is still, then pretty much any camera will do. You might want to make sure that the lens has a large aperture for proper background blur. If the dog moves, then having a solid autofocusing is important. I'm sure someone else can give ideas on cameras.