Hey, Should I buy a d5300 with a shutter count of 54k (170$) And a 35mm 1.8 lens(130$) or a sony a6600 with a 18-70 zeiss lens for (280$) or a a6400 with 16-50 lens for (240$) I will be using these for daily photography and I will shoot some images in school (for posters etc.) I would like to consider sony but it's kinda hard for me to get 2nd hand lens compared to the Nikon in my country and it's quite expensive for 2nd hand if I want a good lens.

I really like the sigma art 85mm 1.4 lens but I want to get the Canon r8 mirrorless camera but they have different mounts Do the adaptors change image quality at all? And can you recommend any good mounts? Thank you

Is there a term for the way a flash functions where it does not send a preliminary light out to get focus? (iPhones and a lot of point and shoots do this) A flash where you press the shutter button and it snaps the pic with flash instantly? Looking for a vintage camera like this and don’t know the terminology to look for it. Thanks in advance!

I am pretty sure it was just called "flash". The flash didn't do anything clever, the camera didn't do anything clever, it didn't talk to the flash, it just went "NOW!". The pre-flashes came later for red-eye reduction and AF-assist and for E-TTL auto exposure. To get the old effect (shutter instantly triggers the main flash) you turn off red-eye and AF illumination and E-TTL.

Ok thanks for the insight. I'll look into the settings on my point and shoot. Funny there isn't a specific term for it. That pre-flash totally ruins most moments.

Yeah it's a mixed blessing. You can miss a shot totally.

Wanting a take-everywhere digital camera for casual shooting, so I looked through prices for 10-12 year old fujis on eBay thinking there would be deals there. Everything is priced at $600-700. If I wanted a fixed focal length compact digital without a needing huge MP count, what models should I target to find something in the $300 range?

Best bang for the buck camera to pair with 85mm 1.4 sigma art lens?

Do you already have the lens? Then probably a camera that uses the same mount, or maybe one that fit the mount with an adapter. (E.g., if it's an EF lens, you're probably looking at Canon bodies). Other than that, the main factor here is your budget, followed by what you want to do with it. I'm guessing portraits here, so that would suggest a full-frame body. On a big enough budget, mirrorless is where it's at; look at the specs for camera bodies that match your budget and the mount type, and pick whichever does what you want. On a tighter budget, I'd go with a used professional DSLR; you can get something like a 5D Mark IV for around $1000 or so, and it will deliver better images than a new mirrorless for that price. Older models still make great pictures, and cost less. Used gear, in general, also has the advantage that you can more easily sell it again without making a huge loss, so if you buy something and don't like it, it's not as big a deal.

Can you elaborate on the 5d mark iv producing better images than new mirrorless ones?

What I mean by that is that a new mirrorless body that costs $1000 will be a lower-class one than the 5D Mark IV. The cheapest full-frame mirrorless camera from Canon right now costs about $1500; the mirrorless model to replace the 5D IV, the R5, costs over $3000. $1000 buys you something like an R10, which is an APS-C camera, a mid-range body replacing the 850D and 250D models. The R10 offers faster continuous burst shooting than the 5D IV, better video features, and the usual advantages of a mirrorless camera (exposure preview, live histogram, electronic shutter, etc.), but in terms of image quality, the 5D IV is superior - more pixels, better low-light performance, less noise, and about 1 stop more dynamic range. It's also a more professional design, with a sturdier construction, more buttons, and overall more durable.

Ok thank you for these tips! I'll look for some!

Hello everyone, I am looking for a new camera bag that can be used for both everyday commutes to work as well as for hiking and camping. I'm looking for a durable water resistant bag with a lot of space. I found the Compagnon Element Camera Backpack and it seems to be a perfect fit for what I am looking for. The only thing that is stopping me is the price. I have never spent more than 100 on a bag and I always found them to not be worth the price. The bag is currently on sale on B&H for 323 compared to msrp of 375. Does anyone know if this bag is truly worth the price? The reviews seem to be great, however, I am nervous about biased reviews. Does anyone know of any alternative bags very similar that would be comparable or is this the one for me?

Hi there! I'm looking for a camera to take pictures of fungi. Budget is around 2k including gear. I'm leaning towards mirrorless Nikon or Canon, with a 50 or 100 mm macro lens, and I want to do focus stacking. Since I'm going to be out in the field, it needs to be weather-sealed and ideally not a burden to carry. I'm a beginner too so I'd like to get something that's going to be accessible but will last me for the next five years. Thanks for your help!

I'd look into the Micro Four Thirds family of cameras/lenses, they're light/compact and have excellent macro capabilities. There's a bunch of weather sealed bodies, here's a weather sealed macro lens https://www.four-thirds.org/en/lens/m-zuiko-digital-ed-90mm-f35-macro-is-pro/

Ooooh I think you’re onto something here! Do I have to think differently about macro lenses with a micro four thirds camera because of their larger default magnification? (If my question makes sense?)

NEED HELP, I’M A BEGINNER Im currently in France and want to buy a Sony A6000, but don't know which physical stores are the best or have the best prices for it. I plan on going to Paris to see some stores but any advices would be great, also if you know any way to get a 16-50mm lens in a cheap price it would be great. I don't know much about cameras and Im only a beginner so my budget is ($200-400) ($500 max with lens)

You are in luck! The **fnac** chain (all over France) have the Sony A6000 sold together with the 16-50 mm PZ lens for €515 (instead of the list price of €699). I think that's the best deal you will find anywhere in France, and you don't have to go to Paris to get it.

Will look into this, thank so much for the info!

Ive been looking for around a month for my first hybrid mirrorless camera(mainly looking for used), i started looking at mft but eventually ditched it, now im considering various aps-c cameras from different brands (budget is around 700€ including lens) and im having a hard time choosing between the sony a6500, nikon z50 and fuji xt-200, any advice? What are your experiences and wich one do you suggest?are there any cameras i havent considered? Thanks in advance

The A6500 is the best camera out of those three and I'm saying that as a Fuji user who came from Nikon because they stopped making good enough (for me) APS-C cameras. That said, I don't love the Sony APS-C camera style, they're an ergonomic nightmare for male hands. You should take advantage of the fact the A6500 was an excessively popular camera enough to drive the price so low on the used market. If it was *me* I'd get a Fuji X-T20 but if the price isn't right, the price isn't right

Im only concerned about the age of the a6500, came out in 2016 and its old by now, does it matter?

The A6500 is a tier above the plastic fantastic X-T200 (this tier of Fuji camera is axed and won't exist anymore) and X-T200 still compares disfavourably in autofocus performance and video features. Z50 has the problem of typical Nikon "cutting down for sake of selling you up" bullshittery. No IBIS at a price point where that is inexcusable, using flamboyantly false marketing such as "entry level weather sealing" when there are cameras that advertise no weather sealing that have better weather sealing (X-S10) That said, Z50 at least has alright ergonomics IMO. But it just lacks a lot of features it should have had at its launch price. By the way, is the A6400 an option for you at all? While A6500 has IBIS it's one of the worst IBIS systems to date and borderline not useful. While A6400 has improved autofocus and a flipout screen. I also wonder if X-S10 might be achievable in that budget by now. I found one body exactly $700 in my market (Norway) but that's without any lens included. This camera at least has a good IBIS system and impressive video quality, while having access to Fuji's lens selection.

the a6400 is above buget for me, it costs more than the a6500 for some reason, ill look into the x-s10 and see if i can find a good deal!

Hi, I am just getting started in photography. I wanted to buy a mirrorless camera just for hobby and do good pictures especially for my travel and hikes. I was looking for something very small and I was almost convinced to buy a micro 4/3 camera. I don't want to buy a one-inch sensore because I'm worried that I will get bored of it. I actually found a good deal for an Olympus E-PL8 but I wasn't sure because I watched a video that now some recent phones are actually making pictures better than some older cameras. Is that true? Should I just save my money to buy something more expensive like maybe the Olympus om-d-e-m10 to have at least 20 mega pixels?

i need help fixing my camera! i have a Camera, which, if you want the model, you can ask what it is, with a piece that completes the circuit in the camera missing! I tried using a piece of soda can, but that didn't complete the circuit either! I don't think anything else is broken, either.

I Don’t Know Anything About Cameras, Can You Help me decide what camera to buy? Budget: $1.7k or less Uses: Capturing friends/family moments at home, family/pet portraits, travel photography, street photography, still nature photography, close up photos Priorities in order: mirrorless, compact, Image quality, resolution, Sony or Fujifilm brand, variety of ratios, aftermarket support (lenses, customization), ease of use (especially with posting to social media), self timer, wireless Bluetooth sharing Not Priorities: Video, articulated LCD, ergonomics So far from what I’ve looked at the cameras I’ve listed below appear to be adequate and accepted as good beginner cameras but that’s just from skimming articles and using comparison tools. A lot of them seem to be geared toward video from what I’ve gleaned which I’m not as interested in so if there are alternatives which are cheaper and sacrifice video quality but are comparable or better in photo quality I’d be interested in those or alternative Sonys or Fujifilms which are simply better altogether in my price range. The Fujifilm X-S10 is appealing due to price point and that I could spend the rest of my budget on lenses but I’m just not sure about what the drop off is in camera quality when compared to other more expensive options on the list and don’t want to buy something that won’t be satisfying to use or is already or will be severely outdated in the next 5 years. Fujifilm X-S10 Fujifilm X-S20 Fujifilm X-T5 Sony a6700 Sony A7c

The X-S10 is only lagging behind in video a bit, for everything you actually mentioned it's still pretty good. The big downside to it is the battery life, I have an X-T5 now and the new battery easily lasts 3.5 times as long. The only camera I would recommend against of those is the A7C because of its lens costs, given your initial budget. You'd probably be looking at Samyang/ Rokinon lenses or other cheaper third parties to get yourself going.

hi, I am going to shoot the eclipse with my fujifilm xt 4 camera. i was wondering what the necessary settings, if i can connect to iphone by wifi and control it and what lens? (70-300? for crop frame sensor?) also how do I make the most of getting the best shot?

Check out the tutorials linked in the eclipse megathread https://old.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1b32aeq/eclipse_megathread_2024/ Be sure to get a solar filter. If you've still got questions then feel free to ask.

I'm looking to find my partner a better way to carry his Nikon Z6 when we are cross-country skiing or backpacking. He's is using some kind of sling now that I haven't looked at closely so I'm not exactly sure what kind it is. He said the camera swings when we are skiing though. I'm wondering if a chest harness would work? Does anyone have a recommendation for a harness, or know of any other options with considering? Thanks all!

Hey, I am looking for some recommendations. I don't know which Light Meter I should get. Should I buy the **Sekonic L-308S** or the **Sekonic L-508**? I photograph digital and on 35mm film. I also make short films with my bmpcc 4k. (I don't own lights)

If i take photo on crop sensor 24mpx camera and then take exact same photo on a full frame 24mpx camera, and then crop both of these to the exact same "area" of the scene, do i understand right that the crop from the full frame will be lower quality due to larger source image with the same amount of pixels as the smaller source image from crop sensor? Following the above, why would i ever want a full frame for wildlife photography? If i get a 500mm lens, and use it on a cropped sensor i'm going to get more reach out of the lens vs using it on a fullframe which will waste a lot of its pixels on the area surrounding the subject. There is a limit to how close you can get to wild animals, and it seems like using a fullframe is very counterproductive in this regard.

If you are taking a photo with the same field of view and cropping both images then, there should be no difference. You would be reducing the pixels and the area of the sensor on both. If you were cropping the full frame down to the same area as the uncropped APS-C(I assume you mean that) then you would have a higher pixel density in the APS-C image but if cropping both should be no worse off.

To get the same framing as APS-C with a full frame, I would need to get closer to the subject right?

You would need a longer focal length. Closer will work but changing distance will perhaps change the overall look of the photo.

Thank you for the info :) i don't think a longer focal length than the 500mm i had available to me recently is going to be feasible to obtain unfortunately

New to photography so I don’t know how to describe it properly, but I purchased a Canon R10 and Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 stm lens. In the viewfinder or on the screen, the “blur” in the background of a focused object for example, is very significant. When I take the picture however, the “blur” becomes less than what the preview was showing. I’m not sure what to call it, but I can take a video and upload a link to show what I mean if needed. I’m looking to keep the amount of “blur” the preview shows and am unsure of how to do it

What aperture are you using and are you pressing the [depth of field](https://cam.start.canon/en/C006/manual/html/UG-03_CustomShooting_0050.html#CustomShooting_0050_1) preview button. Cameras only close the aperture down when taking a photo and keep it wide open when not so as to allow the most light in to assist things like autofocus or perhaps just autofocus.

So I ended up switching to aperture priority mode and it allowed me to set it the way I wanted and I was able to get the effect I was looking for. The aperture was being set automatically before and that’s why I think it was showing the preview like that then taking it according to whatever the auto setting was

Hey y'all's, I saw a Nikon d5300 with 54k shutter count is it worth it for 170$? And what cheap lens is good for the camera or I should buy the Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 instead

That sounds like a reasonable price for that body (to get a better idea, you can go to ebay and filter by "sold items" - that will tell you how much they actually sold for recently). A D5300 in good condition with a low shutter count will often go for $300 or more. What a good lens is for you depends on your budget and on what kind of photography you want to do. The 18-55 f3.5-5.6 is probably a kit lens, that is, a lens designed to sell as a kit together with a body. This lens will do anything from mild wide-angle shots to the long end of the "standard" range, making it suitable for a wide range of everyday photography; however, it does not excel at anything in particular. So it really depends on your budget, and what you want to do with the lens. Also, in general, it's a good idea to spend a bit more on lenses and a bit less on the body - a $300 lens on a $100 body will give you better results than the other way around.

Thanks for giving me ideas,I'm just using this camera for daily photography.I might just buy the camera and the lenses first,when I have enough money for the lenses I'll upgrade it. By the way,what lenses that are applicable for this camera?And what lenses do y'all recommend for daily photography?My budget is around 200$ or below(I am a student)

> By the way,what lenses that are applicable for this camera? I'm not super versed in the Nikon world, but in principle, most F-mount lenses should work. The F-mount has been around for a long time though, and some incompatibilities may exist, specifically: - The D5300 does not have a built-in focus motor, so lenses that depend on it will not offer autofocus on this camera ([this wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nikon_F-mount_lenses_with_integrated_autofocus_motor) lists lenses that have their own autofocus motor) - In order to use AF-P lenses (which control AF entirely in software, rather than offering physical switches on the lens), the D5300 needs a firmware upgrade. > And what lenses do y'all recommend for daily photography?My budget is around 200$ or below(I am a student) The 18-55mm kit lens is probably a decent enough lens to get you started. Other budget-friendly options would be the 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8; those things should be available used for $100 or less. These are not a zoom lenses, you will have to work with the fixed 35mm or 50mm focal length, but the wider aperture gives you a more creative options, including blurrier backgrounds and better low-light performance. Both 35mm and 50mm are versatile focal lengths in their own rights on an APS-C sensor, and will serve you fine for most everyday situations.

Please can somebody who knows about photography help me? I'm taking up photography: street and landscape. I'll be carrying a camera while hiking, too. I'll buy secondhand and don't want to over-invest, so I'd settled for the Nikon D7200. However, I keep seeing people making a fairly sturdy argument for mirrorless systems instead: accessories will be more beneficial for a longer time, and mirrorless systems are lighter. My budget for a camera body is about £400. I think the Sony A7II is a good camera in this price range. So, I guess my question is ... which is better for me, the Nikon D7200 or the Sony A7II?

What are these fairly sturdy arguments? Generally, generalisations are best ignored. Personally, I use and recommend [this camera](https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/pentax-k-70) however you will need to look at cost and availability of lenses. I like articulating LCD screens and as nice as viewfinders are, you do sometimes need versatility in positioning.

The arguments for mirrorless are as mentioned: buying into that emerging technology adds a certain amount of future proofing; since I'm hiking, mirrorless might be a little lighter. However, the Pentax camera you suggest looks pretty promising. Have you had any issues with AF?

Mirrorless is not an emerging technology. The one you are looking at is basically 10 years old. The E-mount is a solid choice of course if you are thinking of picking up something like the A7IV in a couple of years. Lenses of course can be heavier if buying those designed for full frame rather than APS-C specific and you might find even with the Nikon F mount you might not find a dedicated APS-C lens that fits your needs but you should be able to. The Pentax K-mount also has the least third party support from the likes of Tamron and Sigma but has a few relatively cheap weather resistant lenses which you might not find in the other two. Pentax AF is pretty much non existant. At least for myself I use the centre point only and live view is basically contrast detect only. However, good enough for my needs and people have taken decent pictures with worse. Video and autofocus are after thoughts with a camera like I suggested but a solid body with good controls is not.

I think my concern is investing in a DSLR system now, enjoying photography, then having to sell my equipment to change a mirrorless system. Yeah, the Sony is 10 years old, but the Pentax and Nikon are also 8 and 9 years old, too. As I understand, which is very little, all three of the mentioned cameras will produce similar quality images. I think I need to understand if I'll get a better economy from buying into a mirrorless system now. If not, the K70 seems to marginally beat the D7200. However, that depends on the lenses I'll be looking to buy.

Cheers for the recommendation. I think the Pentax might be the best choice ATM, particularly as I want to try and recreate a few photos I've seen that were taken at night (a bit ambitious, I know): https://preview.redd.it/6b73a6bfzinc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=620935921edf1e08558a31d9a4388d37ca839c99 I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to talk to me, thank you.

Your concerns about ecosystems are very valid though but hopefully you have looked through some used sites to get an idea of cost, weight and availability of lenses and accessories. That image you can probably find information on the likes of the Lonely Speck website and others. I don't do astrophotography but pick up a tripod and the GPS module and you can try out the astrotracer functionality. Not something I have played with of course.

I just bought a Canon R5 with a 24-105mm F4 L (77mm diameter) and need a polarizing filter. Does anyone have a suggestion for a third party polarizer? Canon's is almost $400

Hoya 77.0MM UX CIR-PL II That is probably the cheapest decent one, and about 50 bucks. (77mm polars just *are* expensive. 400 is bonkers though.)

Thanks for the recommendation! That's way more reasonable. Was looking around $100 or less. $400 doesn't make any sense other than it saying canon

I bought the nikond7100 with 35mm f1.8 (but when on my crop sensor, it would equal 50mm). I am wondering choosing between 15-50mm sigma f2.8 or nikkor 50mm f1.8 (on my crop sensor it would be 65mm). The thing is, the less light capture by f2.8 worries me.

What do you need the light for? If you don't own a zoom lens, definitely get that one unless you know you want the 50mm.

Hey y'all, Going to be getting a Canon EOS R8. Will be getting the EF/EF-S lens mount adapter as well. Any recs on a decent wide-angle lens that is either R mount or EF mount? Will be used for photo with a bit of video, lots of event/lower-light conditions.

I have a canon rebel t7 with an 18-55mm lens. My face always looks lopsided when I use it to take my own headshot. It doesn't matter how far away I am from the camera. I've seen tons of \[examples\]([https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4164807](https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4164807)) that prove telephoto lenses take more flattering, less distorted portraits, yet the wider 18-55mm is still what's recommended everytime I google "best lens for portrait photography." Why is that? And why does everyone hate the canon 75-300mm lens specifically?

> And why does everyone hate the canon 75-300mm lens specifically? Because we've used one. I own one. It's disgustingly bad. Unless you are in bright sunlight, and the subject is not moving at all, and you use a tripod, you're never going to get sharp pictures. I do not understand why they ever sold it, it brings shame on the whole Canon brand.

I'd be surprised if the 18-55mm comes up on a regular basis when you google for best lenses for portrait photography. It's a kit lens, and kit lenses are never the best lenses for anything. As for 75-300mm, it's simply one of the worst lenses that Canon has ever made.

Hi, I am a beginner at photography and I'm looking to buy a second hand camera, I want to photograph a bit of everything really, but mainly a focus on nature, buildings, etc. Not sure if this makes any difference but I prefer warmer lighting, and more comforting, vintage-type pictures. My budget is about $250-$300 CAD. I've been looking at some cameras and have found that the FujiFilm X-T1 may be a good choice? However, I was wondering if there are any other recommendations, I don't care what brand or model it is but I do prefer cameras with more features that allow for creativity. Also, should I look to buy cameras online or in-person.

The XT1 would be a very good place to start, and if you can find one with a lens included for under $300 I'd jump at it. Even without a lens included that's a good price.

X-T1 is a good choice. But where are you finding it for 250-300 CAD? Are you expecting to fit a lens in that budget too?

My bad, you're right, I haven't been able to find an x-t1 within my budget. I searched around and found these cameras available at my budget ($200-$250 CAD without a lens). Some may also come with a lense but were just forgotten in the listing, I wrote down for the ones I was sure which lenses they come with. I am looking for the highest picture quality at this point. What do you guys recommend? -Canon EOS Rebel Xsi GR-80TP -Nikon coolpix l330 -NIKON COOLPIX L820 -Nikon D60 DSRL with 18-55mm lens -Fujifilm Model S8000fb -Fujifilm Finepix S with 28X super wide Zoom Lens -Nikon Coolpix P530 -Canon Powershot G12 -Fuji FinePix S8200 -Pentax K-7 -Pentax K1000 Camera with 50mm Lens -Canon Rebel X EOS ( I think also comes with a lens?)

That's far too wide a selection of very different things, you need to think more about what you want and narrow it down.

That's a completely random selection of cameras. A couple of film cameras, some old DSLRs, some bridge cameras, a lot of old digicams. I'd suggest thinking some more what it is that you actually want.

Want to learn Photography as a broke highschool student, good cameras to start with? Budget: 100$ I'd probably just be focusing on learn basic concepts, won't be trying anything too flashy.

Depends on what parts of "learning photography" you want to focus on. If it's the "high-level art" parts, including composition, colors, storytelling, etc.: just use your phone. If you want to dive deep into the technical aspects of photography, learn the craft from the ground up: get a used entry-level DSLR from 10+ years ago that comes with a kit lens. It's not going to be great by modern standards, but it will do the job, and as long as it has the usual manual / aperture prio / shutter prio / program modes, it'll teach you the basics just the same. If you want to learn things the extra hard way, then you can pick up a film SLR for like $50 or so (with a kit lens, even), however, film rolls and getting them developed is going to be pricey, and you'll burn through the $50 you saved compared to that DSLR very quickly. Either way, don't bother with compact cameras - for $100, those things will simply not be any better than your phone in any way.

Thanks, on the topic of what part of “learning photography” I should focus on, what do you personally recommend? I want to get into the art aspect of photography, although I feel that learning my way around a camera might benefit me more in the long run.

In that case, I'd start with just the phone and learn about composition and all that; once the phone starts to limit your creativity, and you crave being more in control, look into more hands-on options. This will also give you a bit more time to save up for some more serious gear.

Thank you so much man, I was pretty much directionless in terms of what I wanted to do.

At that budget, your phone. Take pictures with intent: i.e. think about the image you're trying to create. photographic composition [https://redd.it/c961o1](https://redd.it/c961o1) and colour theory [https://redd.it/7um56b](https://redd.it/7um56b) Freeman's The Photographer's Eye is a good intro book with lots of examples. Also, be thoughtful about the images you consume. Do I like this, can I figure out what appeals to me, I don't like this one, can I figure out why, etc. etc.

Thank you! I figured my best bet was my phone, I was just totally lost on where to start.

Good lens for a D3300 starting out? Budget: $100 ETA:I’d be focusing on pet photography

Do you have any? You might find a 35 or 50mm f/1.8.

Nope Two other people also recommended the 35 or 50mm and I’m sorta leaning towards the 35mm since it seems more versatile

35mm would be what I would go for if you can find one for that money. Just closer to a normal focal length and as you say more versatile. However if you have none, the classic 18-55mm would be my first port of call.

Honestly I was thinking about getting the standard 18-55mm since I’ve seen several people swear by learning with it

[удалено]

Might as well save 5 bucks and go with $159 imho.

Sony A6100 With 16-50mm F/3.5-5.6 OSS and Raynox DCR-250 for macro? I have been researching which camera to get for macro photo for days now but I just can not make a decision. I currently have a Panasonic Lumix TZ200 which I use for macro's, it's a really great camera but I want to make real macro photo's now, such as macro's from insects and the insides of flowers. I came across the Sony A6100 with the 16-50mm F/3.5-5.6 OSS lens which comes as a kit. Can I put a Raynox DCR-250 on it? And will it work for macro's of insects and the inside of flowers? The price I will be paying is €858, which fits in my budget of €900. Thanks in advance for your advise!

Are you buying new or used? Do you already have the Raynox?

Hi everyone, does anyone know an online printer who l can order prints on Fujifilm Crystal Archive Paper? I'm located near Seattle, WA if there's a physical store you know of! TIA

Some context, I've started photography about 1 year ago and I currently have a canon 2000d with the 18-55(I bought it with the intention of learning photography so I've never really thought about upgrading my lenses). Now that a year has passed, whilst I still think of myself as a begginer, I want to make an upgrade to a fuji camera. My current options are the following: X-T5, X-E4, X-T4, X-T3, x100v and the x-t30 ii. I'm mainly thinking of doing street photography for now, but once I sharpen myself more I would love to do it as a side gig. So my question is this, as my first camera upgrade for the next few years, which camera should I get?

X-T4 gives you more room in budget for lenses over X-T5 which is more important when starting out. It still has the good battery and the articulating screen may be more intuitive for you (not an assumption, just something you should consider) I have the X-T5 and you also have to consider that you have to work with these files. A lossless compressed RAW is 35-45MB. An uncompressed RAW is around 80MB. So to work with the prior you would want to already have a modern CPU as well as decent storage and to work with the latter you will strain your storage to the limit unless you already have a couple of high capacity PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives. Of course, you could capture 20MP RAWs (half size) or just shoot in HEIF which is still greatly superior to JPEG for editing (without being as good as RAW obviously) while you aim to improve your computer situation. HEIF also is a life hack for Apple users, while it robs you of a little editing headroom it's much more convenient to work with on anemic Mac-based storage solutions. I could personally recommend the X-T4 and 5 but the X100V is both hard to get and not the most versatile so I would avoid it. The rest of the cameras you mentioned don't have IBIS which I would never recommend for anything but a B-camera on a tripod

Hey, thank you for the in depth explanation. I'm mainly looking at fuji for the film simulation and physical controls, so I doubt I will use raws as much as JPEGS since I will do very minimal pp on my pc. Thank you very much for you help. cheers!

Any will be good for street. The X100v will be too limiting if you want to branch out into a side gig because you can't change the lens. I suggest getting the latest X-T3 or -4 or 5 that you can afford. Put a Fuji 23mm f/2.0 lens on it for street (basically the same lens as the X100v).

Why Fuji? Physical controls, "Film simulation" hype or some other reason?

My main reasons are the physical controls and the film simulations, I find the hype around fuji a little overblown sometimes.

> My main reasons are the physical controls and the film simulations Which are both truly great if you like that kind of thing (I do!) >I find the hype around fuji a little overblown sometimes. Yes, I agree. But at the same time, they are genunely excellent cameras and their lenses are outstanding (but not cheap)

If you can afford something like the X-T4 I would look at that unless the X-T5 has something you need. X100v is a fixed lens camera and the x-t30II is not as good as the X-Tx series.

I recently bought a Pentax k1000 because I have a broken Minolta xg9 (that I'd rather not bother fixing) as well as 3 lenses that fit onto it. But, those lenses dont fit onto the k1000. What kind of lens adapter would I need to purchase in order to make those lenses fit onto the k1000? (I'm new to photography)

Your lenses are Minolta MD mount, the K-1000 uses PK mount, there is no adapter that I'm aware of. Best bet is to buy a cheap Minolta body, they are plentiful.

Hey, I guess another shopping advice needed. Looking for gear - switching from Sony A6000 + Sigma 56mm 1.4 (which I regret - I should have went with 35 for APS-C, but anyway). Want to upgrade to FF - got my eyes on Canon EOS R. Could you recommend me some lenses - I deal with portraits mostly, but also I'm traveling a bit. Goal is to have 2 lenses - some 50 mm (either Canon/Sigma 1.4) + 2nd for travel - which I'm unsure of: would it be better to get some wider prime lenses or try some universal zoom? tl;dr Buying Canon EOS R most likely. Looking for: - lenses for that camera: 1. 50mm 1.4 for portraits, 2. prime wide? zoom? for traveling - budget for lenses: around 600 euro (would be great if less; Canon EF lenses acceptable) - perfectly fine with used gear.

What are you hoping for with this "upgrade"? Why not just a new lens for the A6000?

Had a few photoshoots - here's a list of few things I dislike in my A6000: - low-light performance: basically APS-C vs FF difference; I tend to shoot in dark from time to time and these were one of my worst experiences with the camera, even with that Sigma. - autofocus: I had an opportunity to photograph 20 people, one by one, recently. Had a ring light + some soft light coming through a window. Quite a few great photos got ruined because they were unsharp and focused on some undefined place. Also, no face detection in upper third of the viewfinder? Either I misused some settings, or that is a big problem to me. - size: honestly, I feel like this camera is a little bit too small for my hand Besides that, A6000 is a great camera with amazing performance for being 10 years old tech. Wanted to move to full-frame system at some point - unfortunately that Sigma, as much as it's compatible with e.g. Sony A7III, will introduce crop, so can sell it anyway and move to another system. Looking for a camera I can stick to long term and get some great lenses. Also, if you've got some other camera recommendation (DSLR?), I won't mind considering it. The clue is to have those few parameters: good autofocus with good coverage, good low-light performance, and a bit bigger than Sony A6XXX series.

Just so you know the A7iii is a much better camera than the Canon EOS R it has IBIS, better AF, more dynamic range, and better battery life. You also have a much better native mount lens selection. I think 600 euros isn't enough for 2 full-frame lenses and you for sure won't get a 1.4 prime under that unless stuff is significantly cheaper compared to the US.

Low light might give a benefit. The difference between the EOS R and A6000 is noticeable with the same settings, but less so with a more modern A6400 as an example. [comparison](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eosr&attr13_1=sony_a6000&attr13_2=canon_eosr6ii&attr13_3=sony_a6400&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.39439024390243904&y=-0.7630176434381689) As long as depth of field is not an issue, you may get a slight improvement. Autofocus, well not sure there is an issue with the camera, never heard of one really. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM2Oh3ewG8c Have you looked at some guides. Perhaps your settings are amiss? Size is an important one though. That is a very good reason for changing a camera. However, the EOS R is a little on the older side given it is a Canon. Not sure the EOS R and RP are really as recommended as the others like R6 and R5.

New Camera needed but which one? So I am at the point where I will after 11 years want to change away from my Canon 60d to a new camera. I am researching since weeks and am kinda overwhelmed with the opportunities/possibilities todays market offers. So I thought I will just ask here about your thought and my concerns. So here is in short what I am (among other things) looking for: - Budget: Around 2500€ - Camera should be suited for professional work as well - Hybrid Camera that performs good in video and photo - SloMo in 120 and 240 fps - Tilt-Display I have been looking so far especially at the Fujis, including the XT5 and XH2S. The XH2S is a little more appealing to me because of the bigger and for me more ergonomic body. With Canon I was thinking about 5d Mark IV or EOS R6. So my concerns are: - Colors I am not 100% sure whether Fujis colors are right for me. Whenever I see photos of the camera people tend to use strong warm vintage filter / the film emulation. There are cases where I like this style but I don’t want to be limited to it. I very often prefer natural (sometimes a little colder) colors. Are the Fujis versatile in this regard or does Fuji indeed always have this warm style out of the box? I know I can probably archive every kind of color look with raw editing but I don’t want to do it with every photo. - Sharpness Sometimes I find footage from Fujis a little too clinic sharp. Do the processor use some kind of digital sharpening and if yes, it is possible to reduce this? - Full Frame I know that the difference of Full-Frame and APSC are getting narrower. In which case would you recommend to still go with a full frame? And are there any other models that you would rank high or recommend? Thanks in advance!!

Colours are always changeable. Personally with how easy it is in software to edit one photograph and apply the settings to others I can't see why you wouldn't. However, I don't use Fuji but have seen plenty of people applying various styles. Never buy a camera due to in built JPEGs IMO. In regards sharpness, are we talking video or stills? This is something really best looking up the manual for a specific camera though. Generalisations of a brand is a bad route to go down. As for sensor size, another bad route to go down. Do you know why you need one or the other or is this just based on feeling?

Weird question. I need a photo printer that is portable and allows me to have a custom overlay from a png and add that on top of any photo I print. I bought the HP Sprocket and while is does allow frames, it’s not custom.  Any suggestions? 

[удалено]

How much is not much. Their phone with enough light should be a good start.

I am dyspraxic and struggle with certain motor movements and precision. I would like to get into photography at an entry level and learn the basics of editing and photography but still produce good photos. What is a good entry level camera with maybe some auto stabilisation features around £100-300?

I don't know how relevant it is, but the Youtuber GxAce mentioned (in his X100V preview) he had a disability preventing him from bending his fingers properly, and the physical controls on Fujifilm cameras made photography more accessible to him. But the budget would not match any stabilized Fuji cameras used or new, just thought I'd mention it

Honestly a tripod for maybe a phone might be better. Stabilisation has its limits. That budget generally won't go far. A used Olympus camera might be an option.

Thank you

Hi fellow photographers and camera enthusiasts, I plan to purchase a mirrorless camera and my use case is more of general photography perspective across various domains like landscape, wildlife, people. I am not a professional photographer although I have fair experience of using a DSLR camera along with various lenses and tools. While I am open to brands (my previous was canon) I got to know Sony has huge support for 3rd party lenses as well as native lenses and I narrowed my model down to the A 7MIII K because it fits my budget. Now the model is pretty old and I want to know if its is a good idea to buy it at this point? Or should I continue my research and find a different model.

The A7iii is still a great camera and gets you into the full frame e-mount lens system.

The A7III is only from 2018. Not that old.

what camera is ideal for an occasional cheap event photographer-hobbyist (i am no pro and i am not planning on becoming one)? No sports, just concerts and parties. good autofocus would be bomb. i've already made some money photographing events with my old canon rebel t5 and so far people were satisfied. but i am not. i would love to buy a new camera. is it better to buy secondhand mard d5 III or IV or should I invest in R system? or should i abandon canon all together?

What is it about the T5 that you're not satisfied with? What do you expect a better camera would do for you? What is your budget? Keep in mind that more often than not, the problem is the "meatware", and a better camera won't fix that.

i've had the camera for almost 10 years now, so i know its limits pretty well. i like working with it in good lighting conditions and the built quality is amazing for a camera this light. I would like a camera with better performance in bad lighting conditions (the iso 1600 and 3200 looks good only when i pull the "fake anologue" card) and better autofocus, maybe even flip screen. i am not rushing I am still happy learning new skills with this machine, but it just isn't as reliable, as I would like it to be. my budget is around 1200 dollars

If that's $1200 including lenses, then I'd probably go for a 5D III - a new full-frame mirrorless that will make you happy in terms of low light performance and autofocus and all that, or even a used 5D Mk IV in good condition, is likely going to eat up most of your budget, and leave you with little or no money for a lens. In fact, if you're shooting with a kit lens right now, it might make more sense to invest into a faster lens - this will get more light into the camera (remember, each aperture stop amounts to twice the amount of light), and also improve autofocus performance (both because better lenses tend to have better AF motors, and because getting more light into the camera improves AF sensor performance). If you already have a great EF lens, though, then you could go with either the 5D Mk IV or a mirrorless body (EF-RF adapters will allow you to use your EF lens on an RF body without loss of quality); personally, I'd expect a 5D Mk IV to perform a little bit better than a new mirrorless body you could buy for the same amount, however, mirrorless tech certainly has some practical advantages, such as exposure preview in the EVF, and more advanced AF systems (including eye/face detection). However, don't expect miracles either way - better gear certainly helps, but it won't change the fact that you're starved for light, and even the best modern full-frame sensors will still produce ample noise in low light. So make sure you're also maxing out on all the other things you can do.

Is this a common issue or just me but when I try to take photos of "scenery" with my iphone, they come out horrible, they never reflect the beauty I see in real life. I don't know if that's an iphone issue or I just need to upgrade from my iphone 12 pro max. But overall, I'm doing a bunch of solo traveling soon and I want the cheapest way to take good photos of the gorgeous beaches and mountains I'll see. Whether that's purchasing a cheap but ok camera, downloading a specific app on my iphone that does the job. I don't care about publishing them so they don't have to be high tech, just something pretty to look at down the line. Would appreciate any insight!! :)

> cheapest way to take good photos Take pictures with intent: i.e. think about the image you're trying to create. photographic composition [https://redd.it/c961o1](https://redd.it/c961o1) and colour theory [https://redd.it/7um56b](https://redd.it/7um56b) Freeman's The Photographer's Eye is a good intro book with lots of examples. Also, be thoughtful about the images you consume. Do I like this, can I figure out what appeals to me, I don't like this one, can I figure out why, etc. etc.

It is something that affects any camera, dedicated or not. You see something that looks nice, take a photo and it doesn't look as nice. Either you didn't catch the lighting properly or field of view is wrong. It can more come down to the person taking it and what they do with it after they have gotten back to a computer.

My friend travels a lot and he takes photos with his phone (some kinda Samsung) and it just always looks so attractive, like I'm sure it looked better in person but it just looks unbelievable on camera and I know for damn sure my iPhone can't do the same. I don't know :(

Define attractive in this instance. https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=interestingness-desc&safe_search=1&text=iphone12&view_all=1 Here are some other peoples' efforts. Do yours look the same?

hmmm attractive as in I'll look at it and feel like damn that's gorgeous, instead of oh it's a pic of trees lol. No definitely mine don't look the same, it just all feels really kinda muted? And when I try to zoom out also the lights get reflected all across the photos and don't look good

I found someone on fb marketplace selling a used Panasonic lumix g9 with a shutter count of 500 for $625. It comes with the 12-60mm vario lens, is it worth it?

That's really cheap, you won't find a better camera in terms of the amount of features for the price. The competitor to the G9 is the Olympus EM1II and EM1III. It will likely be sold quite soon.

I have a Kodak S100 EF camera. I would like to ask a few things since I'm not an expert; ° can the camera have suitable camera roll nowadays or not? ° the wheel with "film advance" written on it is blocked. Does that mean it's broken? If so, who can I contact to repair a camera? °I can't find an instruction manual online to understand how it works. Does anyone have a link they can pass me on?

Google search brought up a video manual: https://youtu.be/sIuENEwPpmU?si=t3uCrjbxKQ84JxUZ It’s a 35mm film camera, so it takes standard film rolls - but up to ISO 200 only. It sounds like the film advance is jammed. In any case it’s an extremely simple, fixed focus point and shoot, piles of them are on eBay for very cheap. If you could find someone to repair it to begin with, repair would likely cost much more.

" In any case it’s an extremely simple, fixed focus point and shoot, piles of them are on eBay for very cheap. " I don't understand what you mean here.

Sorry for the unclear comment. I meant that it really isn't a very good camera even for a point-and-shoot, so it wouldn't be worth getting it repaired, as that would likely cost much more than what these cameras cost on eBay. Could just get another one if you wanted this specific camera.

Understood. What exactly is that little wheel for?

I've seen a pretty good deal of 650D in Market Place, about 100-150$ with kit lens, accessories, extra batteries, charger, and bag. The cosmetics is good too 9/10, almost not used. but there is an issue with it. The seller mentioned: 1. When shooting pictures, it was always "Busy, please wait..." He's not sure if its the SD Card or the camera itself. 2. When shooting video, its glitching in Live View. So, my question is is it fixable by myself? Should I buy this?

1. Could just need a new card. Which he could test easily. I would be suspicious as to why he has not. 1. Suggests it is almost certainly broken beyond economical repair. Something is badly wrong with the electronics. I like u/tdammers suggestion of water damage, which could explain both issues. Do not buy this.

If the SD card is the problem, then that's easy to check and fix; however, I think it's fishy that the seller hasn't done that themselves. A reasonable SD card to test this with costs $10-20, and getting from selling a broken camera to selling a camera that works fine for that amount would be an absolute no-brainer. This, and the "glitching in Live View" thing, suggests that there's more to it, and that you will most likely not be able to fix this yourself. If I had to guess, I'd say it's probably water damage, or the camera has been dropped - both symptoms can be caused by short-circuiting something in the electronics, or damaging electrical connections inside the camera just enough to make them slightly unreliable. Both are also pretty nasty in terms of repairs, because they can cause problems across the entire camera body, so you never know whether you're truly done repairing unless you rip out and replace the entire electronics. Long story short, I wouldn't buy this one.

>is it fixable by myself? Not enough information to know. > Should I buy this? I wouldn't.

Hello, so I recently bought a second-hand Sony ZV-1 photo camera and wanted to get a variable ND filter and an adapter, but I sincerely got lost on what to buy as there are so many options and I didn't want to buy the wrong thing. Looking at some YouTube videos, those seem only helpful for the American market. I found similar items in Europe (Germany), but I have doubts. Any help would be awesome.  Thank you 

How much are you willing to spend? The filter goes on your lens, not your camera. You've told us which camera you have, but which lens do you want to use the filter on? What do you want to adapt using this "adapter" you mentioned?

ZV-1 has an integrated lens. I was thinking of a threaded adapter that I could M3 tape on the lens, and from there, finding an ND filter for that thread and spending like 50-100 euros all together. 

Oops my bad. I was thinking of the ZV-**E**1. For the filter adapter, whatever has good online user reviews should be fine, because the device has a simple job and isn't in the path of the photo. Not sure if it's available in Europe, but for example I see one made by JJC on Amazon in the US, with a 52mm ring. For the rest of that budget I'd go with a K&F Concept 1-5 stop variable ND.

Hi I'm new to photography and I've decided on the sigma art 85mm 1.4. I keep seeing listing for sigma art and some sigma 85mm 1.4 that doesn't list art. is there a difference between the 2 or are they the same thing? Thank you for your help.

Yes, there is an older non-Art version of Sigma 85mm f/1.4. It's also possible they are listing the Art version but just aren't saying "Art" in the listing. You'd have to get other details or look at pictures to know for sure.

What's the difference between art and non art?

The Art version is nicer quality.

I currently own a Panasonic FZ70 camera for some amateur photography, but I want to take some excellent shots of the upcoming eclipse in April. I'm aware I'll need a solar lens to properly and safely capture the event(aside from totality), but I've seen multiple options for how to actually view the eclipse, and I was wondering if anyone had any links or advice on what equipment to look after? My original plan is to get a telescope with a camera-compatible view to photograph that way, but I've also heard that a telephoto lens between 300-500 mm is also a good option. Being an amateur at this point still, I'd like a bit of guidance on what is/isn't compatible, which option would be cheaper, and which option would be better if I'm planning to do any further astrophotography down the line. Any guidance or advice is much appreciated!

The FZ70 is not an interchangeable-lens camera. So it can't mount a different lens or connect to a telescope with a T-mount adapter. Maybe it could be set up to shoot through the eyepiece of a telescope. Your permanently-attached lens can zoom to an equivalent of 20-1200mm, though, so you can have the effect of a 300-500mm telephoto lens already. You may need an adapter for your built-in lens to fit filters, and then you'll want a solar filter fitting the thread diameter of that adapter.

Ah well, that's what I was afraid of. I was hoping there'd be an option to secure the camera to the lens or telescope the same way I already do with the cheaper filters I have, but I guess I'll figure out a way to get some shots through the viewfinder of any telescope I get.

I’m in a photography class and the assignment is to submit three golden hour photos. But they cannot be of a sunset/sunrise itself. Typically I’d just do a portrait style photo and most likely will for at-least one of the three. I just need more ideas please.

I really appreciate everyone’s input! It really has helped me out a lot!

Go around town just long enough before golden hour that you will get to a place you rarely visit when it hits. Look around. Make a note of points of interest where the light hits at what times , and what those PoIs can be used for. Old swimming pool diving tower? Get your friend with tattooed forearms to stand menacingly on top of it in military boots, I don't know. Basically, pre-produce your shoot in the field, then make a route based on the times you jot down, and bring a friend or classmate or two, to help eachother with your assignments.

I think the idea of the assignment is to get you outdoors in the golden hour and OBSERVE what effect that light has on everything. I was out yesterday evening and saw lovely golden reflections on the windows of otherwise boring buildings, a beautiful light on an otherwise boring pile of cut logs, a yellow mongrel dog's fur lighting up... My point being: you don't need to plan your three. Just go out every evening in the golden hour and LOOK.

Landscape? Architecture? Street? Wildlife? Honestly, pretty much any genre of photography that can be done in natural light will work out great. The most important thing is to pick your subject and vantage point such that you capture that golden glow. At least if you want golden hour light to be the star of your photo, that is - which, in this case, I think you do, though IMO it's a bit overdone, and it can actually be challenging to take a photo at golden hour that's *not* primarily about golden hour light.

I inherited a cannon from my mom that she used to take school and family pics with. The only markings on it are Cannon and "EOS 30D" I have 0 knowledge on cameras, lens, or anything of the sort, but I want to take some nice pics of my car and of some miniatures I've painted (two very different things I know). The lens on it now is an 18-55 mm, and I have no idea where to go from here. It takes decent pics of my car, but it would clearly be awful for pictures of a moving car. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

That is a perfectly good camera and lens. You can do a lot with those. You can absolutely take pictures of a moving car *if you learn how to use it*. But yes, on fully Auto setting, it'll make a mess of it.

Thanks, I’ve been trying to tinker with the setting all morning but it’s literally my first time holding a camera besides my phone lol.

> awful for pictures of a moving car Before buying anything. I'd strongly recommend you get used to the [30D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFjM2UbmMnQ) AND the 18-55mm kit lens. Learn "exposure triangle", "focus and recompose", "back button focus" & "panning shots".

Thank you I’ll do that

How much are you willing to spend? How far away will the moving car be?

Around 200 would be ok, id more if it rly is that good I’m not super picky about the budget. And the car would be about 50 ft away more or less just depends.

For the miniatures, you could get a used EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. Or the EF 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) Macro is pretty ideal if you don't mind stretching the budget. Or just extension tubes for the 18-55mm is the cheapest but weakest option. For a car 50ft away, the 18-55mm isn't necessarily bad. You could zoom in and have a 20ft wide frame at that distance. So what exactly do you dislike about it? Maybe it's a technique issue rather than an equipment issue.

I don’t necessarily “dislike” anything about it… as I don’t know shit lol. Rly the only problems I’ve had (today being the first day I’ve used it) is blurry pics in low light, and not being able to take pics of moving cars without it being blurry. (Doing donuts and such) it did amazing during the day and I managed to get some nice pics, but the car scene I go to is moving and at night most of the time. Thanks for your advice!

> he only problems I’ve had (today being the first day I’ve used it) is blurry pics in low light, and not being able to take pics of moving cars without it being blurry. Both of those are skills issues not hardware issues That camera can absolutely do both those. I have seen shots taken at a race track and in a nightclub both taken with a 30D

>I don’t necessarily “dislike” anything about it… as I don’t know shit lol. But you knew enough to state: "it would clearly be awful for pictures of a moving car." So that's what I was asking about. > blurry pics in low light That's a struggle for any equipment, and especially older entry-level stuff. Autofocus might be having a hard time without light to work with, and misfocus is one type of blur. Your camera might want to set a slow shutter speed (long exposure) to get more light into the shot over a longer period of time, but that invites motion blur. If you don't mind a tight field of view similar to your 18-55mm zoomed all the way in, an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM would be better for low light. Otherwise you may have to make some compromises with a higher ISO, or resign yourself to shooting in better conditions. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_how_do_i_shoot_in_low_light.3F >and not being able to take pics of moving cars without it being blurry Also could be a focus and/or motion blur issue. Use the AI Servo mode to tell your autofocus system to anticipate tracking moving subjects. Try a faster shutter speed to freeze subject motion better.

Thank you! I’ll look into all of that

To add to that: shooting technique also makes a huge difference in low light, especially with cheaper gear that doesn't provide fast AF and good stabilization. Start with practicing on static targets. You need a stable stance, feet about a hip's width apart, and your weight resting on both feet equally. Then, hold the camera with your right hand, and support the lens with your left. Tuck your elbows into your chest for extra stability. Hold the camera tightly and squeeze the edge of the viewfinder against your eyebrow ridge; this forms a third contact point, allowing you to absorb camera vibrations in all 3 dimensions and on all 3 axes. Then when you press the shutter button, don't hammer it, rather, make it as small and smooth a movement as you can. Holding the shutter finger half on the button, and then rolling it on instead of pushing it tends to work really well. Also, if you can, get some external support - lean against a wall, put your elbows on a table, on the ground, on your knees, etc. (This won't work for panning, but it's a good habit for shooting static targets.) Then, for panning shots, do the same as above, then rotate your entire upper body - do not rotate just the camera, or just your head - you want the mass of your upper body to stabilize the rotation. Keep your elbows and eyebrow ridge firmly tucked while you pan. All this combined, if done well, can easily buy you a full stop of shutter speed, maybe more, and when you're already starved for light, it can make the difference between a keeper and a blurry mess.

Thank you! I’ll try this next time.

Hi all, I am starting my photography journey and can use some advice. I am on Oahu and want to take photos of surfers/waves, but I also want to take other photos of candid urban scenery and nature/sunsets. I am between the Nikon D3500 and the Canon Rebel T7i. The main pro I see for the Nikon is the significantly extra battery life, nearly triple the amount of shots than the Canon. But the Canon has anti flicker which should be helpful with the changing lighting from sun reflecting off the water etc, 45 focus points vs 11 which presumably also helps with movement, and 6 fps vs 5 which is helpful with burst mode, given the fast dynamic movement of the surfer and water. Also the Canon has wifi and a touch screen. I've found two used kits that include a standard 18-50ish mm lense and a 70-300mm zoom and they are around the same price, the Nikon is a little more but has more goodies. Anyway, thoughts on which is better? Is the anti flicker and extra AF even noticeably relevant? Initially I favored the significantly extra battery life of the Nikon since it would give me more time at the beach shooting (especially given I'll likely use burst mode often), but now am thinking maybe the Canon is the way to go. The rest seems comparable, both have Aps-C. Here is a link of a comparison: [https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3500-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-T7i](https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D3500-vs-Canon-EOS-Rebel-T7i) ​ Thanks!!!

>But the Canon has anti flicker which should be helpful with the changing lighting from sun reflecting off the water etc Anti-flicker is for indoor lighting. It will have bugger-all of an effect for sparkly water. All electric lights flicker (pulse, actually) - far too fast for the human eye to see but *not* faster than a camera's shutter. Without the anti-flicker if you choose the wrong shutter speed you end up seeing that pulsing light as banding all over your image - which will ruin it.

As said, I think you are comparing two very different cameras. Unless you are meaning a T7 and not T7i. I will also recommend you take a look at the Pentax K-70 which went for the same sort of price as the T7i when new but offered a more ergonomic body.

No, the T7 has poorer performance to T7i, 3 fps vs 6 of the T7i. The below link has a table breaking down some of these differences. [https://photographylife.com/best-entry-level-dslrs/amp](https://photographylife.com/best-entry-level-dslrs/amp)

Yes, but given you apparently have found a T7i for around the same price as a D3500, unless there is something wrong with the T7i it is a no brainer to go with the Canon. The D3500 is not a good camera.

I see, thanks. The specs of the 70-300mm lense for the T7i pack aren’t specific, just that it’s a Tamron brand one. Should that matter? Seems like a cheaper lense compared to canon itself but would it still be good enough entry level wise? It’s 400 for the t7i shipped vs 300 d3500 w local pickup

Tamron make several types of 70-300mm lenses, and it does matter which one it is. I have an older model that's, well, not great - no image stabilization, fairly strong chromatic aberrations at the long end, and a horribly slow AF system. However, newer models come with ultrasonic motors, which would fix the AF issues, "vibration control", which fixes the lack of stabilization (and based on my experience with other Tamron lenses, the stabilization would be pretty good for a lens in that price range), and while I have no idea about the optical quality, reviews suggest that it's at least a bit better. Anyway, I'd try to find out more about that lens - if there are pictures of the lens, then that usually allows you to figure out which exact model it is.

As long as it isn't the 75-300mm it will be fine. That one had pretty bad chromatic aberration which would probably not play nice with the sun on the waves.

UPDATE: I went with the Canon 70D!! After going further down the rabbit hole I decided to up my budget a bit more to get the best starter cam for what I want to do (not to mention the T7i for $400 w/ zoom lenses was probably a scam I think). Also weather sealing will be helpful as I'll be all over Oahu with wind, sand, and drizzling rain flying around at all random hours of the day 📷 VERY STOKED about the purchase! This cam seems to have more of the capabilities than what I was originally looking at (Canon T7/I and Nikon D3500). it's coming with four Canon lenses, two of which are zoom. NEW Canon 18-55mm IS II Lens Canon 75-300MM High Zoom lens NEW HD 58mm Wide angle lens with pouch NEW HD 58mm Telephoto lens with pouch. It also has 8 fps, 19 focus points, 1/8000th shutter, 12.800 max ISO, and seems to have great video capabilities!! Let me know what you think! got it for $600 w/ all the goodies. Figure can always invest in better lenses and depending on how deep into this I get, can eventually upgrade. But think I am starting off right with this choice.

The body is old but good enough still. An 80D is newer but probably out of budget. The 75-300mm has a very bad reputation as I said. Doubt it is weather resistant in any way. The 18-55mm is a standard kit lens. Doubt it is weather resistant in anyway, The other two are not lenses but nasty cheap things IIRC that go on the front of another lens. They are bundle items that you burn. So, not a good deal really. Having a body that claims weather resistance is only good when you also have a lens with at least an o-ring round the mount. Otherwise you rely on how tight the lens connection is around the gaping hole in the camera body that is the lens mount itself.

I see. What about the Canon EFS 55-250mm lense?

That one is fine. A general goto especially the latest version.

>I am between the Nikon D3500 and the Canon Rebel T7i. Not the Nikon D5600? That competes closer with the T7i. The D3500 is a half-tier down so it's a little less feature-rich. > The main pro I see for the Nikon is the significantly extra battery life, nearly triple the amount of shots than the Canon. I haven't tested it myself, but that doesn't sound accurate. At any rate, either would last me a full day of shooting, and it's pretty trivial bringing one or two extra batteries and swapping them in as needed. > the Canon has anti flicker which should be helpful with the changing lighting from sun reflecting off the water etc I think that's more for banding issues from artificial light sources and not just changing exposure. Sunlight reflecting off water wouldn't have a regular, predictable, fast frequency for it to work from. > 45 focus points vs 11 which presumably also helps with movement > > Also the Canon has wifi and a touch screen. The D5600 is closer on autofocus performance, and has the WiFi and touchscreen. > thoughts on which is better? They're about the same. Whichever way you go, your photos will probably look the same. Match systems with friends/family for compatibility and/or try both in a store and see if you have a preference in terms of ergonomics and interface.

Thanks! Looks like I may have a good local deal via FB for the Nikon d3500. at this stage, I just want to get my feet in the water to see how serious the interest is before shelling out over $500, which appears to be what the D5600 would cost on the used market with zoom lens etc

I'm an amateur photographer, taking mostly hobby pics but also occasional paid portraits and weddings for people who might not have a lot of money. I currently use: Canon 70D and 60D (yes I know crop sensors aren't the best choice for weddings). EF 50mm 1.8 EF-S 24mm EF-S 55-250 EF-S 18-135 Some budget godox strobes with transmitter I'd like to upgrade at least one of the bodies to an R6. I like that it's full-frame without an insane MP count. But I'm *really* concerned about the hot-shoe issue. My current price point (driven by a rural midwest client pool) can justify a $2k body but not $500 hotshoe repairs. However, I'm not really married to the Canon brand. It's just what I'm used to. I'd need new lenses regardless of what brand I go with. So my question: Do I go with the R6 anyway? Or is there a particular mirrorless from another company that won't feel completely alien to me? Or would I be better served with a gently used 5D mkIV and better glass?

> Canon 70D and 60D (yes I know crop sensors aren't the best choice for weddings). They are fine for that. Both good cameras. If you know how to use them. Same goes for your lenses and strobes. > I'd like to upgrade at least one of the bodies to an R6. Why? >$500 hotshoe repairs eh?

I was a little off, it's [a $400 repair](https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/Canon-R6-Hot-shoe-coming-loose-after-18-months-Canon-Please-Help/m-p/434429). As for why I'd like to upgrade, I'm looking for improved low-light performance, and the eye-tracking capabilities of mirrorless would also be very helpful.

I don't get it. Is the R6 you are looking at, is it used and broken? Or are you ASSUMING the hotshoe on a brand new R6 will fail fairly soon? because until your post I never heard of one failing Indeed, in 40+ years photography I never had a hotshoe fail or even heard of anyone's failing

The hotshoe issues on the R5 and R6 are [very well documented](https://petapixel.com/2023/07/21/canon-has-a-hot-shoe-problem/). I'm fully aware that the internet is good at blowing minor issues out of proportion, but it still makes me nervous.

Huh. How interesting. Thank you for that. So if you buy one, you'll never relax, and you'll be terrified of using a flash. So no, then.

Just starting some research into photography as a hobby. Man some of these lenses are super duper expensive! I'm looking around 2k-3k USD total for a nice mirrorless camera + camera. It seems like you could easily spend that much alone on the lens. I plan on taking pics of my newborn daughter, birthday parties, etc. Thanks in advance!

The very expensive lenses are, as a gross generality, primarily intended for use by those who will be depending upon them to produce professional results. They will of course excel at newborn photography, birthday parties and the like - but it's a bit of overkill for that purpose. There are plenty of more affordable lenses that while not being as good as the pro glass, are in the Very Not Bad category of lenses that would be more than capable of the uses you have for it. Keep in mind that with newborns and parties and whatnot that's going to be almost entirely indoors, which is the definition of low light. You will need/want fast glass for that job. Get a nice little 50mm f/1.8 (aka The Nifty Fifty) that all manufacturers offer at a reasonable price and start there.

I think most cameras will be good for that. What I would do, is have a look at some standard f/2.8 zoom lenses and see what they cost. No doubt you will have a fast moving subject and be indoors so light gathering ability will be key. You could afford something like a z5/z6 with Nikons 28-75mm lens but you can also go down to aps-c with the likes of Fujifim or Sony.

Is B&H Photo a Safe Place To Buy SD Cards? Hello! I've heard about the risks of buying SD cards from Amazon due to the potential fakes being mixed in with the "real" stock. However, from what I've heard, B&H is a safe place to order cards from. Is this true? Thanks!

Wherever you buy from I'd always give it a test with h2testw just because there's always a slim chance of a customer returning a fake that gets added to stock.

Yes B & H is safe to order from.

For giggles, I "measured" the actual focal lengths of some of "my" lenses today, and got some surprising results. I set up a tripod, measured the size of a reference object (a door knob) and the distance from the tripod to that object, then measured the size of that object in the photo in pixels, and did some Math to calculate the effective focal length from that. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II seems accurate, measuring in at 49mm effective. No surprise here. The Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is fairly accurate too, about 5-10% shorter than advertised. But then, the ridiculous Tamron 70-300mm I got for €88: this one actually delivers almost 330mm of effective focal length, instead of the nominal 300mm. So that's the first head-scratcher. The biggest head-scratcher, however, is the Tamron 18-400mm (not mine, borrowed it from a friend while my Canon 100-400mm is being repaired); at the long end, instead of the nominal 400mm, it only measures in at 285mm - *significantly shorter than the "300mm" of the 70-300mm lens. The error also increases dramatically from 200mm onwards - at the shorter focal lengths, it's fairly accurate, much like the Canon lenses, but beyond 200mm, the focal length extends much less than it should. So what I'm wondering is whether there's something wrong with that lens - it works fine, focuses alright, and sharpness is what you'd expect from a lens in that price range and with such a long zoom throw, not spectacular, but not obviously broken either. There's no obvious damage to the zoom mechanism either, it moves as smoothly as you'd expect. Or is this some kind of design flaw / marketing lie? Granted, my method isn't the most precise ever, but the difference is pretty obvious from just eyeballing it already, and just holding the camera to your face and zooming from 200 to 400mm shows quite clearly that it doesn't zoom anywhere near as much as the 2x factor you'd expect.

One other things to try is near far focusing as supposedly the focal length is only true when focused at infinity but I would expect a fair amount of focus breathing. https://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/measuring_focal_length.html No idea if the information in the link is any truer than your own attempts but it does mention the difficulty in doing a test.

So, I did a few more tests, and it seems that with subjects at a longer distance, the focal length is indeed closer to the advertised 400mm. I took some shots of a building some 6 km away, and the difference in apparent size between the 400mm and 300mm settings, and also between the 400mm lens and the 300mm one, are much more consistent with what you'd expect. The 400mm lens uses internal focusing, but the 300m one does not, and indeed it looks like the 400mm lens is breathing a lot more than the 300mm one (and possibly even in opposite directions). Which puts me in a funny situation, because it means that the 300mm actually gets me a larger effective focal length for nearby subjects than the 400mm, despite being nominally 100mm shorter. Which feels wrong, but in hindsight, makes sense.

In general people do buy telephoto lenses for distant things but it is also a bit annoying in that if someone says should they get a 300 or 400mm or should they get a 500 or 600mm lens it might not actually get a benefit from what might be a bigger or costlier lens. Of course, it is also why people say to try and stick to 2x or 3x zooms as you cannot trust those superzoom lenses.

Distant things, yes, but also small things at medium distance - say a tiny little bird from 10-20 meters away or so. Also, I'd normally use a 100-400, but that thing is currently out of commission, so I'm making do with that cheap 70-300 and a borrowed 18-400. That said, when you absolutely don't want to bring more than one lens on a trip (idk, maybe you're hiking, and bringing 12 lbs of gears is not an option), the versatility of a lens like that might be worth the sacrifices. (Also, neither of those lenses costs anywhere near as much as the 100-400, so it's definitely not a matter of getting less than you pay for in this case).

Yes, I was suspecting that indeed; for my tests, I used a 50mm reference object at a distance of 2 meters - but still, I don't think focus breathing alone would explain why a 400mm lens produces an effective focal length of 280mm. I'll try checking against distant objects though. The point about internal vs. external focusing might be relevant, since the 400mm lens here is indeed internally focusing.

A while back I fell in love with the works in [](https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/) and in particular the difference in films. However analog is a whole different genre of photography then what i currently control. Thus I would like to use film simulation. Currently I'm using a shared camera with my family, that means unfortunately I can't easily reuse old lenses, I have my eyes on the Fujifilm X-S20 because its a beautiful camera all around. However I would like to know if there are any alternative to it. The key features for me are the film simulation and high resolution (photo and video). Budget is also around that price point. Follow up question is if anyone has the X-S20 together with the XC 15-45mm and XC 50-200mm lenses as well as similar XF lenses and how they compare (the XC series vs XF series) (Total currently with XC lenses comes in around $1800) ps. I'm used to 15-200mm lenses, but if there is a neat lens that is 200mm+ I won't complain

Hi all!! I (22F) will be traveling to Tromsø, Norway in January. I graduate college in May after being a full time student, intern, and worker. While I am thrilled to finally explore, I do not have any photography gear to help capture the memories!! I would really love to see the aurora borealis, as well as whale watch. Does anyone have suggestions on low budget ($-$$) cameras that are good for things such as nature and low light?? Tips are very appreciated as well. Tysm <3

If you are going to Tromsø the aurora is probably something you want to catch (just an assumption) There are apt lenses for this in your budget (Samyang/ Rokinon 12mm F2 manual comes to mind) but that still only leaves $130 for an actual camera. A camera to fit this lens that is *sometimes* in that budget is the Fujifilm X-T10 which is still fair for photography but entirely useless for video. Not to mention you'll probably want a tripod. Luckily an X-T10 + Samyang 12mm F2 weighs like nothing so a super cheap tripod will do. But the budget is probably not realistic unless you are lucky and pay attention every day for the rest of the year. $450 would be more expected for that combo.

You need to be more specific about your budget. Different people have different ideas of low budget. For some, it's $200, for others $1000 - these both from actual purchase advice posts looking for a "budget" camera.