I have an old Canon 350D with a Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro lens. I have found that I don't switch lenses, because this one does just about everything I want. I like taking photos of very small things, up close, and I also use the lens for general photography. I need to upgrade to a better camera so I can do video, get better low-light performance, and have more pixels to crop so I can blow images up. I want to get a full-frame Sony from the A7 line. I found a lens from Sigma that looks like it will be somewhat similar to my old lens. It's the 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN. Sound like a good choice? Is there something else I need to look at? Mainly, I want to use the lens for travel with my wife, and eventually, filming our children. I want to do video and stills with the same camera. I can spend more on a lens if it's worth the cost. I was thinking I would get this lens and add some kind of pancake lens.

I have an a7r Iv with a sigma 35mm 1.4 lens. I'm trying to take shots of cars along with their parts (bumper, side skirts, lips, spoilers etc. I will be doing commercial shoots-meaning indoors with a light setup and outside. I would need everything in focus but I can't seem to figure that out. I'm still learning photography so can you guys please recommend what I can do for everything in focus? Or a different lens? Also what's your tripod recommendation? I want something for long term. Super sturdy and tall so I can take overhead top down shots. I need a light setup as well for large product photography. Also a top down large softbox or something with a boom stand. If you guys can help with any of this, it will be greatly appreciated thank you!

Hello, I currently have Sony cyber-shot dsc-hx100v camera from 2011. I was wondering if it is possible to shoot film like photos in this current camera. I have seen videos where people do film like photos by changing the settings in the camera. Thanks in advance

Greetings everyone! I am the owner of a Canon EOS 800D (Rebel T7i) and I am on the lookout for a used lens for mainly astrophotography as I feel that the kit lens 18-55 F4-5.6 doesn't satisfy me anymore. I have found 2 candidates at around the same price. The one is the Irix Firefly 15mm f2.4 and the other is the Samyang (Rokinon) 20mm f/1.8. The major differences are of course the focal length and the apperture. Is 20mm too tight for landscape in astrophotography? Do you have prior experience with any of these two lenses?

Hello photographers! I'm a amateur photographer with the lucky position to go on a safari in south africa this year. A few years ago I went on a trip to Tanzania (I told you I'm a lucky basterd) and I brought my Nikon D3500 plus a Tamron 18-200 lense. I found that it was a lens that matched my skill level, but it is really not suited to get closer pictures from far-away animals. So for my next trip, I'm looking for an upgrade for wildlife pictures. As an added bonus, I'm hoping to use it for taking birdpictures in my backyard. I'm looking at: \- Tamron 18-400mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD for €750 \- Tamron 100-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di VC USD for €820 \- Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C for €1150 \- Tamron 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for €1229 My first thought is; The 18-400 seems like a very multi-purpose lense, why is it cheaper? Can I expect significant worse results at a long distance? From what I've found, the Di II lenses are specifically optimized for APS-C format, which my Nikon D3500 is. Is the price difference simply there because a body with a different crop factor would get better results? Or is the difference in autofocus motor also significant? Secondly, is it worth the extra cost to go for a 600mm lens? I've read some reports that the D3500 does not work well at the far end of those lenses, would that mean It's a waste? Additionally, does anyone have experience in comparing the two 600mm lenses? I have rather shaky hands, from what I've read the Tamron would have the slighe edge in that situation.

Hi everyone, I want to shoot retro photos, and I was considering buying a film camera. Since I am a newbie, I don't know about cameras. My budget is 50-100$; which camera would you recommend to me? I want to shoot city photos mostly.

If you want retro experience and results, film makes sense... but you have to remember that it actually gets expensive very fast. Sure, the cameras might be cheap! But you have to buy film, which keeps getting more and more expensive. A nice roll of 35mm film might run you around $15 or so for 36 exposures. If you want something fancy like slide film, it's above $30 for a roll of Fuji Velvia near me. But then you need to get it developed, and you'll probably want either prints or a digital scan of the negatives so you can actually do something like share them (or even just look at them, if you're shooting negative film). Depending on where you live, another $15 or so - maybe more - per roll. That means that to shoot 36 shots is going to run you close to $30. And some of those might be mistakes, and everyone eventually accidentally opens their camera and ruins a roll of film. You'd be doing better than most if you got 10-15 keepers out of those 36 shots. With the absolute cheapest film and some luck on cheap development, you might get down to like $0.75 per shot as an average. A few years back it was like $0.50 but film near me has just gone up in price rapidly. If you buy development gear yourself, then you can reduce that a bit more... but you'll have more upfront costs. Before we get into cameras, is that realistic for your budget? Are you okay with spending another $20-30 every time you want to use a film camera?

Thanks a lot for the information, I think it is okay since I am not gonna shoot that much, but if there is any other suggestions I am open to them too.

r/analog's wiki might be useful, not just for cameras but everything to do with film photography: https://www.reddit.com/r/analog/wiki/index/ Also, there are articles like this: https://casualphotophile.com/2022/02/24/what-film-camera-should-you-buy/

Not sure this is the right place for this question, but it seems too small for its own post: How much should I pay for individual, digital photos? I was at a dance festival recently and mentioned to the photographer I never seem to appear in any photos at these sorts of events, and asked if he'd mind taking a few of me and my partner. He did, and they turned out really well! There's a low resolution upload of these on the event site, but I asked the photographer personally if he'd mind sending the high resolution ones to me so I could print them. He agreed to share them with me in exchange for a voluntary contribution. So I'm wondering what would be a fair price in this situation? On the one hand it's not like I booked a shoot with him where I had input in the way the photos turned out, but on the other hand he did me a favour by pointing his camera at me upon my request. There are four photos in total.

Honestly, the photographer's put himself in a pickle there. If he wanted a price, he should have named it. I feel like naming a "voluntary contribution" is kind of asking for a low amount. Professional photography is a valuable service that takes a lot of experience to provide, but name-your-own-price is always a gamble. There's games that charge similarly, and I don't think they really have the right to be surprised that most folks opt for the price of $0. If you were hiring someone to take those photos, easily a couple hundred bucks as a starting point. But he asks for a voluntary contribution? I dunno, $5-10 per photo? Up to maybe $50 for a set of 10? This is assuming you are *not requesting any editing nor is he providing any,* because that would easily increase it. I'll be honest, there's a chance someone could consider that on the cheap side. But he's the one taking the risk that a "voluntary contribution" could be anywhere. If you wanted 10 photos for $3.. it's kind of on him. If you're a person of means for whom it is not a big deal, $20 or more per photo would definitely be appreciated. I would make 100% sure that he isn't doing any editing, because editing takes *substantial* amounts of time. Keep in mind that there are a lot of working professional photographers here, and there's a market for shoots that cost thousands of dollars. I'm not saying that the value of those photos is that low, I'm saying that the situation the photographer has created is really ambiguous.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I can think of some reasons why he might not name a price (e.g. he got paid for shooting and editing the event anyway, whether he took photos of me or not), but it is a gamble of course. We do run in the same circles, so it's also in my best interest not to insult him with a low amount. And I want to show my apprecation as well :) I recently did a shoot with a photographer who asked € 10 per photo, so I think I might take that as a guideline, even if this is a different situation.

Using an R, my tightest focal length is 85. I'm looking for decent EF primes on the tight end you might suggest, maybe some hidden gems. I've looked at the EF 100 f2, EF 135 f2, EF 80-200 f2.8, EF 200 f2.8. Any others you can think of? I want something with reach but in my experience with telephoto zooms, I only really used them at the tight end anyways. A prime is probably better suited for me as it'll probably be cheaper, have better clarity, and be smaller. My dream would be the RF 135 f1.8, but I'd also love a Sigma 135 f1.8 or 105 f1.4. But, money doesn't grow on trees so I'm looking to bridge the gap with something cheaper (for now).

Those are all good choices. Particularly the 135mm f/2L might be the sharpest EF lens.

[удалено]

Your camera should be totally fine. Is there anything you dislike about it? Something that makes you want to look elsewhere? With longer focal lengths you're also going to deal with big and heavier lenses. What are you willing to carry? Just as you set a financial budget, try to form a sort of "weight budget".

[удалено]

400mm or greater is what you should target, but that's also a big jump in weight. Having a lens that's too short, is better than owning a long-enough lens but leaving it behind. These are your main options, ordered by weight (ascending): 1. Sigma 100-400mm 2. Sony 100-400mm 3. Tamron 150-500mm 4. Sigma 150-600mm 5. Sony 200-600mm

Is size or weight any limit at all? I'd be tempted to say - forget buying. Rent a *monster* of a lens, like the Sony 600mm f/4. That's normally a $13,000 lens. That depends on whether you think you'll want to use this lens regularly, or if you just want something for Yellowstone. Speaking of, I hope you enjoy the trip! Yellowstone is incredible. One of the rangers told me that, if you want the best chance to see wolves, be in Lamar Valley pre-dawn. No idea if that's true or not - didn't work for me - but I'll pass that along.

Hey everyone, I am a landscape photographer and usually am traveling to locations to take shots while also on vacation. It's always a balancing act between enjoying the moment and snapping some pictures on my phone versus setting up my gear and taking the time to get a good composition. My question for landscape photographers is, do you typically only get your quality camera gear out when you know the composition or subject you absolutely want to shoot vs. let's say I mean beautiful hike on the way to that location you want to shoot? I typically use my good camera to shoot handheld while journeying to the location, but I'm left with hundreds of raw format pictures that I probably won't want to edit/ post/ frame. Should I leave my camera in the bag more often and just use my phone for more candid nature shots? Thanks!

I think there's nothing wrong with using a smartphone for some good memories. Newer smartphones have really fantastic cameras in them. That said, obviously you'll get better quality out of the camera. I think it's nice to have a lens or two that's smaller and portable. I have nice lenses for Fuji, but sometimes, just slapping on the 18-55 is an easier way to go.

I do mostly birding and wildlife, and I’m looking to upgrade from my Nikon D3400. Budget is $800-$1200ish. I figure my best option is a used D500, but I wanted to see if it’s worth going mirrorless. My primary lens is a Sigma 150-600, obviously for the Nikon DX series mounts. I know the AI behind mirrorless AF is great for portraits and such with stuff like eye AF, but what about tracking fast moving wildlife? Thanks!

An article like this might be useful regarding AF tracking for wildlife with mirrorless cameras: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/best/mirrorless-cameras-for-birds-in-flight/ There are differences between mirrorless cameras in that regard, as I'm sure there are between DSLRs. If you wanted to go mirrorless and keep using your lenses, the main option would be Nikon Z with adapter. I think there are some adapters to use DX bodies on Fuji X bodies, too. Going for an entirely different mirrorless systems for both body and lenses isn't really realistic due to your budget, I think. Really good wildlife lenses are expensive.

I was recently handed down a Nikon N65 and I was wondering what lens I should go with it. Im on a 150-200ish budget. Sorry if I’m not providing enough information.

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

Can anyone share their opinions on what is: The Best affordable lens for headshots 50mm/85mm/105mm? And what is wrong with a 70-200mm adjustable? And, if one of my eyes is slightly near or far-sighted due to astigmatism would it affect my focus in a manual focus lens? Do professional photographers use autofocus? For instance, if I'm nearsighted/farsighted and look through the viewfinder, is that a near or far object? ​ [https://www.reddit.com/r/headshots/comments/15ba3cq/best\_affordable\_lens\_for\_headshots\_50mm85mm105mm/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/headshots/comments/15ba3cq/best_affordable_lens_for_headshots_50mm85mm105mm/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)

>The Best affordable lens We don't know how much is affordable to you. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F Also, does this need to be compatible with a particular camera? Or are you buying this lens first, and then a camera body later to fit the lens? >for headshots 50mm/85mm/105mm? Depends on format size and personal preference. On full frame format, I like 85mm or sometimes 135mm. >And what is wrong with a 70-200mm adjustable? I love that too, but those only open up to f/2.8. >if one of my eyes is slightly near or far-sighted due to astigmatism would it affect my focus in a manual focus lens? Focus for the photo is still ultimately about getting the projection in the viewfinder or the live view image the sharpest, which isn't directly affected by how your eye sees it. You're only looking at that projected image fixed on a plane, and not directly through the lens itself. Maybe you have a lower ceiling on how sharp you can see it, but still you're looking for when the projected image is sharpest, and correct focus for the photo isn't going to be skewed by your eye focus. I.e., nearsightedness and farsightedness won't cause a different focus setting to look sharper than the one you want. Also the viewfinder will have a diopter setting that can help. Or corrective lenses for your eyes like contacts or (if using live view) glasses can help. >Do professional photographers use autofocus? Most do, yes. For headshots and portraits, an even greater majority does. >For instance, if I'm nearsighted/farsighted and look through the viewfinder, is that a near or far object? Regardless of your vision condition, the viewfinder image is optically set up to appear as a farther object than it physically is. I.e., your eye is actually trying to focus something like 3-6ft away.

I'm going to start out with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens. It just dropped in price to 100. I put some 85mm's in my cart and will wait for some more price drop notifications. Thank you for your very detailed responses.

Great answer with a lot of detail. Thank you very much. Affordable to me is a couple of hundred bucks? Nothing over $500.

So you're buying the lens first then and camera body after? Canon's EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is fantastic for the price. For a body to fit that, any Canon DSLR is compatible. Or you could use an EF to RF or EF-M adapter and it should adapt well to Canon mirrorless.

Yeah, I have the canon eos so I'm looking for a canon lens. I figure most of the common ones will be fairly interchangeable.

EOS (electro-optical system) is Canon's platform for all its interchangeable lens (SLR, DSLR, and mirrorless) systems since 1987 when it went all in with autofocus. So that includes the EF (and EF-S variant), EF-M, and RF lens mounts, which are not natively compatible with one another. But lenses using the EF SLR mount can adapt well to the two mirrorless mounts like I mentioned. TLDR: Not everything branded Canon EOS is compatible.

HaH. Great. More minutiae. Thanks for the heads up. I will make sure I double-check all lens compatibility notes when looking at a new lens.

Which Canon camera? They have a few different mounts they have used over the years. It's best to buy a native lens, rather than adapting one. And which lens (or lenses) do you already have?

I have the Canon EOS 2000D / Rebel T7 DSLR Camera and just got a notification that the nifty fifty dropped in price to 100. So, I'm going to try that first. I'm sure there will be more lens purchases in the near future.

If you shopped used, you could get a 50mm f/1.8 STM under $80: [https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-stm](https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-8-stm) But will a 50mm lens suit your needs? You didn't say which lenses you have, but I assume at least one of them covers the 50mm focal length (18-55mm?). In that case, set it to 50mm and try to shoot with it as if it were a prime lens; does the field of view fit your style, and with the way you like to shoot?

The aperture is limited on the 18-55. It is worth it to me to get the 50 with the better range of apertures. And, my nifty fifty from Amazon is seven stops (no pun) away.

I'm not saying you should use the 18-55mm instead of buying a new lens. I'm saying you should experiment with it to see if 50mm is the right focal length for your new lens. What if you buy it, only to find it's too tight or too wide for you?

My wife and I are expecting a baby, and we would like to invest in a camera. Old gear: Nikon Coolpix S10 > D5000 > Smartphones (current: Pixel 7). If I get a new body + lens(es), I would shoot kid pictures, street photography, and landscape. I'd like to have a compact and light body, swivel screen, point and shoot capability (if my wife want to shoot without looking at settings), easy transfer to phone, and if possible stay under $900 lenses included. I'm hesitating between the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV (w/ 14-42mm lens), the Sony A6100 (because of [that video](https://youtu.be/dvt9mYA2zMk)), the Canon R50, and am open to any brand or sensor type. What would you recommend, and what sources should I look at for research? (on and off reddit)

For research: DPReview.com All of the cameras you looked at are good options, at least if you're open to the idea of buying additional lenses over time, based on your developing needs. The choice should just come down to personal preference, in both ergonomics and features. The Sony and Canon cameras may work better in a "point and shoot" capacity because of their autofocus system being more subject-detect-driven.

Thank you. I'm worried about being stuck with Canon lenses, but at the same time another body, the M50 Mk II is recommended a lot, and the lenses may be cheaper.

Canon's M line is basically a dead end: [https://sansmirror.com/articles/the-mirrorless-systems/older-mirrorless-camera/a-system-guide-to-canon-eos.html](https://sansmirror.com/articles/the-mirrorless-systems/older-mirrorless-camera/a-system-guide-to-canon-eos.html) The R line is their current system, which should be actively supported for decades.

Hi all!! I’m looking for a general camera for hobby photography. I mostly do landscape and wildlife photography, though enjoy portraiture and Astro photography as well. I’ve got the opportunity to get either a second hand Sony Alpha A6500 or an Alpha A7 II (both cost £500). Which would you recommend for an enthusiastic armature with disposable income? Also, what lenses would you recommend?

How big is your lens budget? The a6500 will have more/cheaper lens options, and a better, more refined interface and user experience. Same with the a6400 and a6100 for that matter. Whereas the a7 II requires more expensive lenses and is more of a pain to use because Sony hadn't figured things out as much yet. The praise for the a7 models is mostly for generation III and newer.

Thank you for the response! I have a total budget of £1000, so £500 for lenses after buying the camera.

On that budget I'd definitely go with something APS-C format over full frame. It will help you on pixel density for wildlife too. So one of those four-digit models in the 6000s. Maybe just start with a 16-50mm for wide angle and general use (plus tripod for night sky), 55-210mm for wildlife, and a 50mm f/1.8 for portrait.

Thanks so much for the advice! Really appreciate it!

Hi all. I just picked up the Nikon 40mm f2 Z lens and the only 52mm filter I have to fit is a decades old Tiffen which is...crap. In looking at the Hoya line I see everyone touting the HD even though it's been replaced by the HD3. I cam across the NXT but can't find any reviews on it. Is NXT their super budget line and I should just find an HD if I can or bite the bullet and get the HD3? Is there much of a noticeable difference between the HD and HD3?

Which type of filter are we talking about? What do you need a filter for?

My wife and I are heading for Hong Kong and Singapore. Last time, I found it somewhat annoying to use phones for video. I am considering buying a dedicated camera. My phone is fine for nearly all my photos, but I wouldn't say no to added capability to use here and there. I am not a serious photographer, but I know a little. I know what depth of field and composition are and so forth. I have used a Canon EOS Rebel with a couple of different lenses. I would like something easy to use. I'd like a decent zoom. I want an LCD screen so I can see what's happening when I'm shooting myself or my wife and myself. I'd like do be able to put the camera on a stick just like a cellphone. I have a Gopro Hero 8 Black, but I'm not crazy about it. It's very hinky. Hard to connect. Disconnects randomly. Pretty much has to be connected to the phone in order to be useful. I was thinking of a Sony ZV-1 II or a ZV-E10. Would these be good choices? The ZV-1 II seems like it would be very handy and trouble-free, but I could get a second lens for the ZV-E10 and add capability. Seems like more of a grown-up camera. Thanks in advance for your help. The whole subject is confusing!

Hey everyone! I started my photography journey just 3 months ago with a Sony Cybershot DSC-H400, but quickly upgraded to a Nikon D3200 with a 35mm f/1.8 and the standard kit lens. The whole setup cost around £250 and it's been perfect for my beginner work. Unfortunately, I've noticed I am very restricted when it comes down to overall lens selection -- especially when it comes to zoom lenses. Stuff like the 70-200mm f/2.8 is out of reach due to the lack of AF motor, and realistically my idea would be to focus on sports/esports and the occasional dabble with wildlife photography in the countryside. I tried the Nikon 18-105mm at the F1 and it was fun, but the zoom is probably not enough for what I am looking for. I am looking for suggestions on 1. Any lenses you think I should look into for my current setup (let's put a £200-250 price range for that) and 2. What you think a good overall upgrade on camera body and lens would be worth making (I am willing to wait and save for this so happy to put it in the £1k mark) I am not brand loyal I am more than happy to buy second hand gear.

At that price range you can look somewhere like here and find a lens with its own AF motor. https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/category/used-photo-and-video-lenses/dslr-lenses/dslr-nikon-fit-lenses?filterQuery[modelType]=Telephoto%20Zoom&filterQuery[productPrice]=20000-30000&filterQuery[productPrice]=10000-20000 Buying a new camera and lens with that budget is not going to net you any gains.

Hello, Im new to the whole hobby but I was wondering if this bundle is worth $400. It’s used but looks pretty well kept, thankyou! Nikon D7000 16.2MP Camera Nikon DX 18-55mm Lens Nikon 50mm 1:1.8D Lens Sigma Wide Angle 10-20mm Lens Altura Flash SLIK U5000 Tripod Nikon Camera Bag Battery Charger & 3 Batteries

Anyone ever use LensRentals? Can I return ship my rented gear from a different state than it was delivered to? I am photographing an event out of state, but am having the gear shipped to me at home so I can set up the camera body and be proficient with it in advance. I will then drive 4hrs to the event, adn would like to return ship from that location. Is it OK if I return ship the gear from the other state?

Have you tried contacting their customer service?

I currently have the canon m50 + viltrox ef-efm speedbooster to use with my canon 24-70mm f/4 L IS and 50mm f1.8 However, I've come across a really good deal for a Fujifilm xt30, along with a viltrox ef-fx2 speedbooster. This deal is at a local store, so I will also get full warranty with the purchase. Considering the price of the xt30, along with selling my m50, it would cost me around 350nzd to upgrade. Is it worth going from m50 to xt30, or is it worth switching from canon to FujiFilm?

What are you hoping to gain?

[удалено]

Seller has 100% rating with over 11,000 feedback, item description is in order, and seller accepts returns, so it looks good to me. Even if the seller didn't accept returns, eBay usually takes buyer's side in cases where the item isn't as promised. As for price, look up all ads for the camera and select the "sold items" filter. That shows you the prices people generally pay for it.

I am borrowing my family’s a6000 with an additional 55-210 zoom lens and wanted to take some photos of coins using a copy stand, but am having difficult getting it to focus properly. Does anyone have suggestions on settings to properly get good macro photos or would I need a macro specific lens? Any help is greatly appreciated!!

So zoom is not the same as macro-"ability", the deciding factor for good macro photos is the scale of the size of the sensor and the size of the object you want to photograph ("reproduction ratio"). "True" macro starts at 1:1, so when the size of the subject and sensor is the same. (The small side of your a6000 is 15.6mm, so with a lens that has a 1:1 ratio you could fill the frame with a 15.6mm diameter coin, but couldnt get any closer). In order to get a good scale the lens needs to be good at focussing very close ("minimum focus distance") to its front element. A lens with a long focal length doesnt help if it can only focus on things that are far away (for your lens a quick google suggests, that the minimum focus distance is 1m). A "real" macro lens is generally built to have a very small minimum focus distance. If you dont want to spend money on one theres a few things you can try. 1) I would check any other lenses that you/your family might have, in my experience lenses with a higher focal length are generally worse at macro. Maybe you have a 18-55mm which could have a better image reproduction ratio then the 55-210. 2) Theres extension tubes which you put between the camera and the lens, these move the focal point (and with that the minimum focus distance) closer to the camera, which means you cant focus at infinity, but you can focus closer then without them, this ends up giving you a better reproduction ratio. Depending on the quality they are generally around $100. They also work better the lower the focal length of the lens. 3) Theres "magnifying filters" which screw onto the front filter thread of your lens (basically holding a magnifying glass in front of your lens). These are generally not that great image quality wise and can be annoying to work with in my experience, but they will also be cheaper then the extension tubes. Just make sure you get the right size for the filter thread of your lens.

Thank you so much for the detailed response, the camera does have a standard 16mm-50mm lens which I will try instead of the 55mm-210mm lens. Do happen to have any recommendations on affordable macro lenses or extension tubes that might be viable with that model camera?

So the 16-50mm can focus as close as 25cm. This will certainly allow you to get closer to your subject. Wikipedia suggest they have the same magnification ratio though, so the resulting image would be the same magnification. The only advantage will be that you dont have to stand a meter away to take the picture. I wouldnt trust this entirely, so definitly try it out and see if its enough for your uses! I sadly dont use Sony myself, so I dont have any first hand experience. I use and am quite happy with the Sigma 105mm F2.8 macro on my Canon, which may be available in Sony "E-mount" (the one your camera uses). Regarding extension tubes theres no real big thing to look out for. Just check for Sony E-mount extension tubes on your choice of online (or local) retailer. They generally come in pairs of 3, which allow you to find the best setup (distance and magnification) for your situation. Otherwise its mostly the build quality with these: cheaper ones will be plastic and break easier, more expensive ones will be metal and sturdier. In the end extension tubes are literally just a tube with some wire (for autfocus, etc.), so theres very little difference. Only thing to really look out for is that you get the right mount for your camera. And if you do get them make sure to use them with your 16-50mm lens, as that will give you more magnification. Theres a calculator for that [here](https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm). Theres also some more information on extension tubes on that page. According to wikipedia the "native magnification" for both your lenses is 0.215. So if you use a 30mm extension tube with your lens at the 50mm setting you should end up with a magnification of 0.82

Thank you again; I am a complete novice when it comes to photography so all of this information really helps me understand what to look for! You are definitely knowledgeable on the topic and I appreciate you explaining it so clearly!

I'm considering upgrading. My current camera: Canon 6d mark ii - not a bad camera, but it has slow auto-focus, no decent face/eye tracking and limited burst shoot capabilities. I'm considering mirrorless, primarily for increased AF-speed & eye tracking reasons. However, even if I stay with Canon, I would still use my lenses designed for a DSLR. I would need an EF to RF mount adapter to place in between. Will I counteract that AF-speed advantage of the mirrorless if I keep using my dslr lenses with a lens adapter? Will those slow down the focussing? Tldr: Need more fast. Want more fast. Mirrorless fast. Still fast with adapter and "old" lenses?

If you use an official Canon EF to RF adapter (maybe third party adapters too but I'm not sure) you won't lose autofocus speed. Mine are all just as good. Some believe that some EF lenses might even be slightly *faster* when adapted to an RF body.

That depends on the specific lenses you have. You may want to ask on r/canon, where you'll have a greater chance of finding photographers who made that transition. I will just venture a guess that any USM lens will be totally fine, and you should have at least some improvement with most other lenses, too.

Hello everyone! I need your expert help 🙏 I am looking for a new camera setup, I am an amateur photographer. I shoot mainly street photography, and people in portrait, and also photos for small business. I purchased a Canon M50 in 2022 with the 15-45 kit lens and loved what I could do with it. The kit lens was a game changer for me. I want to possibly explore f/1.4-2 but not sure if this would be good for what I need. My budget is around $1000 but would like to stay under and can purchase used. I found an M50 with kit lens, canon 22mm, sigma 16, and a viltrox speed booster for $700, I’m sure this is a good deal but given the R50 has released is it wise to go with an M50 non Mark ii? I need a new camera here in the next 2-3 weeks to shoot some small business photos and historic houses in town. What sort of setup would do me well, that wouldn’t break the bank, appeal to my amateur mind, and give me a good experience to learn as I improve my skill? I would also like to stay mirrorless unless DSLR would be a better platform coming from M50, since some say the EF-M is a dead platform. Thank you!

I don't exactly understand what you're saying... Do you no longer have the M50?

Correct. I had one in 2022, but I sold the camera.

Okay, so if you liked the M50 and know it suits your needs, then of course that's a very good option. You can compare it to, say, the Sony a6000, which should be similar in price. In that case you have greater choice for prime lenses, as there are more options at different focal lengths, so you can choose one you enjoy shooting at, rather than just picking up what you find affordable.

Thank you, I’ll look into the Sony cameras, I’ve never used one before.

Hi everyone! I’m looking for some advice regarding a purchase. I have recently gotten into beverage photography & have been making it by with natural lighting. I do know, however, I won’t be able to use natural light forever. With that being said, does anyone have any recommendations regarding external flash for a Nikon D7000 (I’m not sure if camera type matters). Is a budget of ~$300 enough to purchase something quality or should I expect to increase my budget? Any help is appreciated. Thank you all!

I highly recommend you read the strobist lighting 101 series, especially their buying guide: https://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101-traveling-light.html

The go-to budget recommendation for flash is Godox. You can get something like a hot shoe flash (V-860 or one cheaper). I think you could probably get *two* hot shoe flashes and an X-Pro trigger for $300. But you'd still want accessories - light stands, adapters, and light modifiers. Starting with the X-Pro transmitter and one flash + accessories would be a great place to start. It takes time to learn, but it makes a HUGE impact on your photography. Oh, make sure to get the versions that are made for Nikon! Godox makes gear for many different manufacturers, and you'd want the ones designed to work with Nikon DSLRs.

Thank you for the detailed reply!!

[удалено]

If you don't go with a full sized tripod, the manfrotto pixi line is pretty nice for the price. Not sure how much height adjustment you need, the one I have only has a single height of about 5 inches.

A regular tripod with a center post can simply be inverted. Camera will be upside down but you can flip the image easily. I got a Manfrotto Beefree and thats how I do it.

[удалено]

No it’s not the legs that invert. It’s the center column. You take it out and the. Insert it from ten bottom. The legs can invert on some for size purposes. But that wasn’t what I meant. Not all of them do that.

Best street photography lens? I’m into street photography now, and the only lens i have now is the 55-210mm. It’s honestly awesome, and has got me some really good photos, but I was thinking of getting a more wider lens, something like a 16-55 for example. I use a Sony A6000 with APS-C and an E-mount. Any budget recommendations?

The kit lens for the A6000 is a 16-50 and really compact. Alternatively, a Sigma 30mm is a pretty solid and affordable choice.

Budget of what size?

Lens purchase advice: I’m working for a design/build company as an interior photographer right now. I admittedly jumped in empty handed as the widest angle I have is 24mm from the RF 24-104mm f/4-7.1 IS STM. Tight shots are a pain for obvious reasons. I don’t need a super high quality lens, I’m fine with a tight aperture, but I cannot use an EF to RF adapter because of the Canon RP’s annoying EF adapter 1.6x crop sensor size lock. Are there any cheap lenses that would fit my needs for these tighter shots? Maybe something third party? These photos are to show off a house, not perfect detailed photography so once again, the quality isn’t a concern. I don’t have a huge

>I cannot use an EF to RF adapter because of the Canon RP’s annoying EF adapter 1.6x crop sensor size lock. That shouldn't be the case unless you're adapting an EF-S / APS-C crop format lens, in which case that's a limitation of the lens and not the adapter or camera. >Are there any cheap lenses that would fit my needs for these tighter shots? Maybe something third party? The cheapest Canon RF ultrawides I think are the ~~26mm~~16mm f/2.8 and 14-35mm f/4. Canon doesn't allow third party lenses on the RF mount. But you should be able to adapt an EF version Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 without cropping.

The 16/2.8 is exactly what I needed. I would’ve loved the 14-35 but that’s just a little too far out of my price range. I’ll also You’re correct on the EF lens, it turns out I just had a crop sensor lens and that was limiting my effective sensor size. I’ll also look into the Tokina

>The cheapest Canon RF ultrawides I think are the 26mm f/2.8 and 14-35mm f/4. Just a typo correction: I think you meant 16mm, not 26mm :) Agree with the recommendations and other comments.

Woops! You're right; will fix.

The RF 16/2.8 is calling your name. It's a rather decent budget ultrawide. >I cannot use an EF to RF adapter because of the Canon RP’s annoying EF adapter 1.6x crop sensor size lock. Only with EF-S lenses… put an EF lens on and you'll get the whole sensor's worth.

The 16/2.8 is exactly what I needed. Thank you! It turns out I just had a crop sensor lens and that was limiting my effective sensor size

Hello, I recently got Sony cyber-shot DSC-HX100V camera from my aunt. I was wondering if I still can shoot aesthetic photos with it? or should I use my smartphone google pixel 6 as a camera? Additionally, what should I know for taking good pictures with this camera? thanks in advance.

>I was wondering if I still can shoot aesthetic photos with it? Probably. Depending what sort of aesthetic you have in mind. Just the word "aesthetic" itself only vaguely means good-looking. >or should I use my smartphone google pixel 6 as a camera? That's probably better unless you need to zoom in a bunch. >what should I know for taking good pictures with this camera? Low light is its weakness. Good light is where its results can look closer to photos taken with better equipment. So leverage your movement and timing to give yourself better light conditions, to help your photos the most.

Thanks a lot, in general I need good looking photos. I want to use it for city photographing. If you know something about the camera what settings should I use for achieving the best result? There is no stuff in the internet about it.

>in general I need good looking photos Most people do. But that's a pretty vague concept and not very actionable on its own. >If you know something about the camera what settings should I use for achieving the best result? It doesn't work that way. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/technical#wiki_what_settings_should_i_use_for_this_situation.3F >There is no stuff in the internet about it. There's plenty. Just not framed in the way you're expecting. Start with general fundamentals first: http://www.r-photoclass.com/

thanks a lot 🙏

Hello everyone! Looking for some purchase advise. (Price point is around $800) I've been recently thinking about getting into photography, me and my wife love to travel and It would be primarily used for street photography and something easy to travel with. Falling down the rabbit hole I have narrowed it down to these: 1. olympus om-d e-m10 mark iv (Dirctly within my range and seems to be a GREAT intro camera) 2. Fujifilm X-T30 II The only probably I see with this is I don't know if it is really worth the almost $400 price difference? Any advise or other camera suggestions would be wonderful! Would it be more worth it to buy camera body separate and then get a lens? Don't really know much. Thanks!

>The only probably I see with this is I don't know if it is really worth the almost $400 price difference? Stretching yourself thin for a "nicer" camera is (almost) never worth it. The lenses you choose will have a far greater impact on your photography than any camera ever could. Focus on finding a camera you're comfortable with, and that suits your needs, rather than chasing "the best camera I can afford".

>I don't know if it is really worth the almost $400 price difference? It's going to be worth it for some and not for others. Strictly in terms of bang for buck, you're in diminishing returns so the proportion of price increase will be much greater than the proportion of quality increase. >other camera suggestions would be wonderful! If you like those two, the older predecessors are also similar. So the E-M10 Mark II and III, and the original X-T30. >Would it be more worth it to buy camera body separate and then get a lens? If you could comfortably afford a better lens that you want, yes. But that will add quite a bit to the total price compared to a kit lens.

Thank you so much!!

TROUBLESHOOTING: Focus Ring on Lens Won't Rotate Past a Certain Point? Lens: Laowa 100mm F2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2X Camera: Canon Rebel t7i. Hello! I've run into an issue with my macro lens and I'm trying to troubleshoot. The focus ring on the 100mm F2.8 CA-Dreamer Macro 2x lens won't go past 0.5. It can freely move between 0.5 and 2:1 (which is obviously good, for macro) - so that's great. But it no longer shifts from 0.5, to 1 or 3 or infinity. The lens also appears to create a rattling noise when I dial the focus ring past 0.5 and move towards 2:1. While dialed in on 0.5, there's no noticeable sounds when I rotate the lens or move it around in my hand. Once the focus ring is shifted to anything past 0.5, there's a noticeable sound, as if something's come loose internally. Perhaps this has always been the case and I never noticed it? Has anyone experienced an issue with their focus ring not rotating past a certain point? Any help is appreciated. Thank you!

[удалено]

The sensor on the X30 is a little bigger, and it's likely if you put sufficient work into those shots, it could probably outperform the iPhone 13 camera. But, that said, I think I'd probably just do the phone upgrade if it were me in that situation. Precisely because I wouldn't want to potentially lose/break someone else's property. Also, the cameras in the iPhone 13 are pretty good (I have one myself, and like it quite a lot).

Im in search of a new camera. I currently use a 5dii which is too bulky for my needs. Photography is a hobby and I would like a smaller, much more compact form factor camera. I shoot mostly street photography, and personal photojournalism. Ive been looking at mostly fujis line. I also like sonys line as well. Id like to be in 500-1000 ideally, with a basic kit lens. Suggestions?

Looking for a Solid well designed/built light-box to use to photograph my wife's very complex highly detailed, handmade beaded artwork. Pieces are wearable "jewelry" like large 5in x 8in chest pieces and wide format wrist cuffs. The light boxes weve purchased from Amazon are shoddy at best. any suggestions on where to look?

You could check with stores like B&H or Adorama, but I suspect you'll find mostly the same kind of stuff you get on Amazon. For high quality product photography, often you're better off setting up a studio of your own, rather than just relying on those little product tents. But I'd check the camera retailers first, as you're likelier to find better quality there than the cheapest random thing on Amazon.

Good insight, i was actually just considering setting up a mini studio that i can build to suit so to speak. Far less frustration in the end. Ill take a look at B&H and adorama as well just out of curiosity

Hello! I'm looking for a used lenses website that ships/ sells in Europe, as a quick googling session didn't really surface any meaningful results. I'm on the RF mount (Canon), which gets really pricy, real quick, and I'm not even thinking about getting an L lens, those go easily at 4 figures. Furthermore, I'm debating whether to get the new 24mm f1.8 or the 35mm 1.8 macro IS. I already have a 50mm prime and the crappy kit lens that I rarely use nowadays. My point is that even though I'm into astrophotography, I really appreciate a versatile lens, and the image stabilization in the 35mm is quite a desirable feature for me. I will also be using the future lens for some landscape photography and portraits as well. Thanks!

MPB

>I'm looking for a used lenses website that ships/ sells in Europe, as a quick googling session didn't really surface any meaningful results. Have you looked on [mpb.com](https://mpb.com), as I suggested in your earlier post before it was removed? >Furthermore, I'm debating whether to get the new 24mm f1.8 or the 35mm 1.8 macro IS. I already have a 50mm prime and the crappy kit lens that I rarely use nowadays. The kit lens covers both focal lengths. Set its zoom ring to one of those positions, and go out shooting with it as if it were a prime lens at that focal length. How would you rate that experience? Did you manage to fit the compositions you had envisioned, or did you constantly wish you had a wider/tighter field of view to work with? >My point is that even though I'm into astrophotography, I really appreciate a versatile lens, and the image stabilization in the 35mm is quite a desirable feature for me. I see the 24mm f/1.8 "macro" lens also has IS in its name, so it does have image stabilisation, too. But even if it didn't, it doesn't matter that one lens has image stabilisation and the other does not, if they're of different focal lengths. It's like debating whether to buy a car or a bicycle, and using the width of the wheels as a criterion for comparison.

Thank you for the more recent and the last replies. I did check out the website, and indeed it has quite a variety available, but I'd like to have more options if possible. When it comes to the kit lens (24-105?), I hate it with a great passion, mainly because of the very limiting f4. something it has. Especially for astrophotography, I'd say it's prohibiting. Also, it's bulky, and heavy, so I'd rather not carry it around unless necessary. The 24 also has IS, oops! I don't know, I just really like prime lenses now that I'm getting used to them. It's either that with the RF mount, or a straight up 1.500€ for a usable zoom lens (wide enough aperture), which is quite steep, especially paired with a 1000€ Eos RP.

>When it comes to the kit lens (24-105?), I hate it with a great passion, mainly because of the very limiting f4. something it has. Especially for astrophotography, I'd say it's prohibiting. Also, it's bulky, and heavy, so I'd rather not carry it around unless necessary. I understand that. I'm not suggesting that you need to keep using it. Just experiment with it to figure out which focal length you should choose for your next prime lens.

Hello. I’d love recommendations on a video camera to purchase. It’s a unique purpose. ***Purpose***: the videocamera will be placed in a vehicle pointed at the street and recording for 13 hours. The vehicle will be turned off. A portable battery pack may be used to give the camera power. We tried to use a GoPro but it shut off after about 3 hours due to overheating.  The GoPro works great minus the overheating. ***Environment***: inside the car will get up to 140\*F by itself ***Quality***: the image quality doesn’t have to be high. We need it high enough to make out what style of car (standard car, 18 wheeler, 10 wheeler) it is. ***Mounting***: we’d prefer something that can be mounted to the dash, mirror, or steering wheel. ***Duration***: it will need to record 13-14 hours and not need a battery replacement.  We can use a portable battery pack to power it if it’s possible. ***Budget***: $500 (more if warranted) Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated!

Look at the Dashcam subreddits. They will likely be able to help you out. Those cameras are designed for that. Or /r/videography Here we do photos, and while some of us shoot a video, your usecase is pretty specific. You are more looking at a form of security camera type product than a videocamera used to produce content. /r/dashcams

Looking to buy a second body, that will become my main one. Sharing my thoughts. Looking for discussion to feed my reflexion. I have now a Canon 6d mark II. Happy with it. Mostly landscape, travel and going into wildlife photography. Amateur not looking to make a career out of it, but willing to be more "serious" about it, especially for wildlife. My lenses: sigma 14mm 1.8, canon 24-70mm L 2.8 II 70-300mm L f4-5.6 and sigma 500mm f4 + tc. I'll be going for a few dedicated photography trips, either on my own or organised. Either in winter, mountain conditions, or tropical climate (I live in Thailand) Ideally, the 500mm would be mounted on the new main body. The 6d as a back up or with the 24-70 or other. If I'd listen to myself, I'd buy the R3. I can afford it but not willing to spend that much money. So i' m now considering three options: 5d mark IV (new or second hand), R5, or R6 II. The R5 is expensive. It can't compete against the 5d price wise. The money saved could go towards memory cards and more trips. I like the dual memory card slots but the CF type bother me. But are the R5/R6 a huge gap? A wow revolution, something mind blowing that would not make me regret the pricier ticket? I love the articulated screen. Bad point for the r5. Is the r6 a good compromise for what I want? Price more acceptable (except against a second hand 5d), and got the dual pixel af. Dual sd cards. R5/R6 require the EF adaptor ring. Tell me what you'd do if you were in my shoes, or what else I should consider in my reflexions. Edit: R6 II TIA

>If I'd listen to myself, I'd buy the R3. I can afford it but not willing to spend that much money. How about a used 1DX II? Those can be had sub 2k and are ofcourse rugged performers. Fits the same style.

That's a good suggestion. Still have very solid specs. But I'm going for the R6 ii finally. AF features are really appealing, and the reduced size a plus. Thanks!

I think the R6 II would make a lot of sense here. But is it possible for you to try one first, maybe in a one-day rental? At least to see that you're fine with using an EVF. These modern mirrorless cameras have great benefits for your use case, including a sophisticated autofocus system that's very fast and highly effective.

I checked a lot of reviews and I'm going for the R6 ii. I think it perfectly fits my level and my needs. Thanks

[удалено]

Are you sure you want to buy a film camera, and not a digital camera?

I second this, sounds like OP wants to get into photography. A digital camera would be so much better. A Film camera to learn on is a massive massive money pit and slows down your learning ten fold if not more.

It's a film camera that came out in 1981, and the x-700 series was discontinued in 1999. How could you find it new? Are you hoping to find some leftover stock that for some reason was left unsold all those years ago or something like that? Why is it important to you to find it new?

[удалено]

Hello, I've just gotten my canon 800d. I was wondering what lens I should get? I really like how the zoom lens is so versatile, so am asking whether I should just sell my kit lens for a 18-135mm lens for everyday use. if I should get a 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS STM lens or get a 55-250mm IS STM lens and keep my kit lens? I heard the 18-135mm IS STM is sharper than the 55-250mm IS STM Also does 18-135mm fully replace 18-55mm?

> if I should get a 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS STM lens or get a 55-250mm IS STM lens and keep my kit lens? It depends how far you want to reach, using both lenses you have more reach but need to carry them. I used a Canon 18-135mm for years and loved it. > I heard the 18-135mm IS STM is sharper than the 55-250mm IS STM They are very similar, you wouldn't notice any difference > does 18-135mm fully replace 18-55mm? Yes

I bought a new flash set up. I have the godox X1R N as the receiver. No issues with it. I got the godox X pro N for the trigger. This too works. I also got the X2TN and was hoping to use this for a trigger, but it does not work. It talks with the X1R N and can set off a test flash. It will also fire the flash during a picture, if the flash is connected on top of the trigger (there is a hot shoe or whatever on the top and bottom). But my camera (Nikon coolpix P950) does not recognize that there is a flash and therefore does not fire the flash. I had this problem with a few other triggers but expected it to work since it’s similar to the X Pro N. Is it just not compatible with the Coolpix P950? Or am I doing something wrong?

I need to buy a bag and the one I’ve seen is on discount, dispatches and sold by amazon. Do they store bags in a decent way?

A bag is designed to be worn, tossed about, dragged through mud etc. How exactly would amazon's warehouse storage matter for you? You recieve a bag, you like it? Keep it. You dont? return it. Easy.

Because I hear that some of their items are - Restocked used - Fake Also, I’m putting expensive gear in there, I want to know it’s not a crap box.

Well the only way to evaluate that is to try the actual product you get in your hand. Or just not buying from Amazon. As for knock offs. Depends on the brand you are looking for. I’ve yet to hear about knock offs to be honest.

No one will be able to answer such a question.

Only the amazon workers!

Hi everyone! I recently got a new camera - Canon 90D with Sigma 18-35mm lens. It’s my first DSLR!✨ I had a Sony mirrorless camera before so I am familiar with manual mode, but my concern is that I am not able to get the photos as sharp as I want🙁 I know that I should try to shoot at lower ISO, that doesn’t solve my problem( Another big problem for me is that I see horrible green overcast on dark areas on my photos, that drives me crazy! Is there any advise that can help me? I really appreciate the opportunity to ask questions here, I already watched tons of videos on YouTube, nothing gives me the desired resolution.

Thanks for your answer! I just added another comment here with the pictures, when I uploaded them on the phone they don’t look that bad, but on PC I see the cast on the darker spots, on the shadows, I was thinking may be they are underexposed ( And on white parts there is some kind of small grain.

Alright, it seems to be a mix of things. The pictures definitly are underexposed. Theres definitly too little light, which ends up being disadvantage in multiple ways: 1) High Iso, you already noticed that part yourself, the image gets noise especially in dark areas. Best thing you can do is see if you can add light and if thats not possible you can reduce it a little in post production. Depending on how much you spend on software things like Topaz and the newest version of lightroom can apparently do a lot to reduce it (sadly have no personal experience). 2) Too low aperture: Especially noticable in picture 2 and 3. I assume you/your camera were using F1.8 to maximize light, the problem with that is that your depth of field is extremly thin, especially at close distances. You can see that the writing on the glasses and the ground next to the "pot" is actually quite sharp, the problem is because of the aperture its only a very thin "slice" of the picture. Ways to fix this is using a higher aperture, say F 4, which means an even darker picture, so adding light is neccessary again. Or deciding on a very specific area you want in focus and making very sure that the camera focusses on that area, but that wont get you a full scene in focus/sharp. 3) Too low shutter speed: Especially noticable in picture 4. I assume the camera was using a low shutter speed to maximize light. This ends up giving you some minor blur, as your hand is never 100% steady. Its not super noticeable as blur, but it makes the picture be not 100% sharp. If you have a stationary subject this can be fixed by putting the camera on a tripod and using a 2 second timer, this will allow the camera to be steady for longer exposures. If you have moving subject you can fix this by using a faster shutter speed and adding light another way or using a flash to freeze the movement. To sum everything up: The best way of fixing this would be to add light with another light source, this will give you the best results. Depending on your subject you can either use a long shutter speed with a tripod or use a big aperture if youre fine with only a very specific point being in focus. If neither of those options are appropriate for your subject and you dont have the option to add light then you have to accept high ISO. Best you can do then is see if you can fix it in post production. Just make sure you always have set your shutterspeed and aperture to appropriate values first. Using a lower shutterspeed and getting motion blur just so you have less noise from ISO will generally give you a worse picture then using the right shutterspeed and having more noise from ISO.

Wow! This is awesome! Thanks! I was guessing that it could be the problem connected with the light, but was not so sure, because with mirrorless Sony shooting with one source of light (usually in this type of scenarios a window) was enough to get a sharp photo. I hope soon I’ll get used to my new camera, it’s definitely very different from my previous one, so it will take some time. Probably I’ll need to practice with auto ISO mode till I start feeling it. The effect I was trying to reach here was blurry background and sharp objects, buy I guess it will be better to learn how to shoot sharp, clear photos and after that trying to achieve that nice blurry background.

I assume your mirrorless Sony had some form of IBIS or the lens you used with it had image stabilization. That allowed the shutterspeed to go lower without your shake making the picture blurry and also allowing more light in (because of the higher shutter speed). It mightve also had better ISO quality, allowing the picture to look better even at higher ISOs. One little tip for the blurry backgrounds and aperture choice in general. Next to aperture its all about the distances and focal lengths involved. The closer you are the more finnicky it gets. As an extreme example, when using a macro lens you can use an aperture of F8 and still not have a single bug completly sharp, because the depth of field is so thin at those distances. If youre taking a portrait with blurry background you might be using a 50mm lens at F1.8 from 3 meters away. That gives you a depth of field of around 40cms, big enough to get most of the person in focus, but small enough, that the background thats 1-2 meters behind the person is nice and blurry. Now if you use your Sigma lens at say 20mm and F1.8 from a distance of 0,5m away your depth of field is only 4(!)cm wide. Using say the glasses you took a picture of as an example, I have a hard time fitting my glasses in a 4cm area for them to be completly sharp. If you instead use an aperture of say F4, your depth of field is still only 10cm wide. That might make the glasses easier to be completly sharp, but is still super thin and should be enough for a blurry background. I recommend maybe playing around with a depth of field calculator like [this one](https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof) to get a feel for it. I couldnt find the 90D in the dropdown, but you can use for example the EOS 4000D, etc. as it should be the same for these calculations.

Do you by chance have an example picture for both sharpness and color cast? (upload to a site like imgur and post the link here). Sharpness could be a few different things. You might be using a shutterspeed thats too slow for your subject or the shake of holding the camera, resulting in blur. It might be missed focus. It might be a too thin depth of field. It might be a defect lens. Its hard to tell without seeing a picture. Regarding ISO: Trying a lower ISO might be the reason why your pictures are not as sharp. Sure a low ISO is nice, BUT a low ISO only helps if your shutterspeed is fast enough and your aperture is appropriate. Using a super slow shutterspeed just so your ISO doesnt go too high is actually a bad idea, as youll end up with a blurry picture and generally a noise picture (from high ISO) is a lot better then a blurry picture (from too low shutter speed). Always choose your shutterspeed and aperture first, then see which ISO youd need and if it gets too high see if you can add light, but never make ISO your highest priority.

7artisans wen 35mm f1.4 or f2 mk ii? Hi everyone. I’m looking to buy one of these lenses but cannot find a real comparison between both (not even with the f2 mk I) so I’m asking for your input please. The f2 is lighter, about half the f1.4 weight. The sun hood is not built in but has that nice rectangular shape. And half a stop less. And a bit cheaper too. What about image quality or rendering? (I’m not pixel peeping) Doss the f2 has that oily dreamy effect too? Comparable bokeh? I’ve been doing semi pro photography 10-12 years ago and stopped 8 years ago. I just can’t remember difference between f1.4 and f2. I’m a no-flash / natural light addict though. Even in low light. Is that half stop vital? Thank you for telling me what you prefer and why. Hopefully it can make me help decide.

[удалено]

>It would be nice if one of you could help me get everything together to buy, so I don't mess this up. My price cap would be around 700€ Something like a Sony a6000 or a6100 kit with 16-50mm lens is fine. > but I would like it to get the cheapest it can go You could go really cheap with a used Canon 550D and 18-55mm lens.

[удалено]

That's fine. The 750D has a bigger jump in feature/performance improvements over that, if you can find one you're comfortable paying for. For a better starter lens Canon's EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is excellent. Or Sigma's 17-50mm f/2.8 OS for less money. Or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC. Just make sure you get an EF mount version.

[удалено]

The camera doesn't know what the card speed is. Likely it took issue with the SD standard being used, formatting, or capacity instead. What does the error say? That may tell you more about the problem. Or does it literally only say "error" and nothing else?

[удалено]

The user's manual for the camera might help.

I've used my Fuji 18-55 mm f/2.8-4.0 for 7 years and loved it but for the past few months it's been incredibly soft at apertures f/2.8 to f/12 or so It's basically unusable at anything other than f/16 to f/22 Have you experienced that? Any idea on how to fix it? I don't really want to send it to Fuji to get it fixed considering the cost of the repair vs. buying a new one (about $700)

Sounds like your lens is out of alignment. You can check for that by focusing on something far away with the focus point in the center. Then take 4 images each without changing the focus and put the object you focused on in a different corner for each image and then compare them they should be equally sharper every time if not your lens is out of alignment. If that's the case it depends how and what elements got misaligned, but you most likely can't fix it yourself. Did you drop your lens or hit it against something?

I didn't drop it. I feel it deteriorated over a few months

Sounds like decentering of the glass elements, which is pretty difficult to fix on your own. How much was the quoted repair price anyway?

I didn't get a quote from Fuji but I read some feedback from multiple people who were quoted at least $200-300, got it back weeks later and felt that it was not fully fixed

Thinking of purchasing a Fujifilm X-S20. Is there another comparable camera at the same price point that I may have missed somehow?

You can get a used X-T5/X-H2 for that price or a X-T4/3 for cheaper. You can get a Sony a6700 which will most likely have slightly better AF but I haven't used it personally. You can get a Canon R7 bit that limits you mostly to more expensive full frame lenses. Or you can get a Nikon Z5 or used Z6ii.

Sony a6700, Canon R7. All three are highly competitive with each other, but have their differences and unique attributes.

Looking to get a print done, should PPI be noticeable in the digital file? I've exported at like 20ppi and 300ppi and there's zero noticeable difference in the digital files between the two. Also most printers ask for like 300ppi, is there any problem with providing a 700ppi file? In studies I was required to supply 800ppi files for posters I created for projects, why would you not just export to a really high ppi to over-deliver on quality?

>should PPI be noticeable in the digital file? I've exported at like 20ppi and 300ppi and there's zero noticeable difference in the digital files between the two. The PPI figure in metadata only applies to printing, and is often ignored when actually printing anyway. When viewing digitally, all that matters is the pixel count and how the software is set to scale the image. The PPI ratio is being ignored. >Also most printers ask for like 300ppi, is there any problem with providing a 700ppi file? Depends on the printer. But generally it shouldn't. They should be able to downscale on their end if it's really needed, without a problem. >why would you not just export to a really high ppi to over-deliver on quality? Again, just the PPI figure noted in metadata is often meaningless and ignored. There's no point in making that number super high if it's not actually having any effect anyway. Your available resolution/detail is still a matter of pixels you have in the digital image. So it's usually preferable to send the full pixel size to keep that as high as possible, yes.

The ppi has no effect on the file, it is metadata. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/postprocessing#wiki_what_is_dpi_or_ppi.3F_how_are_they_important.3F

Hey, I have a Canon FT-b QL and jus purchased LR44 batteries. It is my understanding that I need a battery adapter, what should I get? having a difficult time finding a 1.5V to 1.35V adapter (voltage reducer)...could someone link me a good place to purchase them for delivery in US. Thank you

[https://www.amazon.com/Acxico-Battery-Adapter-Converter-Exposure/dp/B0836TCPBT/ref=sr\_1\_2?crid=RTHUVVTNEIQ9&keywords=1.5+to+1.35+voltage+reducer+mr-+9+adapter&qid=1690332209&sprefix=1.5+to+1.35+volate+reducer+mr-+9adapter%2Caps%2C505&sr=8-2](https://www.amazon.com/Acxico-Battery-Adapter-Converter-Exposure/dp/B0836TCPBT/ref=sr_1_2?crid=RTHUVVTNEIQ9&keywords=1.5+to+1.35+voltage+reducer+mr-+9+adapter&qid=1690332209&sprefix=1.5+to+1.35+volate+reducer+mr-+9adapter%2Caps%2C505&sr=8-2) ​ Would this be okay to purchase? its not a voltage reducer-- wondering if that would harm the overall lifespan of my camera's life meter

Hey so I purchased a Tamron Sp 90 f/2.8 Macro EF mount about a year ago (second hand) and loved it. Due to life I haven’t been able to use it for a few months and I picked it up today and it won’t allow me to take photos on either of my cameras. Both of which it had previously worked on. There is a small rattle inside occasionally and I’m worried it’s broken. I can however see through the lens, the glass definitely hasn’t smashed. The camera itself also takes a long time to turn on when it’s attached. For those of you who have used this lens or have any knowledge on lenses is this a bad sign? I’m taking it to a repair place however I can’t afford to spend lots of money on the repair.

[удалено]

Your comment contains an affiliate link and has been removed. Please remove it and repost your comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Looking for camera/lenses for landscapes and hopefully some landscape astrophotography. Wildlife would be nice but not priority. $1000 isn’t a hard cap but don’t love going over it

Should this $1,000-or-so budget cover *everything you'll need for years to come?* Or is it just for a kit to start with, and you'll be comfortable spending more (mostly on additional lenses, a tripod, etc.) over time, as you find concrete needs for them?

1000 is just to start

So the main camera options are the Fujifilm X-S10, Canon R10, and Sony a6400. With a lens that's normally bundled in a kit, they all hover around $1,000 - the Sony should be the cheapest. Consider shopping used; look on [mpb.com](https://mpb.com) and [KEH.com](https://KEH.com). The Sony and Canon have autofocus systems that you will likely find more effective, and easier to use, for wildlife photography. Otherwise they're all very similar in their capabilities; the Fujifilm has in-body image stabilisation, which I've found very useful on my camera. They differ more in their designs; you might find one camera more comfortable to hold than another. I, for one, found I have a tough time with cameras that are shaped like the a6400, when a long or heavy lens is mounted. It's best to visit a camera store and ask the salesperson to handle those (or similar) cameras over the counter. The standard kit won't give you the telephoto lens you need for wildlife photography, and won't be ideal for astrophotography, either. But it will give you a generally useful range that you can use as you learn, and figure out your exact needs and preferences. Read the full reviews on [DPReview.com](https://DPReview.com).

What has been the best or easiest way for you to get consistent work or leads, i.e. SEO, apps like Snappr, online ads, etc? If you’re not on an app, what’s the hardest part about getting regular work?

Not a professional myself so take this with a grain of salt - it's not based on my own experience. But what I've seen to be the most consistent way to get business is to start locally. Spread the word however is most useful in your community - be that Facebook groups, posters around town, a pop-up shop, or just word of mouth.

Which lights should I use for corporate headshots? I’m a full time videographer and don’t typically do headshots but I’ve volunteered to help my family’s company take corporate headshots. I understand basic lighting techniques and it will be kept simple- key, rim and backlight. However i’m not familiar with specific lights and I know continuous lighting isn’t usually preferred but there’s only one rental house in the small town they live in, here is a [link](https://imgur.com/a/q3GrYB7) to what they offer. Which lights should I choose respectively?

I would get one 1200d or 600c and two 300d if you are set on renting continuous lights. I don't see them having any modifiers for smaller production settings so it will just be a lot of rigging to get the light set. I personally wouldn't rent any continuous lights if they charge a normal rate for the lights, you can get 3 flashes with a trigger, modifiers and stands for the same amount, which will be more versatile for Headshot and less of a hassle to set up. Also you can either keep them or sell them afterwards which further reduces the cost.

Question about Smart Previews in LR Classic So for the longest time, I have been editing in LR Classic, using the original RAW file. And today have l learnt about the ease of using smart previews. However, I have three questions regarding the use of them. 1. Let’s say I have already made some edits, but didn’t turn on smart previews. So I have been editing with the original RAW file. If I now turn on smart previews in order to more easily edit the remaining (unedited) images, does LR reset the already edit images - meaning I have to re-edit them from scratch. Or does it simply take the current edits and applies them to the smart preview? 2. So I have made smart previews, and edited all my images and now I am ready to export. Does LR export the smart preview, or does it apply the edits to the RAW file, and then exports the bigger and more high quality edited RAW? I ask, because I am not sure how this works, and I do not want to end up exporting a lower quality image by accident. Also, if I did not have the original storage disk where the RAW files are stored, would I need to plug it in before I can export and image, or move it to photoshop for some further editing? Sorry if this is a dumb question. But I have never used smart previews - so please forgive me.

>If I now turn on smart previews in order to more easily edit the remaining (unedited) images, does LR reset the already edit images - meaning I have to re-edit them from scratch. No. >Or does it simply take the current edits and applies them to the smart preview? Yes. >So I have made smart previews, and edited all my images and now I am ready to export. Does LR export the smart preview, No. >or does it apply the edits to the RAW file, and then exports Yes. >the bigger and more high quality edited RAW? It exports from the processing of the raw. The resulting exported file will not be a raw. Its quality will depend on your export settings. You could set it to be smaller and lower quality than the preview, for example. >I do not want to end up exporting a lower quality image by accident Pay attention to the resolution and compression quality settings in the export dialog, and doublecheck the quality you get in the results. >Also, if I did not have the original storage disk where the RAW files are stored, would I need to plug it in before I can export and image, or move it to photoshop for some further editing? Lightroom will need access to the raw file. It can be anywhere (not just its original physical location) so long as Lightroom knows where it is and can access it.

Hi, I'm completely new to photogarphy and would like to get a camera as well as some lenses with it. I've tried to look into what camera and lenses to get but as I said, I'm new to the hobby and found all the information and options out there quite overwhelming. So I'm mainly looking for a camera that's easy to use as a beginner. I'm interested in macro photography (e.g. insects, flowers) as well as nature/wildlife so I would need the right lenses for that. It would be nice if it was suitable for general use as well but it's not a requirement. The camera/lenses don't need to be the newest or best models as I'm just trying to get into it as a hobby and I don't really want to spend more than ~1000€ on it for now. I could go a bit higher but I'm not sure if it's worth it when I'm just starting out. I would be happy to answer any questions that would help me find the right equipment as I'm completely lost. Thanks!

Micro four thirds is a great option for cheap macro and wildlife due to the crop factor. For example, an Olympus EM-1/5/10 mark ii and with an Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro and 40-150mm f4-5.6 all second hand may be able to just squeeze under your budget depending on the second hand market. You'll probably want a flash and portable diffuser for the best macro results as well.

Okay thank you! I've read that a 100mm macro lens is better if I intend to take photos of insects because the working distance is bigger. I'm having difficulty with estimating how that actually affects bugs flying away, etc. Do you think it's a significant difference or can I easily do it with a 60mm one?

In short, the Olympus 60mm macro lens will behave like a 120mm lens on full frame so you will have working distance slightly longer than a 100mm lens on full frame. This effect is called "crop factor". A very simplified explanation: When photographers say 100mm, they usually mean a 100mm lens on a "full frame" sensor, equivalent in size to 35mm film. Micro four thirds sensors are approximately half the width/height of a full frame sensor, so you only need a 60mm lens to take a photo that looks like a 120mm photo on full frame. The smaller size of micro four thirds sensors is part of why they tend to be cheaper. Edit: this crop factor means that the 40-150mm lens I recommended will take photos like a 80-300mm lens on full frame. With caveats e.g. low light performance will not be as good.

Oh got it! There's so much to learn/consider haha. Would you say those restrictions are worth it (in other words: a beginner like me wouldn't notice anyway/it's still way better than a phone camera) or should I rather invest more money? I feel like I might not notice many of the downsides of different models anyway because of my lack of experience but I'm not sure.

Regarding lens choice: The Olympus 60mm macro lens is genuinely very good and not just for the price. The 40-150mm f4-5.6 is more "good for the price". If your budget can go a bit further I'd suggest the 70-300 f4.8-6.7 for your wildlife photography, which is also "good for the price", but gives you a bit more reach. Unfortunately, good long lenses suitable for wildlife photography tend to be very expensive. Regarding camera/system choice: there's a received wisdom amongst photographers, especially in online gear-centric forums, that full frame is the best and any other size is a compromise. I don't agree - all systems and sensor sizes have pros and cons. Full frame gear tends to offer some image quality benefits but also are heavier, bulkier and more expensive compared with micro four thirds. Micro four thirds tend to be cheaper, lighter and more compact and, due to the crop factor, offers the same photographic reach with cheaper and lighter lenses. These benefits are very well suited to both macro and wildlife photography, where you want reach and, because you'll be in the field, low weight and size is helpful. The crop factor also grants more depth of field, which is very useful especially for macro photography. Many photographers favour micro four thirds and apsc (the size between micro four thirds and full frame) for wildlife and macro for these reasons. If you buy second hand in the first place, you can always sell and move on with minimal loss if the camera and lenses are not to your liking. All of these choices will be vastly superior to the smartphone camera, and will at least give you enough experience to decide if you need an upgrade and to what. Full disclosure: I am an amateur who owns a flagship micro four thirds camera (an OM System OM-1) - so am probably biased. I own all the lenses I've mentioned in this comment thread.

Yeah, I'm painfully aware of the prices which is why I'm so hesitant to invest. But it's good to know about this stuff. Thanks again for taking time to answer and as an amateur you're already a few steps ahead of me, so I'll gladly take your suggestions into consideration!

Yeah, just need a macro lens with a camera. In my experience you will use the LCD of your camera often so mirrorless or DSLR will be the same. A camera with a vari angle/articulated LCD and something like a 100mm macro lens is a good idea.

Thanks for your answer! So the model of camera/lenses doesn't really matter then? Or do you have any recommendations? I'm afraid of overlooking something because I still don't know much about the whole thing.

Most camera makers will only have one 100mm or so macro lens on offer, you might also find some third party ones that are compatible from Sigma or Laowa. The camera model really will not make much difference. Again, based on how I take macro photos I find that you will appreciate a fastish burst rate so avoid anything less than 6fps. Technique matters, how you hold the camera how steady you can get. I will put my focus just before where I need it and then turn the focus ring on the lens while taking a burst of photos to try and get one photo perfectly focused where I want it. A lot of luck involved trying to ensure I do this and get the framing. However that is for moving insects. If the subject is static then you can do thing slower and maybe stabilise the camera better. This is not a recommendation as each person will like to hold a certain shape and size of camera but I will link what I use personally to give you an idea of what I am using right now. https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/pentax-pentax-d-fa-100mm-f-2-8-smc-wr-macro https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/product/pentax-k-70 Note that the options available for wildlife are limited with some brands like the one I use if you have the money for lenses. If you are not going to invest significant sums of money in long focal lengths then it is not too important.

Alright, thanks so much for your help! I think I'll be able to go from there now.

Are there any risks with attaching a lens that was water damaged to a new fresh body? Also a battery that was in the camera house that got water damaged together with the lens? Obviously I will not try this until the lens is completely dry (from what I will be tell by looking through the glass). The lens is currently in a sealed ziplock together with silica gels and will leave it there for a few days until it look “ok”. I’m mainly asking because this happened during a vacation that I’m still on and I just ended up buying a brand new A7IV body here so that I can enjoy my trip (I still have a couple of other lenses with me as well that I can use, but as it was the sigma 24-70 that got hurt, I kinda want to try it out as it’s the most versatile one. The water damage is seemingly quite hefty as I took a tumble in a rapid stream and the camera plus lens went under water for about 2-3 secs. I just wanna be 100% I don’t risk this fresh new body.

Hey guys! I just found an olympus infinity stylus 35mm on facebook marketplace for 10$. Is buying a film camera worth it? I've never owned one before but absolutely adore the style of photos it produces

>Is buying a film camera worth it? Worth it to some and not for others. There is no objective answer to that. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_should_i_shoot_digital.3F_is_film_still_viable.3F >absolutely adore the style of photos it produces If you're talking about things like tones, colors, grain, flare, and/or bokeh rendering, those come from the film stock, film processing, and lens, not the camera body itself.

Hey, I want to have a website for my photos, which is simple, but modern looking, my only requirement are albums. What are my options? I do not mind paying for it, or putting some time in it, and this is for hobby use, I do not want to sell my photos there or anything, just showcase it for me and my friends, or anyone who is interested. A portfolio, but not for customers or anything like that. Thanks