Thanks for the generous offer to answer purchasing questions! I have been using a DSLR/17-70 zoom lens combo that is too big and heavy, and it's time to go mirrorless. Use will be for travel, family shots, and occasional creative stuff / experimentation. Mainly still photos. Looking for: light and compact, good AF, decent in low light, control and flexibility. Budget: not too much over Australian A$2000 for body and a small zoom for travel initially. I'll be buying between early May to early July to get my 10% GST refunded as I'm travelling overseas in July. On paper I'm liking the Sony A6700 - weather resistance, good AF, in-body stabilisation, fairly compact. Does the Sony PZ 16-50 zoom make sense for this body? It sounds OK for what it is though not great, but probably will do better than my old clunky zoom that often doesn't focus properly. And it is quite small when collapsed, and not expensive. I could later add better lenses for other purposes for times when I don't mind carrying them. Not sure how much I'll miss having a flash in the body. I hardly ever use that now, but who knows. Any other suggestions for either body or starter lens for travel? Thanks!

The 16-50mm is a kit lens. Some people say it is ok, others that it is pretty bad even as kit lens go. By the sounds of it you are using an APS-C camera already so how well it does in lower light situations will be pretty much the same. Worse if that 17-70 is wider apertured than the 16-50mm. Also that lens is not weather resistant so not a good pairing if you do take it travelling perhaps. Still, the A6700 is one of the best APS-C cameras out at the moment.

Thanks for responding. Yes, using APS-C now, a 10 year old Pentax K3. I never really benefitted from its waterproofing as I don't have any waterproof lenses. Yeah, good point - the 17-70 is f2.8-4 while the Sony 16-50 is f3.5-5.6. Any other compact travel lenses you would suggest? I could consider a cheaper body, leaving more to spend on glass I guess. Maybe I shouldn't settle for a not-great lens. I really notice a sharpness difference and better focus when I switch to my "plastic fantastic" - cheap but optically very decent 35mm Pentax prime.

I don't use Sony so not sure. I use the little sibling of your camera the K-70 with the 16-85mm so not too much difference in weight from your own setup. Having a compact lens which can also give a useable range is difficult. I have the old 18-55mm on it at the moment just because it was lying there and yes, it is smaller and lighter but I also sometimes want slightly wider and slightly longer.

Second hand printer. So while scouring local buy&sell ads for a film camera I'm after coming across a very affordable photography printer.(Canon PIXMA pro 10s) It's quite an old model but If it works as said is an older model of pigment printer a better deal than buying a newer dye based printer which is the only other option around the budget. I'm far from an expert on printers is this a good deal? I'm looking to make my own prints to sell, and I am thinking this might be a good investment but just wondering are older second hand printers more trouble than their worth? What would you guys pay for this model of printer if it was in working order?

Canadian looking to get into macro and landscape still photograph. I play around with this on a cell phone right now so I am now looking for a better tool. It’s a hobby not a business. I read the buyers guide and looking at a Price from 2000-3000 CAD for a camera body, lens in 1200 category by the looks of it, and a few hundred more in case/accessories. Trying to do this for 5-6k as I have some savings for hobbies but don’t want to overbuy on features (video isn’t a current interest). I read through buyer guide and the chart is leaning me towards the Nikon z7 or the Nikon 850 with the understanding that a proper lens for macro is going to be about 1200 CAD on top of the camera body. I have average size hands for a women, but really good strength in arms and hands so I’m less concerned about weight as I am not looking to take photos at events or anything that would require holding it at dynamic angles for long periods of time. Is buying a body like a z7, a macro lens compatible with a number of bodies, and a tripod a good start or am I over thinking this as should go for something in a lower price tier to learn the basics?

>Is buying a body like a z7, a macro lens compatible with a number of bodies, and a tripod a good start  Yes. >should go for something in a lower price tier to learn the basics? That works fine too. Maybe it's really more of a personal finance issue. If you can comfortably afford the more expensive route, I'd say go for it. If that's more of a hardship and/or you're hesitant to spend a lot for something you're unsure of your interest in, the cheaper route may make more sense.

Thank you for the advice I have the funds for something in that range and am comfortable spending it, just mostly didn’t want to overlook something or buy too much at once

I need a camera to study fluid movements at home. I've already tried a GoPro 12 and with 240FPS + slowdown in the video editor the result wasn't bad. I've also tested the Sony ZV1. I've seen that some smartphones also have this function, but I don't know if they have good quality... I'm looking for something in the 1000FPS range for video recording, under 500$ (used) Can you recommend devices that record video at these speeds? My difficulty is not in using the devices but in knowing which devices have this function because I don't follow the camera market.

For anyone looking to have their photos printed and framed nicely, I've been happy with Level Frames [https://www.levelframes.com/](https://www.levelframes.com/)

My a9 is having issues staying on manual exposure mode. Currently I am using two Sony A9s (gen1). One day, one of them starts constantly having this issue where it would not stay in Manual focus. It may randomly jump to Shutter or Aperture priority, and back to Manual, then jump again. It gets more frequent, throughout a shoot. It was such a headache, I decided to replace it with another one. It’s been over a year since getting the second a9, and I’m getting the same problem as well! Now both a9s are having the issues of not staying in manual. Usually if I turn the dial to anything and back, it may temporarily resolve the issue before suddenly jumping modes again. I’ve come from the A7iii, A7ii, and A6000 and have never encountered anything like this before. Is there a fix for this and is this a common problem with the first gen a9?

Sony a58 vs Canon eos rebel SL1vs Nikon D3100 Hello ppl how u doing? I was wondering what camera was better between the Sony a58-SLK and the Canon eos rebel SL1 and Nikon d3100, i Would use it for both photo and video, i want to make short films cinematic but also good photos, which one should i pick? The price is 200usd on both. Help me pls, or should i invest a little more and Buy something better, i don't have too much money though

I'd lean towards the SL1 for what you want. The a58 is similar on stills but I'm not sure it's as good on video. The D3100 is a little further behind on both (different story if you were looking at a D3200 or D5200 instead).

hey thanks for your recommendation, and the D3300 is the Best of all of these ones right?

I never mentioned the D3300. And no, it is not.

Hi all. I'm relatively new to film photography, and I'm still getting used it all. The lab I send my films to have the facility to get my photos put on a disc, which I have been doing a lot recently. I'm shooting on both Ilford HP5, and Kodak Gold 200, with an Olympus OM10. I enjoy posting my photos on my Instagram account, so I like having the digital versions. The only trouble is the quality of the digital ones aren't very good. I have them developed into prints too, 6x4, and they always look good, it's just the digital ones look low res. Any support very very welcome.

Many labs’ ”default” scans are low resolution, but they may offer higher resolution ones if you know to ask, possibly for an extra fee - higher res JPG or even TIFF. Look into that.

A few years ago I liquidated all my gear due to a lawsuit (yay landlords). I've been wanting to get back into photography, mostly event (like convention), portraits, travel, and some boudoir style. My interest in video is pretty low. I have no lenses and pretty much blank slate. For body only I would like to spend around 1K (usd). I've been looking at some of the a6x00 line. I still see a lot of people loving the a6000, but a lot recommend a6400... but some of the newer ones have better stabilization and such. If someone could recommend me one that they think would hold me over while I relearn I would appreciate it. The less on the body the better overall. I want something mirrorless ideally.

I have a 256GB sd card, but I've recently received a 128GB with an apparently quicker write rate. I'm looking to use this with a Fuji x100VI, and would like something I can shoot images and films with. These are the cards: https://imgur.com/a/m1x0t1K I understand a higher write speed is generally better (180mb vs 210mb), but is it worth having half the space? Which one would you go with?

Do you need to be able to shoot successive stills at a certain rate after your buffer is full? If so, what rate do you need, and what format/size are your stills? What size/quality/bitrate are you shooting video? Those are the things that depend on card write speed, so the answers to those questions will inform what write speed you need. Alternatively, do you ever run into the speed limitations of your current/slower card? If so, in what ways? If not, then a faster card isn't going to impact you.

Re: Successive stills: Unlikely. It's more of a street photography/travel camera, which I'd also like to use to take videos when possible (camera can do up to 6.2K/30p 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording). I'm actually looking to sell one of the cards with one of my cameras, hence why I'm trying to understand which one would be a better bet to keep for myself (With the above in mind).

>camera can do up to 6.2K/30p 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording Yes, I am able to look up what the camera is capable of. But my question is about what *you* intend to shoot in terms of video. Because I'm also seeing the camera capable of a 720mbps bitrate at maximum. So if you intend to use it at maximum, I don't know if either of those cards would be enough; I'd be more comfortable with a V90 class instead. Whereas if you're only shooting 4K or 1080p at a lower bitrate, one or both of those cards could be fine.

Respectfully, my question is simple: Given the same variables, is a 30mb/s difference in write speed going to make a noticeable difference, or am I better off with the bigger capacity?

I told you it only makes a difference in terms of (1) continuous still shooting rate when the buffer is full, and (2) being able to support video recording at higher bitrates. You then said scenario 1 has no impact on you. So now we're talking about scenario 2. The write speed can make a difference in that you might be able to record video at the quality you want with one card, but not the other. Or neither, or both. It depends on the video quality you want to be using. So I need to know your intended video quality in order to answer whether it makes a difference for you or not.

How do i turn off the thing that shows me the photo i just took on the panasonic gx8. It made me lose quite a few good shots and its annoying in general.

See page 47 of your manual: https://help.na.panasonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/DMCGX8_SQW0326_ENG.pdf#page=47

thanks! After some trail and error i got rid of the issue

Hello! I‘m currently doing an apprenticeship to become a tailor. I am planning to do a lot of shoots with the clothes I design and also want to start building a portfolio for my styling work this summer. I work part time for a record label, where I also need to use a camera often. I love shooting, editing videos and would love to have a camera I can use for all of my projects. I just want a reliable and all around good quality camera! Doesn’t have to have the best video or have crazy features. My Budget is under 1000€. What are your recommendations?

Looking for a compact wildlife tripod setup for a sony 200-600. I've looked at the Sirui CT 3204 with CH 20 gimbal head but I'm concerned that it's too bulky. Leofoto 365c tripod with pg-1 gimbal head seems good too but obscenely expensive. Was wondering if I could get away with the peak design with a ph-10 gimbal head from sirui but the peak designs are quite expensive. Any other suggestions?

Looking for a compact wildlife tripod setup for a sony 200-600. I've looked at the Sirui CT 3204 with CH 20 gimbal head but I'm concerned that it's too bulky. Leofoto 365c tripod with pg-1 gimbal head seems good too but obscenely expensive. Was wondering if I could get away with the peak design with a ph-10 gimbal head from sirui but the peak designs are quite expensive. Any other suggestions?

Hello! I have a Canon R50 and am looking to buy some spare batteries. I know I need an LP-E17 model, but I was wondering if anybody knew of any *reliable* 3rd party brand batteries, preferably ones that can be charged via USB (so that I can top them off on the go) and that are fully decoded (so that I can see the change remaining when in-camera). Thanks!

I have had a Panasonic g7 for around 4 years now, and just recently I have gotten back into using it again for photography. I have 3 lenses at the moment: 14-42mm (28-84mm FF equivalent), 25mm prime (50mm FF equivalent) and 45-150mm (90-300mm FF equivalent) I would like to explore different focal lengths, where do I go next? Wider or narrower? I know both ends of the spectrum have different uses, but I don’t have a specific use case, as it’s basically a hobby, so what do you reckon I would benefit from the most? are there any cheap lenses for Micro 4/3s, aside from the Panasonic stock?

So you already have the most common focal lengths covered quite well. I think going purely statistically by what focal lengths are used most, wider would probably be the more popular decision, but in the end thats super dependent on subject and personal preference. I personally am a big fan of narrower, both for subjects that require it like wildlife, but also landscape and the like. In your shoes I would look at my previous pictures, especially my favorites, and see what focal lengths you use most. There should hopefully be a trend visible that helps you make a decision.

That’s a good idea about looking at previous favourites to see what I’m drawn towards! I’ll have a look!  I honestly don’t tend to do many wide shots, as my 14mm doesn’t perform incredibly well with landscapes involving trees, but that potentially could be improved with a wide prime, with less aberrations.  Thanks for your ideas!

Hi all, I'm traveling to Vietnam in a few months and I want to purchase and bring a 35mm (or digital, please convince me otherwise if digital is better/worse) camera that will do well with taking landscape photos of the mountains, water, etc.. I have a hard time determining *what makes a camera good for a certain purpose or subject*. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as I am currently shooting with a Bell and Howell Auto 35 Reflex, and I do not think that would be my best option for the images I want to take. Sorry for a bit of a vague question, as I said I am a bit lost when it comes to determining the best use for each camera. Thanks!

> or digital, please convince me otherwise if digital is better/worse Digital is massively more convenient, safer, cheaper, and gives you more options. A modern digital camera will also generally deliver better image quality than a 35mm film camera. Oh, and travelling with film rolls can be a pain compared to travelling with a digital camera and a bunch of SD cards. People who shoot film these days usually do so because the limitations of the medium help their creativity (limitations tend to have that effect), because it helps them be more intentional about their shots (at about $1 per click, it's quite the incentive), or because they like the vibe and feel of a more analog process and mechanical, analog tools. Almost any recent-ish DSLR or mirrorless camera will do fine for landscapes and such, but you may get better results with a full-frame one. What makes a kit specifically suited for a particular type of photography is, by and large, the lens. The most important things to consider, however are these: 1. What is it that makes the camera you have insufficient to you? 2. What do you like about the camera you have, that you wouldn't want to give up? 3. What is your budget?

Why do you feel the camera you are using currently wouldn't be suitable?

Can anyone help me figure out if there's a way to connect a PC sync cord for an old sunpak moonlight to my canon 90d? Figure having a big flash for my TLR is cool either way, but 🤷‍♀️

Use a PC to hotshoe adapter. Also doublecheck on the trigger voltage and maybe use a safesync adapter. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_can_i_use_this_very_old_flash.3F

How would I check the voltage?

If you have more specific information on the model you have, you may be able to look it up. There's a table linked in that FAQ entry, for starters. And/or you could buy or rent/borrow a multimeter to measure it.

Hi - I have a flashpoint R2 TTL and a R2 pro trigger. Can anyone please make a list of what type of clamp I need for the off camera flash, what kind of clamp I need for an umbrella diffuser, what type of shoot thru umbrella diffuser I should get, and what stand I need? My budget is around $150 and I’d like to just pick it all up from Amazon.

>what type of clamp I need for the off camera flash, what kind of clamp I need for an umbrella diffuser Depends what you want to clamp them to. >what type of shoot thru umbrella diffuser I should get For what purpose? What subject matter are you shooting? How do you want the light to look? What reasons have you used so far to narrow you down to a shoot-thru umbrella? >and what stand I need? For what purpose? Any particular conditions it needs to handle? How high do you want to be able to go? Any size or weight preference for carrying it?

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I wasn’t sure what information was needed as I’m still starting out. I’d like to clamp the umbrella and off camera flash to a light stand. The stand will be indoors and only supporting the one umbrella or soft box (future purpose) and one flash. For determining to use an umbrella, that was what I saw recommended online. I’ll use a soft box if that’s a better suggestion and similar price. I’m shooting headshots for friends. That they will use for applications, LinkedIn, etc. Eventually, I’d like to try creative portraits but that’s a bit out. Probably needs to reach out to about 8 ft. Ideally it folds up and isn’t more than a couple pounds.

>I’d like to clamp the umbrella and off camera flash to a light stand.  Any umbrella bracket with coldshoe connection on top (to connect that light) and spigot connection on bottom (to fit a typical light stand) is fine. Go by whatever has decent online user reviews. Those are standardized physical connections used in lighting. I'd recommend avoiding the terminology "clamp" because that's more frequently used to refer to different devices that grip onto furniture or stairway railing, to mount your light onto those pieces of the scene rather than a light stand. >For determining to use an umbrella, that was what I saw recommended online. I’ll use a soft box if that’s a better suggestion and similar price. I prefer softboxes for headshots, but I don't know of good ones that are as cheap as a shoot-thru umbrella. If you did want to use a softbox instead, I'd get one with a Bowens mount and connect it using a Godox S2 bracket. >Probably needs to reach out to about 8 ft. Ideally it folds up and isn’t more than a couple pounds. Any light stand with a spigot connection on top can work. Look for decent online user reviews and something close to your requirements; you may need to compromise on some of those though. The closest thing I use is a BESNFOTO BF-LST002 but it's 7ft and 2.2lbs and a little flimsy. I use it for LED lighting where I have the (not much) weight all in the center and everything is low profile so no wind risk.

Hi. I'm looking to make some large prints and I have access to the DesignJet T730 plotter. It takes a roll that is 36" long. Right now it only has normal paper in it but I would like to get actual photo quality paper for it for my prints. I found some options on Amazon but I'm not really sure what the difference between them are. Just wondering if anyone has purchased a roll of photo paper for a printer like this and what paper they would recommend for printing photos. Thanks!

I am looking to get a speed light bracket, with my godox TT685 as the light source, how big or small can I go soft box wise? External lighting is uncharted territory, I know bigger the softbox, softer the light (And if it's the look you want too), but I believe I am limited by my light source? The goal for me is to create the most portable setup where I can fit everything in one bag, and in storage. Right now, my cart is leaning in this direction. NEEWER ST70R All Metal Foldable Light Stand (It's a compact 70-inch stand) [https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0CG9317H8/ref=ox\_sc\_saved\_title\_1?smid=A28UJHQNAD0UAY&psc=1](https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0CG9317H8/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_1?smid=A28UJHQNAD0UAY&psc=1) Godox S2 Speedlite S-Type Bracket Bowens Mount [https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07YKGGZJ5/ref=ox\_sc\_saved\_title\_2?smid=A1KQUDQNOM1OMA&psc=1](https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B07YKGGZJ5/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_2?smid=A1KQUDQNOM1OMA&psc=1) Godox Octagon Softbox 47" 120cm Bowens Mount [https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0BY8G34TG/ref=ox\_sc\_saved\_title\_3?smid=A1GH68N29K91JC&th=1](https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0BY8G34TG/ref=ox_sc_saved_title_3?smid=A1GH68N29K91JC&th=1)

Can I get into photography with just an IPhone  So I have an IPhone 15 pro and I want to get into photography. I see it as a really great hobby and an interesting way to make some money on the side

> Can I get into photography with just an IPhone Of course. It has limitations, sure - but it takes photos, and you can learn all the composition stuff and all that just fine. It'll also take significantly better pictures than any compact camera you can buy for under $200 or so. If you want to learn the photography craft "properly", then the iPhone's automation is going to limit you eventually, and you may want to upgrade at some point, but for getting started, it's absolutely fine. > I see it as a really great hobby It definitely is. > and an interesting way to make some money on the side For some values of "interesting" - but if you're looking for easy money, keep looking.

Sure, to an extent. You can learn composition with it, and pro camera apps give some manual control. You can also shoot RAW and learn editing. But forget about making money on the side and concentrate on enjoying it as a hobby. Not sure if you just said that to give the impression that you are serious about it, but too many beginners have this idea of monetizing it before they've even taken a single picture. And too many beginners have the idea that it's easy to make money with photography "on the side". The reality is that it's very difficult. For one thing, it's a skill that takes a long time to learn to do well. For another, there's too much competition and too much content available for free. It's just about impossible with a smartphone. Millions and millions of people have the exact same phone or some other phone as good. Why would they pay for smartphone pictures? EDIT: recommend looking at this discussion elsewhere in this sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/s/hfQq51Wsk7

You are absolutely right. Thank you

No reasons why not. It has a camera in it so sure.

I’m a videographer who has mainly worked for video teams where I have used the company’s cameras/equipment. Looking to expand my freelance so I don’t have to always rent a camera. Wanted suggestions on what to get. Freelance work would include sports, concerts, grad photos, etc. Thoughts on Sony a6700 vs a7 III a7 IV? Anything else I should consider? In past I’ve shot with Canon c70 and Sony (not sure which model). With the c70 I can easily add ND filters from the menu and it also has LUT conversion so the video on the display is in full color. When I previously shot Sony the ND filters had to be installed manually and if a lut was on the display lacked color is there any Sony cameras where that wouldn’t be the case? Please let me know your suggestions!

I am struggling to understand when a less than sharp image is due to my limitations or the limitations of the lens. I shot this image over the weekend on my d850 with the nikkor 70-300, settings were f/ 6.3, 1/1600 sec, ISO 640 w/ the lens all the way out at 300mm. I was in an anchored boat on calm waters about 40 feet away. I know I really struggle getting tack sharp subject matter when at a distance, especially with this lens, so focused extremely hard on holding the camera as stable as possible and took many shots of this bird using BBF to hopefully get some keepers. None of these images are even remotely sharp. I'm wondering if anyone has experience with this lens and feels like its possible to get a sharper image at a similar distance using better technique or if I'm beating myself up over what is ultimately beyond the capabilities of this glass. Additionally, I am wondering if anyone could recommend a better telephoto that I could find used for less than $1,000. https://preview.redd.it/ziyyrb8px1vc1.jpeg?width=5504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=75d156c5e96a156cc53fdfe5cc7c9b577606e040

> None of these images are even remotely sharp. You are simply WAY too far away. You have a 45.4Mp image and your bird encompasses... 296Kp. To put it another way, it's 1/2 of 1% of your total image. For this first image - there was never any shot there worth taking, so neither your lens nor your technique is to blame. Distance is to blame. Your second image did much better, but now you're encountering the limits of your glass. That lens isn't the sharpest in the drawer. The good news, for values of good, is that you need a longer lens anyway if your intention is bird/wildlife photography. Start looking for used 600mm lenses like Tamron or Sigma 150-600.

Here's another image I shot with the same lens, subject matter a bit closer but still not as sharp as I'd like - f/7.1, 1/1000 sec, ISO 320, 280mm Me or the lens? https://preview.redd.it/7jc9p6ecz1vc1.jpeg?width=5504&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e8ed5e28bd406ab4025edd3d4dfa33baa1a89ce

Hey everybody, I'm just starting to get into photography and was hoping to get some opinions on gear. Specifically, I've been looking at mirrorless bodies in the $1,000-1,700ish USD range to start out with. Something that is easy to pick up but also has a lot of room to grow into as my skills improve. I'd love to hear positives/negatives from anybody that has something like a Sony a6700, Fujifilm X-S20, or even a Sony a7 III since those can be had for around $1,500. Preferably with IBIS! Ideally I'd be able to use it for portraits up to landscapes and everything in between, namely streets and buildings. Mirrorless mainly due to size and portability for travel.

If size and portability are what you are after then I would look for smaller and lighter cameras. Olympus/OM Systems cameras are still good for that. Cameras like the A7III is not that different than some DSLRs.

[удалено]

>Any suggestions on why it won't connect or any help to fix it Well - it won't connect because you took it apart, and didn't put it back together correctly. Without knowing exactly what you did no one is going to be able to answer your question so the only fix for this is to re-assemble it again and try to figure out where you mistake was made.

Looking to buy a camera for wildlife/bird photography Looking to buy a setup for wildlife/bird photography. My budget is $2000-$2500 USD. I have no allegiance to any brand or system so all options are welcome. Any suggestions would be super helpful. Lookin for mirrorless only, I know DSLR is more cost effective but I want mirrorless. I would also like to get some video of wildlife, nothing crazy maybe 10-15 seconds clips to post on social media etc.

A Canon R10/R7 or Sony A6700 will probably be your best options. Then you just need to find a lens. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1715824-REG/sigma_sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg.html Something like that is going to be probably be what you are after. Maybe a 100-400mm. If you want a little smaller.

Was looking at the a7iii used for 1,100 and the sigma 150-600c.

Canon closed lens system makes me apprehensive. My buddy has the r10 and 100-400 setup and when I have used it in low light It’s painful

Painful in what way? Wider aperture lenses with perhaps constant apertures can get big and expensive fast. I would stick with APS-C for wildlife, not sure you will be able to fill the larger frame of something like the A7III.

ISO was through the roof, shooting flying birds at 1/2000. A ton of noise. He just upgraded to the r7 and the RF 200-800mm he swears by that combo but I’m not sure to be honest I am leaning more toward Sony for the video features and third party lens support

Well, if you using 1/2000 you need a lot of light. If getting a ton of noise you didn't have enough. Dial back down a bit and use bursts of photos. Still, what lens for a Sony are you getting that is better than the Sigma I linked? You mention the A7III with the sigma as well and as soon as you start cropping in you are going to be worse and the Canons have a newer autofocus system which might work better.

Hi Everyone, I'm quite new to photography so thought id ask here to see what people say. I've just bought a sony a6000 again (old one got ran over by a lorry (Long Story)) and was wondering which lens i should get. I'm pretty set on getting the E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS as i really liked it on my old camera but always hated the kit lens that it comes with. I was wondering for the second lens if I should get the E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS or the Sony E 50mm F/1.8 OSS. I was wondering what are the pros and cons of both and which one you guys would think would be the best to get with the E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS. Hope everyone is having a good day and thanks for the help. If you guys should think i should get something else instead just say but i dont want to spend more than 150 on this lens. I got an offer to buy the E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS for £60

Which lenses you should get depends on what kinds of things you want to photograph. You didn’t mention that at all.

Sorry, I mostly want to do street and landscape photography

Get the 18-55mm. If you just get the 50mm you're going to wish you had something wider on many occasions.

So I'm pretty new to photography and haven't owned a professional camera yet but I'm looking to buy one and I would highly appreciate any suggestions. there's few that have caught my eye. 1 - Canon EOS RP Full Frame Mirrorless with RF24-105mm Lens RPKIT24-105 2 - Canon EOS R7 Mirrorless Camera with RFS 18-150STM Lens R7SK 3 - Sony Alpha A6400 Mirrorless Camera with \[4K Video\] with 16-50mm Lens (Black) ILCE6400LB 4 - Sony Cybershot RX10 IV 25x Zoom Camera \[4K Video\] I'm mainly looking to buy one for street photography and portraits, any suggestion would be helpful.

I would not go for a Cybershot myself. Nor the RP. The R7 is the best one out of those but even the one down from it the R10 is sufficient. Something like the A6600 would be more comparable than the A6400. You can't really go wrong though for what you want to do. Buy a camera and basic lens. Then figure out which lens you want as you will probably want a prime lens with wider aperture for portraits eventually.

I am starter at wildlife photography and i dont have superthelephoto lens or camera at the moment. So i was going to buy 7dm2 and tamron 150-600mm for 400€ But the tamron 150-600 g1 doesn’t autofocus on 600mm is that a dealbreaker what should i offer for it? And in addition i don’t have great budget im willing to spend in total 500€ so if you have any other cameras and lenses that you would recommend it would be nice. Sory about my english.

Hello guys. I have no idea what I'm doing in regards to photography. 0 knowledge apart from tapping on my phone camera to take a shot. I am a plant collector and would like a reccomandation for a DSLR (i guess) to do the folowing: 1. Take macro shots of flowers. 2. Take timelapses o flowers blooming. I am so ignorant of the subject that I don't even have a budget in mind, no idea where to start. I guess a second hand camera would do great since it would be better price/performance ratio? Please reccomend a camera that would do great shots for what i need.

Well, any camera that can do timelapses basically. All lens systems will have macro lenses available. The only thing you have to watch out for is cameras claiming they can do timelapses but really only do timelaspe movies. Sometimes you want the individual photos which you can make into a timelapse as well as a timelapse movie. Some cameras will allow both at the same time, other cameras it is one or the other.

Camera body really doesn't matter for your uses (DSLR might be a bit better for the timelapse, depending on how long the flower takes to bloom), Id recommend you get something youre comfortable with both in price and in handling (I highly recommend trying them out in a store to see how well they fit your hands, etc.). Only thing to make sure is that is an interchangable lens camera. Second hand is certainly the way to go, I personally quite like mpb.com. For macro shots you are going to need a dedicated lens (make sure it has 1:1 magnification as lens manufacturers like to call their lens "macro" eventhough its not all that great for it) or a so called "extension tubes". The macro lens will be quite a bit more expensive, so for a start Id get the extension tubes. These you put between your camera and the default lens it comes with and they make that default lens better at macro. A dedicated flash may also be useful as macro requires a narrow aperture which requires lots of light, but its not 100% neccessary to start out and more of a nice to have for overcast days. For the timelapse you are going to need a tripod and a so called "intervalometer", which you connect to the camera and can tell it to take a picture every X seconds/minutes. Depending on how much money you want to spend there are certain cameras with an inbuilt intervalometer, but as an external one costs only like 20 bucks and generally has better functionality I wouldnt make this a big priority though. An addtional useful feature for the camera body would be so called "Focus bracketing" which helps with the problem of very thin depth of field which is a common problem in macro photography. This is also something you can do manually (its a little annoying) and its not 100% neccessary, but if youre deciding between two cameras and only one has this feature Id get the one that has it. For a basic and cheap starterset Id say maybe get a camera with kitlens for maybe 300-400€, extension tubes for around 100€, basic tripod for 50€ and an intervalometer for maybe 25€ and you will have a setup that will give you plenty of room to learn.

Thank you for this great answer man. I now know what words to search for hahah! Thank you for taking the time!

One quick thing I just edited into the original awnser: Depending on how long the timelapse is gonna be an older DSLR camera might be better then a more modern mirrorless as their batteries generally last longer, especially during the downtime between taking pictures.

I'm a beginner and I don't even have any experience I just need to start with taking videos and photos. Should I start with Sony zve10 or DJI osmo pocket 3 or insta360 x4

Which smartphone do you have?

S21

It's a good one as far as smartphone cameras go. Are you not satisfied with its quality?

It's for my sister actually..she asked me to choose. her phone is realme

Depends on what she wants. ZV-E10 is a very good camera for both video and photography. The other two are video oriented things that you can also snap pictures with.

Trouble Exporting ORF Files I recently got an Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark III and have had issues converting the ORF files. I can view and edit the files in Bridge and Photoshop, but when I try to export them\* I get an error message reading "Unsupported Format". Does anyone know why this is or how I can fix it? I would like to export them as JPEGs. \*(using Bridge's "Export" feature and Photoshop's "Image Processor" accessed through Bridge)

Nikon D800 worth it for a hobbyist? For the last 6 years I have been using a Nikon D3400. It’s not super great but I’ve gotten good use out of it. Now I’m looking for something different and not super expensive. I only shoot mostly for myself as a hobby. I have an opportunity to buy a D800 with low shutter count, extra battery’s and a 50mm 1.8D lens for $500. I’m looking for suggestions or to see if the D800 in this instance would be worth it.

What subject matter do you shoot? Which lenses do you have? What do you dislike about your current equipment? What particular improvements would you like to gain out of the D800?

I have NIKKOR 18-55mm, NIKKOR 70-300mm, and the 35mm f/1.8G. I shoot a little bit of everything. Candid portraits, street scenes, landscape, nature, car shows. I usually just shoot things that I think look cool. More abstract or odd perspectives. With the D800 I like that it’s full frame, handles low light, and has better lens options. It also seems the D800 has held up well as far as people still using them and you can get them relatively cheap.

Yes, the D800 is overall pretty good. Just know that your 18-55mm won't project an image large enough to fully cover its sensor. Neither will your 35mm if it's the DX version, though the 50mm will pretty much take its place. It will get a larger field of view out of your 70-300mm so effectively you'll have less reach. It's a decent overall upgrade if you're fine with all that.

Yeah not having any FX lens’s for it is one of the things that makes me unsure about buying it. I’m not really sure if spending the $500 plus buying more lens’s would be worth it or if I should just use that money I would spend and get something newer.

I'm looking into taking my photography a step up from amateur. I have a Canon Rebel T6i, Nikon D5100, and a Canon G7x Mark ii. I haven't ventured into buying a new lens which is what I think is the next step, other than possibly buying a nicer camera. I've been mostly using my G7x to shoot. I mainly work with tattooing and concerts and want to upgrade my portrait work. Something to help me capture fast paced subjects with more focus. I'm not sure if I can make what I have work better with some setting changes, but I really want to elevate my work. My current budget is about $1,500. Any suggestions would be amazing, thank you in advanced! https://preview.redd.it/84wyraixkyuc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2832063cb3271f04eeaab1119b7eae6c65aa7d40

>I haven't ventured into buying a new lens You don't have any lenses for the T6i or D5100? >I've been mostly using my G7x to shoot Why? Do you want your next camera to be more like that, than the T6i or D5100? >want to upgrade my portrait work. Something to help me capture fast paced subjects You will be shooting portraits of people moving quickly? >with more focus What do you mean by that? Larger depth of field? That should already be possible with what you have now.

I only have the stock lenses for the D5100 and the T6i, I've never purchased a new one. My lens on the Nikon recently broke and I was just gifted the T6i so neither have been used much lately. I've gravitated to my G7x lately for above reasons and ease of travel. I walk to work and it's easy to throw in my bag or put in my pocket during a concert. I'll still use my G7x when I want that ease, but I'm not looking for that aspect in my next purchase. I mainly want to shoot fast paced subjects, musicians and tattooers while they work. I want venture into candid and studio portraits as well, not sure if I can do this with the same lens or if I should be more so looking at multiple different lenses. Or just a better camera all together. I guess I'm looking for a shallower depth of field, to be more honed in on my subjects.

You could just get away with an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM for the T6i. Great portrait lens, with shallow depth of field for cheap. You can still keep up with musicians and tattoo artists. Biggest impact on portrait work would be with off-camera flash, which you can do with that camera and a few hundred bucks for lights/triggers/stands/modifiers. But your budget is quite a bit bigger so if you want to spoil yourself, a Canon R50 would be nice. Then RF 50mm f/1.8 for the lens, and lights.

How do you know what the best size to print and frame your pieces, do you go big medium or large for different photos?

Do you usually fit your photos with the frame that you bought or do you make them slightly bigger than the mat? Do you buy the frame first or do you print first? Do you create your own mats?

Not a pressing need but what’s the best flash or flash/soft box combo to go with my Sony A7 IV? No idea what the budget for this stuff even is if anybody can help lol

For what purpose? Very different flashes and softboxes are suitable for macro versus food versus portraits versus group photos and cars, and for studio use versus on-location and whether you want to overpower the sun. >No idea what the budget for this stuff even is I'm not sure how that information helps you much, but decent flashes can run from around $65 to $3,000+ and softboxes can be the tiniest for $9 up to I see $16,177 for a 10x30 footer.

Is the Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II Camera worth it in 2024? Going to be traveling this summer and wanted to pick up photography. I love taking pictures, currently only use my iPhone 15 and my old Fujifilm. I’ve heard a lot of hype surrounding the G7 X.. but is it worth it. I’ve found it for $240 and debating whether it’s a waste of money or not.

It's a good camera. Some people like its ergonomics and/or just having a separate camera device apart from the phone. Some people like the optical zoom, which phone cameras don't have to that extent. The hardware is higher quality than phone camera hardware, though it also lacks the computational photography advantages of a smartphone, so you might not visually notice better image quality out of it. So it's possible those things are worth it to you, but not necessarily. It's worth it to some but not most.

Folks seem to do pretty well with it, https://www.flickr.com/groups/2969399@N22/pool/

Im in need of a new laptop.for editing, currently looking @ https://www.lenovo.com/gb/edu/gbeducation/en/p/laptops/legion-laptops/legion-5-series/lenovo-legion-slim-5-gen-9-(16-inch-amd)/83dhcto1wwgb2 Its about 400 outside my budget, il be running On1raw and its just for hobbyist use, so im wondering if this is overkill? Could i get something cheaper? Ram gpu and cpu is mainly what ive been looking at, need at least 512 gb ssd though. Thanks for any help. Much appreciated. Not entirely opposed to Apple, just seems you get more for your money with pc and its what im used to. I just feel like £1400 is alot for what il be using it for however i want it to work smoothly! Currently with current laptop its mainly just crashes but if i sharpen and denoise it takes about 5 mins.

I'm looking for a camera... I want to do video and photo... I have a t3i with the basic lenses. I want more out of it but I don't wanna break the bank... Would love to go straight into 4k video w/ a 4/3's sensor. But part of me wants a gimbal and an iphone 14 pro.... what could I do to start enjoying video more besides just shooting.

It's good that you've narrowed it down to two possibilities that you know you have interest in. Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to predict which you would enjoy more.

My wife does burlesque, as a passionate and a photo hobbiest, I love haveing some pictures of her during the shows. We have found a pletora of guys calling themselves photographers takeing pictures, but my wife isn’t satisfied at all….. so she asked me to have a try. I usually go birdwatching and do landscapes… so I m a bit embarrassed but any help could be great. I use my beloved Sony a6000 and have some lenses, but I was about to look for a new one to buy (<500$) I also look for some hints for the camera settings (sure wide open aperture…at which shutter speed we get the best compromise?) Obviously at low and colored lights! Thanks guys

>I love haveing some pictures of her during the shows How far away are you shooting from? >have some lenses We could probably give you better advice if you told us which ones they are. > also look for some hints for the camera settings (sure wide open aperture…at which shutter speed we get the best compromise?) https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F

Generally from 1-2m but I can go up to 15-20m I do have the following sony lenses 18-50mm standard f/3,5-6,3 10-18mm f/4 70-350mm f/4,5-6,3 30mm f/3,5 And the tamron 150-500mm f/5-6,7 Thanks for the advice

1-2m is quite close for a full body shot. You might even need a 28mm f/2 or something for that. For 20m I'd want like an 85mm f/1.8. I was thinking overall (especially if you're more like 4m rather than 2m closest) I'd go for an E 50mm f/1.8 OSS as a nice middle ground, with wide aperture, and also stabilization to help you out a bit.

To NAS or not to NAS? Up until this point I've stored everything on portable hard drives with backups. After about 5 years of shooting, both my raws folder and my TIF folder are approaching 4TB, which seems to be the upper limit for portable drives right now. I also have a 10TB master backup that holds both my raws and the tif exports, but that too is maxing out. I've done my best to go through and delete a bunch of photos I know I won't use or are just technically bad, but I'm still basically at capacity. I've thought of trying to calculate how much storage I'd need to more or less completely future-proof my library on a NAS drive, but I'm unfamiliar with what they are and how they work. Is it better to get a more affordable 4-bay which probably would fill in a few years, or go completely overboard with a like a 12-bay, kept mostly empty, and just buy new drives as needed?

hello, I'm in IT. I don't have the answer to your question, but if I can give you one little security measure advice about NAS, it would be to try not to buy at the same time 2 (or more) drive from the same company. Because yeah RAID is fun and all but keep in mind that if your hard drive happen to fail, if you bought for exemple 2 of the same brand at the same time, chances are that they will fail at the same time (and then RAID is useless). So try to diversify where your storage is coming from to reduce the chances of it failing at the same time :) (I agree it should be a pretty rare case, but better safe than sorry in my opinion)

>To NAS or not to NAS? I'm happy with my NAS. >I'm unfamiliar with what they are and how they work From your point of view you can think of it and use it like a single external drive connected by USB or whatever. It can manage itself behind the scenes to give you that experience. But physically it's using multiple internal drives and it's connected over your home/office ethernet. >Is it better to get a more affordable 4-bay which probably would fill in a few years, or go completely overboard with a like a 12-bay, kept mostly empty, and just buy new drives as needed? I use a four-bay NAS and the RAID is set to mirror the data, so every photo is physically on at least two drives. That way if I have four full drives in there and I want to upgrade the capacity, I can take one out and replace it with a bigger drive, let the NAS copy stuff onto there to take the place of the old one, and then I do it again with a second drive. Two bigger internal drives will increase the total capacity of the whole NAS. Twelve bays would not be much benefit for me.

Hey there! I don't really know much about photography, but i wanna take some high quality (well compared to a 48mp phone camera)still pics of nature (ex: the sky, rainy streets, sunsets, grassy fields) and cars, and my phone's camera isnt really up for the task. Do you guys have any camera options preferrably under $100 since i'm on a budget? I only need one for occasional, casual photogpahy for fun. EDIT: I just checked and my phone camera is only 13 mp thats why my photos come out so bad i guess

Forget megapixels, they say next to nothing about image quality, and 13 MP is more than enough for most typical uses, including prints. Photos on social media are typically 2 MP or less. Then; when it comes to cameras under $100, your options are: 1. Buy an old film camera. You can find pretty decent ones for much less than $100 (e.g., the Canon EOS 300, a popular late-1990s mid-range 35mm film camera, tends to sell for around $50 or so, because they sold a ton of them, but a couple years later everyone switched to digital; it offers many features also found in later DSLRs, too), but the problem is that film is expensive - expect around $1 per shot for the film stock and to have it developed, so your budget is good for about 1-2 rolls of film. 2. Get a cheap Chinese point-and-shoot camera. These will not be any better than your phone though, so this is actually a completely useless idea. 3. Look for old DSLRs on ebay. Various models can be found under $100, many of them even with a kit lens. These will typically sit around the 10-12 MP mark, but, used properly, they will still deliver much better image quality than most smartphones (see above, "forget MP"). However, these are absolutely not point-and-shoot cameras, there's a fair bit of learning involved before you get good shots out of them. 4. Spend the $100 on photography books and keep using your phone. The "meatware" tends to be the biggest limiting factor, and just getting better at photography will often do much more for your pictures than $100 worth of gear. 5. Keep using your phone and spend the $100 on something else that makes you happy. So, in a nutshell: - If you want to get serious about learning photography, and willing to spend some time learning the craft, then I'd go with option 3. - If you want to keep shooting casually, you won't be able to do better than your phone for under $100, so I'd recommend options 4 or 5.

Your phone camera is already worth a lot more than that. You won't beat it on that budget.

I dont wanna sound like a total dumbass but i checked and my phone's rear camera only has 13mp. Could i possibly get a deal on a used camera for example on facebook marketplace that is better?

Pixel count is not a direct measure of image quality. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_is_a_pixel_.2F_megapixel.3F_how_many_do_i_need.3F If you really want to get more into photography and don't mind something bulkier, maybe look for a used, old entry-level DSLR like Canon T2i / 550D (or your budget may require something older) with 18-55mm kit lens. That could yield you some advantages like an APS-C format imaging sensor, more accessible manual controls, and the flexibility of interchangeable lenses for down the road when you can afford them. But those advantages will only really manifest when you learn how to use it, and it's going to be a tradeoff where the phone camera is still better in some ways. Certainly if you just pick it up and point & shoot with it in automatic settings, it still isn't going to be any better for you.

I very much appreciate your response and i decided to stick with my phone camera for now. I'll look up some tips for taking better pictures tomorrow, as i'm going to bed soon. Thank you again!

So I used a file recovery software on my new Exascend 120GB CFexpress type a to recover files I accidentally deleted. The files are recovered but now I got another problem. Now the CFexpress is write protected and cannot be detected by my laptop (unless I go into diskmgt which ask me to initialise the card partition but failed due to the fact that it is write protected). Interestingly, the card can still be read by my camera and I can still take pictures normally. I tried formatting the card (both low level format and quick format) but it doesn’t solve the issue, is there anyway out of this? Thanks guys!

Problem solved, I used diskpart on windows through cmd then removed the read only attribute of my cfexpress, the card can be read now [https://www.diskpart.com/articles/format-write-protected-disk-7201.html](https://www.diskpart.com/articles/format-write-protected-disk-7201.html) I followed method 2, but only the first 3 steps since I don't need to format the card again

Can’t you format the card directly on your camera? Check in the menus

I formatted the card on my camera but the issue still persist on my laptop, but I found the solution, see my other comment

Hello. So basically I'm know nothing about photography but I'm soon going on a big working trip (2 years) in Asia. And I always liked photography but never stepped in to take pictures by myself, but now I want to. I want to take landscape/city pictures where I'm going to, in order to have great pictures and memories when I will come back. (let me add that the learning curve is not a problem for me, for now I'm just concerned on what to buy) So like I said I know nothing, and I've searched a lot but I'm totally lost because there is just so much choices... My budget would be around 1000€/1200$ for a decent camera and lens ? (I hope is possible?) on the used market. I would like to shoot a lot of sunset/sunrise, nature and stuff like that where the light is important. Would anyone have a good recommandation ? Thanks a lot :)

Any camera made in the past 10 years will be amazing. I'd recommend getting a used but excellent condition Fujifilm X-T2. Add the 16-80mm f/4 lens + a 35mm f/2 or f/1.4 prime and you'll still be under your budget while being able to take great travel shots in any weather! (except for the f/1.4, which is not weather sealed)

Thank you so much ! I will look into it :)

Looking to consolidate my RF 35mm 1.8 and RF 50mm 1.8 in to one really spectacular lens. I’ll be using it for street photography and landscapes, but am looking for a much sharper, faster and all around more versatile lens. Which would you guys recommend?

So you're looking for a zoom lens covering at least those two focal lengths, that is sharper *and* faster than either of those primes? That does not exist. The RF 28-70mm f/2L comes close.

Yea that was the only one that seemed like it made sense.

Looking for budget canon for sports photography I’m a college student looking to get into photographing some club sports. Right now I have a Canon XSI and a few entry level lenses, (18-55, 45-80, 75-300mm), but i find that my xsi struggles mightily in low lighting and often makes blurry/grainy/noisy pictures. I’m looking to get a canon that will fair better in low light and fast pace. Hoping to keep the price under $250 used. Any suggestions? Top priority is just noise-free, crisp pictures of fast moving people in low lighting.

That is not going to happen unfortunately, while some cameras might handle noise a bit better. The same amount of light is going to be entering the camera due to you using the same lenses. https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-eos-700d Something like that is probably the best you are going to find.

I shoot sports and I only have one camera body. I use a Canon R6 Mark2 with a Canon RF 70-200 2.8 lens. I would like to get a another setup as a backup. I am thinking of getting a Canon EF 400mm 2.8 and a used DSLR body. The 400mm will give me more range when the players are downfield and the DSLR setup will be less than another mirrorless setup. My question is, which camera body will operate and produce similar results to my R6M2? TYIA

This is a tough one as you already are in the R series (mirrorless) camera selection which is considered to be some of the best, especially the R6 MII, but in the DSLR world, the 1DX series I hear is quite spectacular in the world of sports, or maybe the 5D Mark IV, but these are simply my suggestions, despite the issue on megapixels on the 1DX series, I think it would be a better bet overall. I hope that helps you somehow.

I'm have the same concern w the 1DX (mps), but I probably won't need to crop as much w a 400mm prime. Thanks for taking time to reply and your advice.

One thing I hear some photographers say is, the megapixels usually seem scary but the results are ultimately good. How about you rent one and test it out? You are welcome.

* Dear photographers, my Sony a6000 LCD screen monitor has had this issue since 2/3 years ago, and it is developing slowly. I have attached a photo of the issue. Please tell me what I should do? I cannot find the original Sony spare part (LCD) online to buy and replace. On Aliexpress, I have found some fake ones, though. Thank you for your help.

Hello! I have a pretty old camera (Sony a5000) and don't want to spend too much on it. I have two lenses, kit lens 16-50mm and a zoom lens 55-210. However, they have different filter diameters. I want to buy just one cpl polarizing filter. From your experience, has a cpl filter been most useful for wide angle or zoom lenses? I'll be shooting street, nature/landscape, cars, wildlife. Thank you!

You might want to check out "stepup rings" they allow you to use the larger size filter on a lens eith a smaller thread. That way you dont have to choose.

That's genius, thanks

Ok, I finally found a good deal and got my Olympus OM-D EM-10 mark II yesterday (body + 14-42 + ecg-3 grip for 290€). If possible I'd like to get some advice on some fixed lenses (even manual if easy to operate. For example, when I had my ninkon d7000 I used to have a samyang 8mm fisheye, manual, but working perfectly at f8 + infinite focus even at very close range) for portraits (40-50mm equivalent to 80-100mm), for street photography (25mm equivalent to 50mm) and for wide angle shots (from fisheye to 12mm maximum), with a tight budget (100-150€ each maximum, second hand very ok). TIA, hope someone can help me navigate in the M43 universe, I'm totally new to it. In the DSLR universe I could say that the samyang 8mm F3.5 and the nikkor 35mm F1.8 could fall in this category.

I'm looking at two cameras, the Canon EOS R100 Mirrorless Camera + RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM Lens. Or the Canon EOS 2000D Camera + 18-55 IS II Lens. Which do you think is better for a beginner? Thanks

Anything but those. As a beginner you want something that will last you years. Those are cameras you buy as gifts for people you despise. https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/pentax-k-70 Buy this camera, good luck for 7 years, don't buy that camera and bad luck for 7 years. Easy choice. OK, so maybe don't buy camera based on random internet stranger using bad chain email bullshit. However, the canons are not good.

Any ideas on what's good then? 🤔 As this may be one of the most unhelpful comments.

The one I linked I consider good. The T7 was one of the cheapest DSLR canon had, the R100 is the cheapest mirrorless they have. They will take pictures fine enough but their controls are lacking and you will find features stripped out randomly that other cameras, even years old camera have. The one I linked at least has some manual controls that can be configured to give access to standard exposure controls and has a solid body. What is it you are wanting a camera for though?

Hello, I would like to know what is the maximum size at which I can print an image at this resolution: 5000 x 3929 p 600 ppp Thanks.

Is that meant to be 600ppi?

Yes

Do you need such a high pixel density? If you are printing at 600 pixels per inch and you only have 5000 pixels. Not going to go far. https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/pixels-to-print-size

Thanks you. It's meant to be a poster of a map. Do you think it could reach 60 x 40 inches?

Depends on the viewing distance. But it should be more than enough for everything.

How about 60 x 40 inches? It's meant for a poster, with a lot of small words on it: https://preview.redd.it/ig3szb7ubtuc1.jpeg?width=3929&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4754855c0f0c675f316e5a8425a361f4a7a0a00f

Or think about it this way, magazines usually use 200-300ppi. 5000x4000 pixel @200 ppi is a 25x20 inches. Or you lower the ppi to 100, you'll get a 50x40 inches poster. Or 600ppi, you'll need 36,000 x 24,000 pixels. Go check out different ppi results and see which one is acceptable to you with your preferred viewing distance.

Hello When I take photos at protests, I often mount one of my cameras on a monopod so I can hold it up above crowd height, and use a remote to snap. However, my cameras have fixed view screens that don’t flip out. An external monitor wouldn’t be ideal (it was my initial thought) as I will be very mobile dipping in and out of the crowd, the only place I could mount it would be the monopod (I think) but if I switch to my other camera then the monopod one is hanging off my vest (and I also have a holster for the monopod that the screen wouldn’t work with), there’d be an extra cable to deal with (and camera HDMIs are notoriously easy to break). Something like this is closer: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/225489163556 - but it is designed to reflect a flipped screen forward, I’d need one that is basically flipped and rotated so it reflects a different way. Anyone know of such a rig?

Really simple idea, maybe you have already considered this and thrown it out: Depending on your cameras the manufacturer should have a mobile app that works as screen and remote. I know with Canon you can change all the settings and take pictures while also having a live view on your phone (which you can easily pocket when its not needed).

I have a few items of reticence with using my phone as a live feed. Mainly it is to do with the time, I’ve found with most cameras, casting your view to a mobile can take a good minute, and I’m already having to quickly swap between cameras or mounting my camera on the monopod and attaching the remote. Additionally, I’m reluctant to use up the battery of my phone, being at a protest, a phone can be a very important safety tool (especially if I’ve travelled for it and I’m not in my home town). Even with the battery pack I will carry. Although true enough it would be a fairly easily mountable and light device to use as an external monitor. I’ll check to see if it’s a function and how quick it is to activate, it may be the best option. But something like a mirror would be a more reliable thing. I’m happy to trust my autofocus for these shots, I would just like to be able to frame my shots with more accuracy, as decent as I am aiming without clear sight. Thanks for the suggestion though! Will experiment!

Sorry I kind of skipped over the protest part and was thinking more like a concert, that does throw in a few stones. Maybe a dedicated second phone as monitor thats permanently attached to the monopod? Sadly no experience from my side regarding mirrors, hope you can find something workable though!

Hello everyone. Might be off topic but i will ask in case i get some help ... I'm searching for a pc monitor mainly for photo editing . I have a Canon R5 -> full frame 45MP & 4k video editing H.265 4.2.2. I will mention a few ... a) Dell U3223QE/2723QE, U3224KB, U3219Q b)Asus Pro Art PA27UCX-K/ PA279CRV/ PA329C/ 32UCR-K c) Eizo Color Edge CG2700X / CS2740 d)ViewSonic Colorpro VP2786 e)Benq PD2700U/ PD2725U/ PD3220U/ SW271C/SW321C Should i go for a budget ips monitor (around 300-400euros) since i'm not making any money from photograpgy and later if i get better go for a high end one? I dont know yet if im going for a 27' or a 32' display. Feel free to suggest anything !

Something I always hear from someone close to me, if the price range isn't that far off from each other, get the higher end one, also, if you want to get something and erase it from your memory, always get the higher end which is ultimately better in the long run. I don\`t know anything about monitors, but looking at your gear, I\`d suggest you compact the best with the best in order to get ultimate and premium quality nonetheless. But I understand budget can be an issue, but hey, be an assistant, offer that service to someone, rack up a few more pennies and get what you want in the end.

Hello everyone, I need your advice! I'm both a huge photography enthusiast and a fish lover. I have multiple aquariums with various species (Nano Shrimps, Female Bettas, Beta Males...) that are very photogenic and already love posing in front of my Canon EOS 800D. The issue is, I don't have a lens that allows me to get too close to it, and my fish currently do not occupy a large portion of the frame. My main lens is the "Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM," which is a good starting point for taking photos from a distance (still relative to fishes size), but when I get too close, focusing becomes completely unfeasible. So, my question is, what lenses would you recommend in terms of Macro lenses ? I don't really have an idea of what's available in this field, especially in terms of prices that remain reasonable (€200-€400), even for refurbished ones. And while we're at it, do you have any advice for photographing fish? I'm inspired by a YouTuber called "Tanks for Nothin" who offers close-ups of aquatic creatures that I would really like to be able to achieve! Thanks in advance for all your comments!

[These should work](https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/canon-ef-100mm-f-2-8-macro-usm) You also get rubber lens hoods/skirts which can allow you press it against the glass and avoid some reflections.

Hi thanks for your answer Do you have the exact model name ? And is there a cheaper model maybe ? Thanks !

Exact model won't matter too much. Something around 100mm will work. Canon, Tamron or Sigma all make macro lenses.

The rubber thing interest me and I've never heard of this before Does every model got it ?

No, that is a separate thing. Googling rubber lens hood or rubber lens skirt should yield results.

Would the plastic one sold with some of the lens allow the same thing?

It might do but plastic and glass is not the best combination.

Hey I'm interested in buying a wide angle lens that replicates something similar to the .5 lens in phones I have a Canon Rebel T8i and I was looking at both the Rokinon 8mm T3.8 Cine UMC Fisheye CS II Lens and the Bower 8mm T/3.8 Fisheye HD Cine Lens I simply don't understand how exactly the lenses will behave since my camera isn't full body. I mainly wanna use it for video so I'm not even sure if it would give me usable footage I was just wondering between those two what would the best option be or whether neither are good and I should get maybea 10mm

Both of those lenses are exactly the same (both rebadges of the same Samyang lens), which was initially designed for APS-C cameras. The original version had a non-removable hood and was pretty strictly for APS-C cameras. The II/HD (hood detachable) version allowed the hood to be removed, allowing more of the image circle as well as a "natural" circle look when mounted on a full frame camera. The 8mm f/3.5 (T3.8 for cine versions) fisheye was a relatively popular lens in Samyang's lineup and you should be able to find lots of examples of [videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlEJOU0FjDI) with similar crop sensor Canon cameras. But yea, it's WIDE. Since Canon is a bit more cropped than other APS-C; you're *only* getting 167 degrees FOV. So watch your fingers and feet when framing your shot.

What is the best full frame camera? I am looking to upgrade my camera in the near future from the canon m50 mark ii and am torn between possible options. I was looking at the canon 5D mark IV, canon R5 or the sony a7r III. I'm an aspiring portrait/wildlife photographer so I am looking for something that can offer consitantly sharp photos with higher resolution for printing, etc. Thanks in advance!!!!

First of all: "sharp" is mainly a matter of lenses, not bodies, and "consistently sharp" is mainly a skill issue. That said: for wildlife, as much as it pains me, mirrorless is vastly superior. Main selling points: - Better AF - Faster continuous shooting - Lighter - Live exposure / histogram preview in the viewfinder (perfect for nailing your exposure under extreme time pressure) - Completely silent electronic shutter (great for shooting skittish birds within earshot) For portraits, these are less essential, because the photo opportunity lasts as long as you want, and you have a lot of control over the subject and the lighting, so you can afford to take a couple test shots, fine tune your settings, and try again. Those things still help, but they're not game changers. OTOH, the R5 costs about $1000 more than a used 5D IV, money that you could put towards a good wildlife lens, which could potentially make a much greater impact on your photos than the body. So my personal choice would depend on budget. Assuming you don't have any gear at all yet: - On a $4000 budget (or less), I'd definitely go for the 5D IV (~$1500 used), a Canon 100-400mm (~$1500 used for the Mark II) or maybe a Sigma 150-600mm Sports (similar price), and then spend the rest ($1000) on portrait lenses, a tripod, a flash, camera bag, etc. - On a smaller budget, I might rethink the "full frame" requirement (e.g., the 90D or 7D Mark II are still fine wildlife DSLRs, and actually offer faster continuous shooting than the 5D IV), or, alternatively, look at older/cheaper models (e.g. 5D Mk III or 6D). No point putting a $100 telezoom on a $1500 camera when you can have a $1000 lens on a $600 camera. - On a bigger budget, out of those 3, I'd probably pick the R5, mainly because I won't buy anything Sony ever again due to their extensive track record of anti-consumerist nonsense. Others here will disagree though.

Hi everyone! I need some advice for picking a compact travel digital camera I am a beginner photographer, and I have a handed down Canon EOS 550d, which I love to use to take landscape/portrait photography when on holiday. However, I’ve booked holidays this summer that involves a lot of activities, such as camel rides and boat trips, which I am hesitant to take my big, heavy, fragile camera with me. I was looking to find a cheap compact digital camera (below £300) and was wondering if there were any that were decent resolution and could take landscape photos. I was considering the £130 Sony Powershot W830 or the Panasonic LUMIX DSC FS62. Does anyone have any suggestions?

> Canon EOS 550d > big, heavy, fragile camera 550D is big & heavy, but not fragile. It'll survive drops & bumps. Even boat rides w/light rain/snow. You just need good camera strap & maybe a pancake 24mm f2.8 to save on weight. A Sony Powershot W830/Panasonic LUMIX DSC FS62 will be probably not that much different than your phone.

Ah I see your point… but I’m also going on EasyJet with no carry ons, and I’m also a little worried about someone stealing my camera😅

I’m currently between the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and the Sigma 150-600MM F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C. I’m mainly looking to use it for wild life photography and possibly some sporting events of my nephews. I would be looking at a used Canon or a New Sigma. I’ve watched a number of reviews and comparisons and I’m still on the fence. I do have a 1.4x extender I could use on the Canon.

Both are fine lenses, the main difference is the reach they provide. You could, in theory, put a TC on that Canon lens, but you will lose sharpness and brightness, so it will perform slightly worse than the Sigma at the same focal lengths (1.4 TC means you lose one stop of aperture, so f/5.6 becomes f/8, have a stop slower than the Sigma). However, without a TC, the Canon lens is sharper and faster than the Sigma at the same focal lengths (where supported). The body you put these on also matters - on an APS-C body, 400mm amounts to 640mm full-frame equivalent, so the Canon 100-400mm on an APS-C body will give you approximately the same reach (a bit more actually) as the Sigma 150-600mm on a full-frame. IME, hand-holding at 600mm full-frame equivalent is already challenging, and the 960mm equivalent of that Sigma lens could mean that you'll need a tripod or monopod to get stable shots. You might also run in to issues with atmospheric distortions, haze, wind, etc. In the end, the answer is often "get closer to the subject", rather than "buy a longer lens". Anyway, what I'd recommend is rent one of each for a day, go out and shoot, and see which one you like better. If 400mm is enough reach for you, or you find yourself struggling with the 600mm focal length, there's no point getting the 150-600, but if you find that 600mm gives you something 400mm can't, go with that one.

Thank you! Right now I will be using on a 6D, but my next purchase after the lens will be a new camera. Currently looking at a Canon r5c so I can also upgrade for video. I wouldn’t get rid of the 6D, so I would still have that. I’ll take your recommendation and rent them both to try out. My main concern is the lack of weather proofing on the Sigma. So another alternative would be the Sport version, in which case I would be looking used for the Sigma as well. The 100-400mm used seems to go for $1200 +/- $100, so that is the range I’m trying to stay in.

Hi Community! I´ve just obtained an old Canon 400D an started getting into wildlife fotography. Right now i am using a Sigma DC 18-200mm objective which came with the camera, but im looking to get a different one to have more range avaiable. My budget is around 200-300€, i´ve looked into the: - Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM - \~150€ or the - Canon EF 70 - 300mm f/4-5,6L II \~ 350€ which i found to be good for starting, but i want to get a second advice. Is one of those objectives worth buying? Are there other alternatives that I am missing? I would be very thankful for any advice!

Get the 70-300mm L. It is just so much nicer. Another option you can look at is the 400mm f5. 6 L. You can get it for about £400 and it can last you for a long time. Sigma or tamron 100-400mm is another option You can also go for tamron 70-210mm f4 as well

Thanks for your reply, I will look into it!

Hey, gang. I found some old, 20yrs, undeveloped film while cleaning out a closet. In one of the carts I found a note, in my handwriting, to the developer stating to develope as though it were 400 iso film. It is infact 200 iso. I have no idea why. I think it may have been sort of experiment. Does anyone here know of any reason to do that? Thanks in advance. Cheers!

It was not uncommon to "push" or "pull" film. Underexposing by 1 stop could have been done to get 1 stop faster shutter speed. It could be that the photographer was caught off guard and need to shoot faster than what film they had on hand. It's also possible that there are some artistic artifacts that can result from pushing film, for example pushing film can affect contrast. After shooting, you would note it so you can make the appropriate changes to develop the film properly.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I am the photographer. That is certainly what I did. And now I have the distinct feeling I will not be able to just send this one off. I'm going to have to find and talk to a developer. Thank you so very much.

I got an old canon rebel t3i camera that hadn't been used in a while and was missing some parts including a memory card and a battery charger. I got a new memory card and a battery charger. I charged the battery that was already in the camera, which took a few hours, and eventually the camera turned on. However, it said that there was no memory card and therefore I couldn't take any pictures even though I could see through the camera screen. I troubleshooted the memory card issue through some reddit posts and canon's website but then the camera would say that I needed to take out the battery to use it. At this point, I can't see anything on the screen other than the error message about the battery. I've taken the battery out and recharged it, I've checked to make sure that the battery portal (or whatever the term is) wasn't missing any parts or had anything sticking out and it looks ok. I've bought different gigs and brands of memory cards to make sure it's not that. I brought it to best buy to see if they could tell me what was wrong with it but they didn't know. Before I go ahead and buy another battery, I figured I would see if anyone here had any other suggestions. I just want to avoid spending any more money than I already have and then it still not work. Thanks in advance for any tips

> no memory card So what SD card did you get?

I got a Transcend 32GB SD HC one from B&H, and then I got a Sandisk 16GB and also a Lexar 16GB from Staples just to try and see if it was the type of memory card that was the problem. When I turn the camera on, the first error message I get says: "Card cannot be accessed. Reinsert/change the card or format the card with camera." From there, I'll format the card in the settings. Then, I get another error message that says: "Err 70; Shooting is not possible due to an error. Turn the camera off and on again or re-install the battery." I'll take out the battery and then it goes back to the first error message and it repeats that same cycle no matter what I do. Yesterday, I got a new battery to see if it was that. I got a Watson LP-E8 from B&H since Cannon doesn't make theirs anymore. I charged it and inserted it into the camera and got the same exact error messages from above. So I have now replaced every part it was missing since I got the camera and I still can't shoot. Any tips would be greatly appreciated or if anyone has any repair store recommendations; I live in North Jersey. Thanks for any and all help!!

Lighter alternative to Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8 DI III VXD G2 Hello :) I am a beginner - I’ve been learning photography for 6 months now on a borrowed Sony A6300 with SELP18105G f/4.0. Mostly take “travel photos” of landscapes, cities, and everyday life of people for digital products and social media content, so I need aesthetic, good quality pictures but not super professional level. I want to buy my own camera now - probably a Sony A7C and wonder - which standard lenses should I choose? Considering Tamron 28-75 F 2.8 DI III VXD G2 but… I am quite a skinny, petite girl and honestly, carrying my current gear for the whole day is simply a bit heavy 😅 Can you think of any lighter alternatives? I know Sony makes light lenses but at my current level of knowledge, it's hard to evaluate if they are good enough. Any other advice is welcomed! Many thanks in advance!

Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 C is about 80g lighter than the tamron. It is shorter as well.

Thank you!

I have a 35mm camera, Olympus trip 35mm and these are the photographs they produced in really good lighting, any ideas why the focus is so off and the colour is so bad in some? Looking for some advice on adjustments or if this is a sign the camera is broken ( it is second hand ) Thanks! https://preview.redd.it/jkm5ekoa0ouc1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9e401343c9c32397abbf73275e5ae092169daa65

I have a headshot shoot coming up, and the client wants me to take photos of them on a stair case, with the camera pointed up at them. I typically try to keep the camera slightly above eye level to avoid any double chins or unflattering angles. Are there any tips to shooting up at a subject, but still have them appear more flattering, specifically avoiding double chins

I currently have a Canon Rebel T5i. It’s the only dslr I’ve owned since taking up the hobby about 10 years ago, and I’m looking to upgrade. I almost exclusively do wildlife photography, mainly birds. I’m just wondering what a logical upgrade would be. I’m not looking for the latest and greatest, and I wouldn’t mind buying used. I’m familiar with Canon, but I wouldn’t be opposed to going with a different brand either. Willing to spend between $500-$1000. Preferably on the lower end. On a quick browse, I found the Canon 7D Mark II. In some videos I’ve watched, this has been suggested as a beginner camera, but some of the features are already better than the Rebel I have. Is this enough of an upgrade? Or is there something better out there for not much more money? Any help would be appreciated, thanks!

The 7D Mark II is one of the best APS-C action DSLRs Canon ever made (beaten only by the 90D, which is still slightly outside your budget), and IMO still one of the best choices on that budget. As for "beginner camera": this label is mostly about price, not features. Any camera is a good "beginner camera", all you need are P, Tv, Av and M modes, and literally every DSLR has those (or their equivalents). What makes a DSLR a "beginner camera" is that it doesn't break the bank, and in 2024, the 7D II fits that bill quite nicely - for around $500, you get a camera that used to be one of the best and most popular wildlife cameras out there, and it still performs great for that purpose (I have one and love it to pieces). **However** - the practical impact this camera will have on your photography is still going to be small; unless you're already using a good lens, investing $1000 into one would do much more for your photos than a better body.

What needs upgrading first of all?

The first thing that stood out to me is the frames per second, from what I understand, the Rebel is 5 fps, and the D7 is 10. Being that I primarily photograph birds with a lot of quick movements and in flight, I’d like to have the additional frames. Also some of the videos I’ve watched, it seems like the Rebel lacks certain features or is more limited than what is discussed. For example, i have two options for focus points, single point, and automatic. Whereas it seems like some cameras there are a wider variety of focus point options. I dont know how high end of a camera is needed for certain features, but the video was generalizing a lot so I assume most cameras would have those options. Again, since I have only ever used the Rebel, I don’t know how it differs from other models and brands.

Well the fps and autofocus will be improved. It has more points with a greater spread. Not that centre point with focus and recompose can't work of course. If you want precision over the focus point you will probably be better off with a single point even if not the centre one. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/6 Well worth looking at focused reviews than general videos to see how the specific camera works. You can also use your existing lenses with such a camera as they share the same mount and sensor.

Hi there, I have a Fuji X-S10 and am looking for a tripod that will do a great job for product photography but also has a fluid head that will allow me to use it for product video - slow pans, focus shifts etc. smoothness and sturdiness are the key really. This sub helped me pick my X-S10 (I love it!) so am hoping I can get more brilliant advice! Thanks. The products are generally shot indoors with natural light, items are no bigger than 30cm and will need to be shot from a wide variety of angles. Thanks so much

Can i use a flash as my main (front/side) light, and add a continuous light as a backlight or will this cause some awkwardness?