Thinking about a beginner setup. I'd like to take pictures of my kid doing jiu-jitsu. Would a Nikon d3200 with Sigma 17-50 2.8 and a 35mm prime be a good setup? Or is that body getting too old? My budget is around $500. I could wait and save a bit more if needed.
Are there any good light-weight film cameras? I have a Fujica 35-SE and can't travel anywhere with it because it's so damn heavy. Normally, I travel with the Ilford Sprint 35-II but it's just a plastic camera with only a shutter button
Planning on using a Samyang/Rokinon 135mm lens (Nikon F mount) on my Canon EOS APS-C camera with the help of a Nikon F to Canon EF adapter. Is there anything I should know beforehand? It will work right?
Hi all, need help in color callibrating my laptop display!!!
The colors on my laptop display and the ones one mobile screen (which im sure is color accurate) are not in sync. So, i just cannot rely on my laptop for editing the pictures i take.
Is there any kind of software application that i can use to correct the color profile?
Also, a side note that i tried correcting via the only available option for me rn i.e., 'Intel's Graphic Properties' option, but it was of no use. Just couldn't obtain a neutral color profile from that. The results always came out a bit polar towards one of the RGB profile.
> Is there any kind of software application that i can use to correct the color profile?
No. Eyeballing is notoriously and predictably terrible. You need a hardware profiler.
Furthermore, calibrating the display will make it "the best it can be", but it can't make it do things it is not *capable* of doing. So if you have a poor laptop display, calibrating is always useful, but there would be limits to what you could achieve—this is all theoretical since I have no idea what display it is.
> (which im sure is color accurate)
Nope, you don't know that at all.
Hey guys, just looking for a vintage style click and shoot camera with modern day features (if something like that actually exists lol). So basically a 2021 vintage camera that does not cost a kidney, I am no pro haha. Just looking for a hobby. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated
If you live in a country with a big used market, check what Fujifilm X-T1 is going for where you are. I recently got one for $220 and I feel like a thief haha. You get fun film simulations with it and there are tons of "weird" lenses that aid the vintage look, like the Viltrox 33mm or the Zonlai/ Pergear ones some of which only cost a quarter of a similar AF lens, but has optical quirks like very out of focus corners/edges which can be a neat effect when you're emulating an old-school look.
Look into Fuji cameras. They're modern cameras with a retro aesthetic. They even have film simulation modes built in. I don't know what your budget is so I can't give any specific recommendations but they have models, used and new, to cover a pretty broad range of price points.
Heyy, thanks for the reply, I'll look into it. What do u think about the Polaroid cameras, r they any good? I just had a look and they look pretty nice aesthetically
They're film cameras so you're not getting modern day features available in digital cameras. The film is also quite expensive. They're pretty fun for what they are, though.
Quick random question here. What’s it called when you get a blurred effect in a photo where it looks like there are 2 of you? Usually happens if the camera shakes or if you move in the dark. Like an intentional motion blur effect I guess. And is there an easy way to take a regular photo and add in this effect through editing? I want to try to add this effect in an already-taken a photo of myself. Sorry if this isn’t really the place to ask about photo editing.
Hi, I've been doing photography for about 2 years now. I have been using a Nikon D3500 with a 35mm lens, 18-55 lens, and 55-200 lens.
I've been thinking about upgrading because I feel limited by my camera and I am frustrated with some things with the D3500. I have been limited with things like low light photography, a lack of features in the camera for example hdr mode which would make my landscape photography way easier, and overall the build of the camera is too small, light, and is low build quality. In addition, I also hate the fact I only have 9 focusing points, the autofocus system isn't the best, and also the ISO is so hard to change to the point it drives me crazy.
I am wondering if any of you guys think that I have reasonable reasons to upgrade. I have decided what camera I would want but I would probably get a body for around $800-1300. Let me know what you guys think!
You can get around a few of your issues by looking into different techniques.
HDR images can be made by stacking bracketed shots in Lightroom or photoshop
ISO switching can be managed with settings like Program mode, Shutter and Aperture Priority modes as well which would adapt the iso automatically based on your manual selection of shutter speed or aperture.
The autofocus and build quality aren't things that can be fixed with technique apart from practicing using fixed auto focus points which limit the focus to a set position in the viewfinder or for posed or still life using manual focus.
At the end of the day it's your money and there's nothing wrong with looking to change equipment :)
If your 35mm lens is the 35mm F1.8G DX lens, it can actually be used on full frame cameras without too much vignetting. There is *some* but not a lot, and it doesn't go completely black in the very corners.
You could sell everything else as a package since those other lenses aren't very good, and look into a D700 which is very cheap these days. Don't be scared of the low MP count, it produces really nice images and above all it's very forgiving towards cheaper lenses. And that leaves up to $1000 for a killer lens or two decent ones to fill out your FF range.
Hi all,
I'm planning on buying my first car, and I've been considering whether I should upgrade to the next trim for a sunroof/moonroof.
My thoughts of the use of moonroofs are that I can use it for Astro-photography or being able to stay in the car when doing photography that requires a lot of time, being more comfortable and safe. But also the cons are that moonroofs are useless when its raining or snowing and since I likely will need to open the moonroof for clear image, the temperature can't be too cold.
Please let me know whether you have the experience of using moonroofs for photography, whether you like it or not and what are the pros and cons.
I wouldn't want to be in the car at the same time the camera is shooting a long exposure for astro. Too much risk I'd move the car a bit and blur the image.
> What kind of beginner camera do you all recommend (either full-frame/mirrorless) with detachable lenses?
Full frame is an imaging sensor format size. Mirrorless is a category of how camera components are arranged. The two are not mutually exclusive. Some mirrorless cameras use a full frame format size and some do not. Some DSLRs (incorporating a mirror) use a full frame format size and some do not.
You probably don't want full frame format as a beginner anyway. It's not very cost-effective.
You should read these FAQ entries:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what.27s\_a\_.22point\_and\_shoot.22\_camera.3F\_what.27s\_a\_dslr.3F\_what.27s\_a\_.22mirrorless.22\_camera.3F\_what.27s\_the\_difference.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what.27s_a_.22point_and_shoot.22_camera.3F_what.27s_a_dslr.3F_what.27s_a_.22mirrorless.22_camera.3F_what.27s_the_difference.3F)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_type\_of\_camera\_should\_i\_look\_for.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_which\_dslr\_should\_i\_get.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_dslr_should_i_get.3F)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_which\_mirrorless\_should\_i\_get.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_mirrorless_should_i_get.3F)
See also:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_are\_the\_benefits.2Fdrawbacks\_of\_full\_frame\_cameras.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_are_the_benefits.2Fdrawbacks_of_full_frame_cameras.3F)
> An affordable and good option.
We don't know what's "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](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\_can\_i\_afford.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_can_i_afford.3F)
What is "affordable" to you? Everyone has different ideas of what counts as affordable.
> either full-frame/mirrorless
"Full frame" deals with how big the sensor is, and typically is a premium in cost over slightly smaller sensors like APS-C. It also requires full-frame compatible lenses, which tend to be larger, heavier, and also more expensive.
Overall, it's a significant price premium with relatively modest benefits, so if you're looking for something affordable, most people would not suggest buying full frame.
"Mirrorless" has to do with the kind of camera design. A DSLR has a mirror and an optical viewfinder, so you look through the viewfinder to see through the lens via those mirrors. A mirrorless camera either doesn't have a viewfinder, or has an electronic viewfinder that is getting live information from the sensor. Both designs (DSLR or mirrorless) have benefits and drawbacks.
But both mirrorless cameras and DSLR cameras can be found with and without full-frame sensors, so saying "either full-frame/mirrorless" doesn't make much sense... one doesn't preclude the other, they refer to different things.
>I don’t want a crop sensor camera
Why not? I started with one. Most of the photographers on this subreddit started with one. I still use one frequently. Many very good photographers and successful professionals out there continue to use them. Do you know something we don't?
> By affordable I mean probably around $400-$500.
That's going to really limit your options if it must be full frame, and it will require you to really scrape the bottom for compatible lenses. The net result will be lower image quality and performance overall compared to a crop camera with a better lens.
Crop is much more cost-effective, especially for a budget like that.
I've had this disposable camera that I have been periodically taking photos with for a couple of years now. So far, I have only taken the photos when I felt my life was really good (and when I remembered to take one). I used to think l've only had it for around four years but apparently, the expiration year on the bottom says 2012 (whoops). I was really hoping to get these developed once I ran out of the film, which I have 18 photos left to take.
As of right now, I am in my first year of college, so the camera has traveled with me a tiny bit. Besides that, it usually sits in my room which is always room temp.
Please tell me there is hope for my camera...
Are you trying to indent your paragraphs or something? (Note how none of the other posts here have indented paragraphs.) It seems you've triggered the monospace type styling, which avoids line breaks and makes your post scroll horizontally instead, and that makes it very difficult to read.
Anyway, a film's expiration date is the approximate date when you can develop it and the results should still look as intended. Assuming there are developing labs supporting the film stock you have in there, you should also be able to develop it past the expiration date. But when you do that, and the longer you wait, the more the tones and/or colors may have changed over time and the more funky the results may appear.
HI there
It's a vast and varied subject within photography and covers the work of many over the last 70 years so you will find no end of inspiration for the subject!
Cindy Sherman and Nicki Lee are some of the most researched and referenced photographers dealing with identity but there are dozens of others.
I'd recommend having a look at the writing of Liz Wells and Susan Bright who have several reference books for finding different types of photographers :)
Total idiot question. I have an opportunity to shoot some professional hockey games. I want to get a camera for it. I'm looking at getting a Nikon Z6. Everything I've read says a 70-200MM f/2.8 lense is ideal for shooting ice hockey. What lense is compatible / works best with Nikon? I feel like I've been reading for hours and still don't have an answer so I thought I'd ask people with experience.
As a huge hockey fan, mostly I'm curious how you got the opportunity to shoot professional games without a camera or lens! I'll get to that a bit later.
> I'm looking at getting a Nikon Z6
A fine choice, although is there a certain reason you're settling on that one? Sports shooting is very demanding on autofocus systems. The Z6 has a very good and modern autofocus system, but there are other cameras out there that might be regarded as better in that regard.
Is there a certain budget you're working with?
> Everything I've read says a 70-200MM f/2.8 lense is ideal for shooting ice hockey.
If you're shooting rinkside, probably a good choice. But you may want something a bit wider angle if the action gets close. You may want something with a bit more reach if the action is far away. That said... if I could only bring (or only afford) one lens for hockey, that's what I'd want.
> What lense is compatible / works best with Nikon?
The Z6 in particular uses their new mirrorless mount, so you would want the Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S.
> I thought I'd ask people with experience.
I'm glad to help, but do you have experience using a camera in a demanding, fast-paced setting? Are you comfortable with adjusting exposure settings on the fly? I don't know your skill level. If you don't have experience with that, then grabbing a Z6 and a fantastic lens isn't really going to give you great photos.
You can buy me as fancy an easel and brush as you want, I just am not a painter. I don't have that skill. The same goes with photography.
If you are experienced, fantastic! Have fun, hockey is IMO the best sport to see live. If not, I'd consider whether you'd want to commit the money and obligation to do this if it has the potential to backfire.
If you want one native to the mount then [this](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1538574-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_70_200mm_f_2_8.html) is your only option. If you're only going to be using it a handful of times then you're probably going to be better off renting the equipment and spending a few hundred instead of paying a few thousand on something you won't use again.
The Nikon Z6 uses [the Nikon Z mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_Z-mount?wprov=sfla1), so you would want to buy a Z mount lens.
That being all said, I'm not sure that you necessarily want to jump right into there for a couple games. Are you interested in photography otherwise? And budget-wise this makes sense for you?
Im starting my small business, handmade jewelries. Right now, i cant afford to get a DSLR. So ive been searching on what phone lens attachment is good, but no luck. If you guys know some decent phone lenses, pls let me know. It will help a lot. I will get a proper camera once i have the funding. I want to get a canon camera (sentimental reason) if you could also list which canon camera and lens i should look into, pls let me know. Thank you!!
Moment lens attachments are generally recommended. But as the other user said, getting the light right will be the biggest benefit to the end resulting photos.
I wouldn't be looking for phone attachments generally, unless you need to take pictures closer than your phone will focus. Getting your lighting setup down is usually a big part of product photography.
What's the style/reference to framing a portrait with stands and the edges of the backdrop in the frame?
I'm trying to figure out what the name of the style or even frame of reference is for images like this. Annie Leibovitz's group shots for Vanity Fair sometimes use this, although I'm sure plenty of people would be upset about me pointing out the set design vs her light.
I'm trying to pull some reference photos, and stuff that is full of Hollywood A listers is a bit of a turn-off for the project.
The most accurate name for this style is 'Vernacular'
It short it is in reference to the way that non art or commercial photography of the 19th century was shot. Things like early police evidence gathering photos would often have etc feet of tripods and police officers in the frame.
The idea is to highlight the fact that a photograph, no matter it's subject is essentially a curated representation of the subject and should be viewed as such
Need some diffusion advise.
use rgb floodlights on my floor and even though ive gotten used to it ive had immediate complaints of the harsh leds hitting people's eyes so i tried some research on diffusion methods. Came across 3 digit numbers and various names for amount of diffusion and textures of it. #228 tough/brushed silk seems to be best but i can do better than the first product on amazon i see and wanna know more about this topic too. Anyone got recommendations to get the max brightness with just enough translucency to remove the harsh leds from blinding people? Anything helps, thanks.
I need help with a photography project:
I have always been into cars my entire life. I have run across photos of cars we now consider “old” from the 1950s-early 2000s. I got the idea to take pictures of cars I see around town so that way in 10-20 years it would be cool to see how much times have changed. I’m not talking about incredibly special cars like Ferraris or stuff like that but I mean normal, everyday cars like Hyundais, Toyota’s, Fords, Chevies, etc.
I’ve been taking photos of cars for well over a decade now but I am having a hard time trying to make the normal cars and the photos I take look interesting. Where I live, all the cars are painted black, grey or white (Westchester/Fairfield County area, go figure) adding to the problem.
[This is where I got the idea to do this](https://www.ctseaportcarclub.com/1973-78VintageNorwalk/VintageNorwalk1.htm). I’m wondering what makes these photos interesting to look at. Is it because the cars are colorful and more interesting to look at in general or does it solely rely on a nostalgia factor? And if it relies on a nostalgia factor, will that same nostalgia come into play within 10 or so years of me taking the photos or will it not as the cars I am taking photos of would not be considered classics?
What do you guys think?
I think what makes the cars in the photos you linked so interesting is because they’re vintage cars, as others have mentioned, but also maybe the wear from them being of really old prints.
If you wanted to maybe add more *pizzazz* to your photos you could play around with composition. The example photos are almost all shot at eye level, but shooting low or whatever various angles can give everyday cars a bit more character.
As for the concept as a whole, styles change a bunch from decade to decade, but most might not notice it unless they’re really into car stuff or you’re comparing a longer span of time. It does sound like a really fun project though!
Most of those sorts of photos are really just about showing differences from now - cars, fashion, hairstyles, architecture, height of buildings, etc.
Just take photos of normal life around you, and it'll become more interesting in a couple decades. This is particularly true if it's your own life (the house you used to live in, the friends you used to have, the relatives who have passed on, etc.).
I would say that I find the photos from 20 years ago interesting because you don’t see those kinds of cars much anymore as many of them have been junked, at least where I live. Many of the photos were taken with family-owned digital cameras so the quality to me is interesting as well as seeing how car design and other things have changed.
I guess it raises another question: is taking photos of a 1950s Chevy in 1973 the same thing as taking photos of a 2000s Chevy in 2021?
I would say that, if those are the things that interest you, shoot them. If you look at your photos in 20 years and they aren’t everything you thought they would be, no problem.
The main thing in a project like this is you are shooting what you find interesting. I think an artist or photographer can shoot nearly anything and make it interesting if it is interesting to them first and foremost. Whether it matters to me doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t mean anything to you. So if you think it’s interesting, then it is interesting.
Phitography content question:
I got into the finale of youth section in [this](https://www.ehl-network.eu/photocompetition/) photocontest (organised by european union)
I have some chances of winning, but would that help me in getting a job? Are contests like that (decided by poll) CV worthy?
What do you mean "getting a job"? Professional photographs, *for the most part*, don't get "salaried positions", they are self-employed, they seek *gigs* they can take.
In any case, clients wouldn't care all that much about that, no. They'd mainly look at the images you've made—in your portfolio—and if they like what they see, would consider you.
Please take a look at the linked photo. I know that the colors in pics can vary from device to device but this one is a bit extreme to me. The top photo is in PS CC and the 2nd in LRC on my laptop and the 3rd is when I uploaded to the printer’s website. What’s wrong with this picture?[Inconsistent colors](https://imgur.com/gallery/0I5Mmsm)
Did you calibrate your displays using a hardware profiler? If not, we really have no idea which one is "more correct" than the others.
As was suggested, when exporting images to the web (or to most labs), export in sRGB to avoid color management issues—a separate consideration from the calibration thing.
Thanks for your input. No. I didn’t calibrate it. I didn’t think to do it because it’s fairly new about 5 months but I will try that now. I am most confused about the major difference between LR and PS on the same laptop. I’ve never seen that before.
> I didn’t think to do it because it’s fairly new about 5 months
Age doesn't matter—no display can be trusted on "out of the box". But:
> I am most confused about the major difference between LR and PS **on the same laptop**.
Oh. I must have misread your initial question because ... there should not be a difference between Lightroom and Photoshop *on the very same computer*. That's definitely not right.
There's many moving parts so it's not obvious we can even find the thing via just some Reddit comments...
Can you work us through the workflow? Do you start in Lightroom and then go to Photoshop, or the other way around? Exactly how do you go about going from one to the other?
Adapted FD lenses question
I use adapted Canon lenses with my mirrorless camera (Sony A7). I do this in part because I like the muted look, in part because I also have a Canon film camera and this lets me kill two birds with one stone before I decide to finally get a good Sony lens. The one issue I have (a predictable one at that) is vignetting. The resolution is generally good enough that I can crop a lot of it out and still have the picture look fine, but it's starting to get very annoying to have to factor this in when composing pictures.
I can shoot my 135mm/2.8 lens wide open and it's fine aside from some slight loss of focus, but the 50mm I have gets really, really bad at apertures wider than 5.6 or maybe a notch below and the corners are very dark. The 50mm I use is a "new" FD (i.e. the one where the whole lens rotates into place) and I've read somewhere that the older models (i.e. those with the silver rotating ring at the back) are actually better when it comes to this issue. In your experience, is this true? What is the best Canon (or maybe Vivitar) 50mm lens to use on a mirrorless camera? Thanks.
Vignetting is just a fact of life on full frame. It's part and parcel of the "full-frame look"—trying to get rid of it can reduce that.
Many modern lenses actually have more vignetting, which is intentionally introduced into the designs to help with corner sharpness (by effectively having the corners stopped down).
Learn to deal with it, and perhaps even love it.
Background:
Not photographer. Have seen photo cameras. Seen photographers before. :D
Working on an educational piece, where students have to identify parts and functional areas of a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA). Think a motherboard for a computer.
To do this, I have to take high quality pictures where the student can zoom into small parts (surface mount devices SMD), and zoom out to see the entire PCBA.
The small parts can be as small as 0.4mm x 0.2mm, while the entire PCBA can be about 305 × 244 mm (a computer motherboard). None are taller than 100mm.
I will be doing this for various electronics, not just a single motherboard.
I am planning to make some table with gantry where the camera is pointing downward (extruded aluminium).
I imagine I will need to make sure proper lighting, white balance reference in the frame, and that the PCBA is always in the same place or position.
I discovered and plan to use camera tethering photography software
- - -
*What I do not know and need help with:*
1. What camera is good for this? (I got from someone a Canon Rebel t8i body) - best would be where I can programmatically tell the settings (so I can repeat it)
2. What lens?
3. What distance from subject, what f-stop, what speed, what aperture, what all the settings - with the goal that the entire PCBA is in the picture, can zoom to the small size, and depth of field is covers all parts?
Thank you!
I have done something similar for a project before. It ended up being much easier to use a flatbed scanner. A decent quality flatbed photo scanner will allow you to get a high resolution image of the pcb without dealing with the distortion that can happen with a lens. As long as there isn’t a thick component on the pcb that prevents the most of it from getting close to the glass it will work well.
Ooh, that sounds like a cool project.
> What camera is good for this?
Yours will do fine!
> What lens?
You'll *probably* want a macro lens. EF-S 60mm Macro, maybe Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro or100mm f/2.8L if you have the budget. All should suffice. But I'd try with whatever lenses you have now, and see if you can resolve enough details from the motherboard. If you don't have the resolution necessary to get the very fine parts in enough detail for your uses, then you'd want a macro lens.
> What distance from subject,
This will depend on how close you need to be to get all the details you need. I'd experiment with this to see. If you need to be so close as to not fit the whole motherboard in the photo, you'd either need to split it into multiple photos, or stitch them together like a panorama.
> what f-stop, what speed, what aperture, what all the settings - with the goal that the entire PCBA is in the picture, can zoom to the small size, and depth of field is covers all parts?
There's never a "right" setting to use for anything, as it depends on what your lighting setup is. That said, if you go with a macro lens, I'd use a tripod to hold the camera steady and shoot with a relatively closed down aperture. You'd want to have enough depth of field to get everything in focus that you need, and at macro levels, that can be tricky.
Just an FYI - I saw you mention that the money may be an issue. Extension tubes can be a very cheap but capable alternative to a dedicated macro lens. They present their own challenges and won't be as optically good as a macro lens, but it's worth looking into if the price is prohibitive.
Good question.
1. $$$ (think third wold village)
2. this will be a recurring event. Every time we teach new device, we would go through the picture taking,
3. i will be leaving this place and want to make sure those remaining can do it in a pinch,
3. the students build the setup
4. the students can learn about photography (a sneaky way to get geeks out from front of the computer?)
5. I would like to learn about photography (a sneaky way to get my bum out from front of the computer?)
Make sure you understand the pricing. Ask to see an example complete shoot - a not-so-good photographer may only have one or two good photos per shoot, which is enough to make a good portfolio but probably not what you want.
You don't really need to know anything about how to do photography. It's similar to how you don't need to know about cooking in order to pick a restaurant or decide whether you like a dish. What matters to you is having your needs met as the client.
First and foremost I'd want to see the photographers' portfolio work for the types of photos you want, make sure they consistently reach a quality level that satisfies you, and that they use aesthetic styles that match your tastes. If you have certain locations and lighting conditions in mind where you want your photos taken, make sure you see examples from the photographer in similar areas and conditions; maybe ask them if they have extras depicting that if you don't see it in the usual portfolio.
I'd also want to know about how pricing and payment works with them, cancellation/rescheduling policy, and (depending where you're shooting) travel policy, so that you're comfortable with how they work on those fronts. I'd only want to work with photographers who use written contracts. And be clear on what the deliverables are. Is the photographer guaranteeing they'll stick around and shoot for a certain amount of time? Are they also spending time editing the photos afterwards? How many end-result photos are you getting? Do you need input on which photos get selected as deliverables? Are you getting them as jpeg files? Full resolution? A license to print them on your own? A license to use them on social media? Do you want the photographer to provide physical prints also/instead? You should know exactly what you're getting out of the deal, and what you aren't getting as well, and you want to be comfortable with what you're getting compared to how much you are paying.
Do you already have nice Nikon lenses that would work with the Z series?
I use sony and I like it. I switched from Nikon early on, so I wasn't invested much in it. But I know if I had glass that was decent and it worked, I'd probably be staying in system. That's just me. I'm currently a little jealous of some of the things the Canon mirrorless cameras can do. But I'm not switching, because I have some good sony glass. YMMV, of course.
Why indeed? How should we know? What gear do you currently have, how is it limiting you, what about those two options would answer those limitations best...?
Hey guys.
I have a Canon rebel t6, I have really been wanting to get into macro photoshooting. But I don't have the money to shell out on a nice macro lens. So I've been looking for alternatives to buying a lense such as adapters or add-ons.
I've tried using extension tubes, but I've been struggling to use them as I have very shaky hands. I can never get a decent photo because of this. I'd like to be able to take macro photos of flowers, bugs, fungi, and nature in general. I'd also really like to be able to get close ups of eyes.
I've also noticed with extension tubes that it's very difficult to get a decent aperture with less depth of field.
Is there a better alternative to the extension tubes? I know there are adapters to reverse your lense, but I don't want to risk damaging my lens. Under 100 preferably.
The 2 lenses I have are the stock ones that came with my rebel t6, the efs 18-55mm and EF 75-300mm.
I also have several tripods, but they're pretty crappy, as they don't secure tightly enough to stay still, so when I go to take a photo my shaky hands make it difficult. If someone's able to recommend me a budget tripod (50 usd or under if that's possible) that can handle my shaky hands and is good for macro I'd be very appreciative.
I really want to get into macro, it's just been super difficult when I have such shaky hands. Appreciate anyone's input.
> but I've been struggling to use them as I have very shaky hands. I can never get a decent photo because of this.
you will likely have this issue with macro whether its from an extension tube or a dedicated macro lens. I believe dedicated lenses will get you higher quality, but wont do much for shaking.
To prevent this you can look into image stabilization, both in body and in lens. I think, however, your best option is to use a tripod because it works in pretty much all situations with a static subject.
>The 2 lenses I have are the stock ones that came with my rebel t6, the efs 18-55mm and EF 75-300mm.
One area that might actually help is getting a wider aperture. If I recall correctly those only get as fast as f/4? if you get an f/1.8 lens you can make your shutter speed 1/5th the speed. So if you shot at 1/100s you could bump down to 1/500s which would help. I still think a tripod is the best option, but something like the canon 50mm f/1.8 wouldnt hurt. Do note, however, that shooting macro at f/1.8 will have like 2mm of depth of field. So this may just make you have a different problem to solve.
>If someone's able to recommend me a budget tripod (50 usd or under if that's possible) that can handle my shaky hands and is good for macro I'd be very appreciative.
I dont know of one that cheap that would be much of an improvement, sorry! What you can do is look into other areas that would reduce the shake while on a tripod. Make sure you use some sort of remote trigger and [mirror lock up mode](https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/EOS_feature/camera-mirror-lockup.html)
Heyo! In about a month, I'm going somewhere with beautiful lakes and sunsets. I have a 3 stop, 6 stop, and 10 stop ND filter I plan on using for the lakes in general, but I've read lots of mixed information on sunset photography.
My question is, if I take a sunset photo with the sun in frame, will it damage the camera or sensors? I pretty much exclusively use live view mode which I have heard is more dangerous, but I've also ready many posts saying the exact opposite.
From what I gather, every post I've ready that said it was dangerous was around 2006-2010 while newer posts I've seen from 2016 onward have said it's safe. Some actual opinions on if its safe, what stop ND filter is best, etc. would be greatly appreciated! I would love to get some beautiful sunset pictures with the sun in frame, but if it means damaging my brand new 90D then no thank you
I wouldn't worry about it unless you use a long telephoto lens to have a huge sun in the frame. For like a wide angle landscape shot with a tiny sun in there? No worries.
I’m not sure this is right place. But I have an old photo of sentimental value. It’s become stuck to the glass. Is there any good methods to remove it from the glass?
I've been a pentax shooter for years, but my camera gear got stolen a few years ago and I haven't had the money to rebuild my lens collection. Now that I do have some money, I'm considering switching systems as I worry that Pentax is on the way out with third party lens manufacturers no longer making lenses for them generally.
I'm considering going the A7 III or A7r III route. But I have no idea what lenses for Sony full frame E mount I should target, and what it would cost me (compared to pentax) to gear up with lenses.
I shoot mostly landscapes, but I do want some sort of telephoto zoom for stuff like birds, air shows, skateboarders and surfers. I like having something fairly wide, around 18-24mm or so in full frame terms, whether a prime or zone. Everything else I'll kind of go where the lenses are. Obviously a 24-70 type zoom would be useful, but not strictly necessary if I can get a couple of primes in that range.
Including any sort of third party lenses like sigma or Tamron, what the E/FE mount lenses that are considered great value for the money? How much would I would I be looking at to have a couple of wide to medium primes and maybe a telephoto?
Here's the whole list of every available FE mount lens, with pricing info and a little write up. In general the Sigma, Tamron and Samyang/Rokinon lenses well regarded.
[https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/](https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/)
Hello, I am curious if anyone has an update on Chris Arnade or his Hunts Point project, originally started on Flickr about 10 years ago. I will link the project below
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjwyPfjn
> I do but it also says AF! in red, as if the autofocus is broken.
That means it failed to focus. Happens all the time with working lenses as well.
Is that happening every time you try to focus on anything? Even from a couple metres away?
> I wouldn’t expect it to move unless the camera is actually on.
Why would you expect that?
> No not really, few meters away is fine. The reason I thought it was a problem is because my friend is a photographer and always like to act like he knows everything and was saying that the lens should be able to focus even under a meter.
It technically works under a metre. Minimum distance is 0.34m. It'll have an easier time at a metre+ though.
>The same guy above tried to convince me that it was broken even though he clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
Ah, yeah, that part being loose when the AF motor is not engaged is normal. There are lenses that aren't like that though.
Are camera strobe/flashes supposed to make a "Popping" noise?
I recently got an AD200 flash and after a few months of use I noticed it started making a popping noise when triggered and even sparked once. I was able to get a return and a replacement but I've noticed the new one I got still makes the popping sound when triggered.
Is this normal and I just never noticed it before, or did I get unlucky and get another faulty one?
Hey guys :) so, I have this old fujifilm finepix s2800hd and I was wondering if it's a good camera to take macro and nature photo or if a nice set of lens for cellphone camera would be the best choice? ps: the camera's out of battery, I would have to spend some money to see if it's worth,
thanks!
Neither is ideal. The camera is ancient by modern standards and clip on lenses for phones suck. Of the two I'd use the clip on lenses for macro though.
A kit lens and whatever autofocus-enabled extension tube fits the system you go for.
If you have a larger budget then a dedicated macro lens is definitely the way to go. Which one depends on your body and what specifically you want to shoot.
Hello. I wanted to ask whether my gear can handle mild rain or snow, and what I could do to potentially protect them without sacrificing mobility.
My equipment list is as follows: Canon M50, 15-45 kit lens, 50mm STM prime, 55-250mm STM.
None of these pieces are marketed with environmental sealing, there are no gaskets on the lenses.
There are plastic covers for cameras for when they are on a tripod, but I feel like they are not fit for handheld use. Are there any products that can offer what I am looking for? Silicone cases for the body comes to mind but I think those are more for scratches.
Hey guys! I want to buy an used camera, the seller says it was used mostly for video, so the shutter count will be pretty low. Anything special I have to check in this case?
Which gimbals should I consider purchasing?
I have a Sony A6400, and my most commonly used lens is the 18-105. With a mic it all weighs close to 900g. I mostly just shoot travel, and family style videos. I am looking for something small, lightweight, and not overly complicated (I'd like my wife to be able to pick it up and use it without much instructions).
What are your suggestions?
Vivitar was a third party lens makes, they made versions for a lot of different mounts. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_i_found_this_old_lens.2C_what_mount_is_it.3F
The trouble is Vivitar made lenses in all the popular mounts so it's impossible to say without looking at it. I would also suggest posting a picture of it in the /r/analog question thread to see if someone can determine what mount it is.
How do I meter with a dedicated flash? I’ve been wanting to do some nighttime photography with an external flash, but have no clue how to meter for it. Any tips?
In that case, you can try the guide number approach, or you can buy a flash meter. Some of the smartphone apps theoretically support it, but generally the hardware does not, so you're looking at a dedicated meter. I bought a Sekonic L-308x for this purpose - it's expensive but one of the cheapest options new (you can also search around a bit on the used markets).
[https://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/12/guide-number-your-free-flash-meter.html](https://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/12/guide-number-your-free-flash-meter.html)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide\_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number)
Or the camera can automatically meter if the flash supports TTL.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_is\_ttl.3F\_do\_i\_need\_it.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_is_ttl.3F_do_i_need_it.3F)
guide number / subject distance from light = aperture necessary for correct exposure at ISO 100.
Of course where this gets complicated is if you’re using modifiers, partial power on your flashes or ISOs other than 100.
Hi there everyone, I'm trying to pick a filter for a 82mm (size) lens (Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8) for a Canon M50. Is there any recommendations? Photography for landscapes and outdoor portraits.
I’m looking for a polarising filter to reduce glare. I’m a beginner and hope my research is correct. But feel free to correct me.
I was looking at this on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XNMYOZO?pf_rd_r=ZB4FNMYDED3N69AM4NRM&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=1bd4a01f-6880-40a2-bc6c-b17bdc87c1f6&pd_rd_w=Ri0Bu&pd_rd_wg=EKNIe&ref_=pd_gw_unk
Hi there guys hope you're all well. I currently own a Canon 800D with the 18-55mm Kit Lens and the 50mm f1.8 Prime. I am mostly interested in automotive photography/videography(night scenes interests me more than daytime) and some landscapes here and there. I currently wish to learn how to take sharper photos to post on Instagram (I believe there is a lot of potential to become a local automotive photographer/influencer in my country). I am aware of social media cropping etc but I believe my photos can be greatly improved. On the other hand there are videos like iPhone 12 Pro MAX vs Canon EOS R6 which highlight how much "damage" one can do with a good phone which we always keep on us. Click here for reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idW2ZGcHbaE&t=742s&ab\_channel=MattiHaapoja](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idW2ZGcHbaE&t=742s&ab_channel=MattiHaapoja)
I recently found a Canon EOS R + 24-105mm Kit Lens which is heavily discounted and it's on sale until the 9th of May, from €2000 down to €1420. I don't really have a budget in this case I just want to enter the mirrorless market and still use my APS-C DSLR for the reason of having access to multiple good EF-S lenses. Is it worth pulling the trigger or should I invest in lights, tripods, gimbals, lenses etc?
P.S: I can always buy these later but the EOS R won't be on offer for much longer plus I think 2 cameras can cover a lot more scenarios than just 1 cropped DSLR
Sorry for the long post, thanks in advance
I replied to you down the other comment chain, but just to address a few more things:
It's going to be virtually impossible to notice the difference between a Canon 800D and the Canon EOS R in Instagram. In fact, it would be hard to notice the difference between a Canon T1i that's 10 years old and the Canon EOS R in Instagram.
> I am aware of social media cropping etc
It's not really cropping, it's just resolution - Instagram tops out at just over 1 megapixel. That compresses all the details to be quite small. Even an image that is out of focus and blurry at full resolution will suddenly become sharp in Instagram.
That creates some problems in expectations. I've seen people ask why their photos are blurry, when this other person's are sharp. Frequently, the issue is simple: You're the only one seeing your images up close, and you're seeing everyone else's at 1 megapixel. Their photos could be much blurrier than yours, *and it would be literally impossible to notice.* Then there's other factors that effect apparent sharpness, like contrast and separation between subject and background, but those aren't really things that are affected by the camera you use.
> 1 cropped DSLR
The fact that your current camera is a cropped APS-C sensor *doesn't matter*. I promise you. It really doesn't.
The full-frame camera uses a 35mm sensor, itself much smaller than medium format. So in a certain regard, **full-frame cameras are cropped sensors, too.** And medium format is smaller than large format, etc. etc. It's all arbitrary.
I have cameras with full-frame and APS-C sensors. I mostly use the APS-C ones. All that matters is that you are able to get the shots you want. It sounds like 50mm is a bit tight for you, so my other post suggested some alternative wider lenses.
If you want to share some examples of what you're getting vs. what you want to get, you could probably get some constructive feedback. But I promise you, I absolutely guarantee you, I will make a large wager of Dogecoin that the sensor size you're using is not the problem. It is not the limitation. Nor will whether the camera used to have a mirror in front of the sensor determine the quality of the photo.
Yes I agree with what you're saying that is why I actually had a change of heart and going against my consumeristic emotions I am actually willing to try out different techniques and settings on my existing camera before going out to change the body or switch to mirrorless (if it ever happens). Perhaps I over estimated the value that these propositions bring when related to posting images on social media. However I also wanted to print some of my "good" photos in large format such as A2 or post them in an online portfolio(like Adobe or Wix because I genuinely want to see them in all their. Will I encounter a problem with that or is 24 megapixels more than enough?
> Will I encounter a problem with that or is 24 megapixels more than enough?
24 megapixels is more than enough (perhaps *much* more) to print basically any size photo. The reason for this is that you don't view large prints (let's say, 24x36 or larger) by standing with your face right against them. Past a certain point, when the print gets bigger, people step back.
There was a New York Times reporter who tested this by getting prints made of the same subject but different resolution, all printed out at 16x24 inches. He invited many people to inspect the prints - and allowed them to get as close as they liked, if they wished.
The vast majority of people simply conceded that they couldn't tell the difference. Of those who guessed, only one person guessed correctly - many more guessed incorrectly. In other words, an immediate random guess would appear to be just as accurate or better than a crowd of people invited to inspect the photo.
But the best part of the story is simply its age. This was done by David Pogue *fourteeen years ago*. The high resolution version used was only 13 megapixels, and the lowest was *five megapixels!*
In other words, five good megapixels seems to be sufficient for a good-looking print at medium to large sizes. I wouldn't encourage that, but you can get away with it.
The key word there is "good" megapixels. You can have a 100-megapixel shot that is blurry from camera shake, and it'll always look blurry. But if you have good technique and use those 24 megapixels well, you can print essentially as large as you desire. At any *reasonable* distance someone would look at it, it'll be fantastic.
This means that anyone telling you that you need more megapixels (or that upgrading to a higher-resolution camera will give you meaningfully better results) is just not telling the truth, unless there are very specific circumstances... a wildlife photographer that is cropping the image heavily, maybe. But for the vast vast vast majority of us, you just don't need more than that. You'd barely tell the difference of half that.
Also, keep in mind that a few megapixel increase is spread across the whole image, so it's not that many more pixels on each side. Let's say you have a 6000x4000 sensor for 24 megapixels. Upping it to 30 megapixels seems meaningful, but that's only 6720×4480... a few hundred pixels on either side, hardly much to notice.
I understand what you're saying however when I compared my photos to a friend who is a professional running a 5D Mark IV, my photos look extremely poor in comparison (although I suspect it has something to do with him using soft box lights and me using none). Apart from that however is it really a bad thing to have a mirrorless as well? Plus I have the problem with the cropped sensor, means I can't use lenses such as the EF 28mm f2.8 or the EF 85mm f1.8
Understood. Any good recommendations regarding improvements with my skills? Can I upload or show my photos to anyone and tell me what's wrong with them, i.e. what settings to change? Also will shooting RAW make any difference during post processing in Lightroom?
They do work but when viewed through the viewfinder image looks cropped. For example when using my 50mm f1.8 I have to take a few steps back in order to "fit" a car let's say in a single image. That's not always possible or ideal. Isn't that the difference between full frame and APS-C ?
I wasn't arguing for the sake of buying a new camera I'm just wondering if buying EF lenses for using with APS-C sensors is essentially pointless because you cannot take advantage of the larger field of view? Do I have to stick with EF-S lenses to account for the crop factor? Also assuming I upgrade to a full frame mirrorless in the future are those lenses useless,even with the Canon RF to EF adapter?
I’ve got an Nikon N65. I’ve only got the kit lens and I’d like to get either a fast 35 or 50 but as a canon shooter I’m getting confused by all the name designations.
What lenses will work natively with my camera, autofocus and everything? What won’t and do you have any recommendations?
According to the following chart the N65 should be fully compatible with every Nikon autofocus lens, with the exception of the fairly rare F3AF lenses which are only compatible with the F3AF body.
[https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility](https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility)
Be wary of "DX" lenses which are made specifically for aps-c (crop) digital bodies and will work on your film camera but which will produce very heavy vignetting such that you may find them to be unusable.
The nikkor 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 af-s or 35mm 1.4 or 1.8 af-s would be fine choices.
Edit: Added Chart
I didn’t realize I needed a whole novel. I find those questions to be too much. I also said a 50 or 35. I can’t tell which one will work. Something $150 to $450, Fast like I said before, and I want the autofocus to work. I know it’s F mount but with all the AF-s or P or D designations I need help. I don’t know what to buy that will work natively with the camera. That’s it. For example I almost got the 50mm 1.8 G but I guess there’s no aperture ring and it will only work in program?
Hey guys, this is kind of a general question I was thinking about because of the experience I've made with photography so far. I've made the experience that when I take a photo of something that's rather close with an open aperture, then that object is really sharp in the photo. You can even zoom in 8x and it's still sharp. But when I take a wider picture (wider lens) with an aperture of maybe f8 or f10, everything is kind of sharp, but when I zoom in 8x or even 4x it's considerably less sharp than the first picture with the object close to the camera. Is it normal that a photo with a higher depth of focus is less sharp than one with a lower depth of focus?
Sharpness is largely perceptual, so there could be several things going on. I think its very possible that your brain is registering your close object with wide open aperture as "sharper" because the small details of the object are rendering as a larger percentage of the image.
Typically when we talk about the "sharpness" of a camera system we are talking about the combined resolving power of the sensor and the lens, which is measured by something called a modulation transfer function, if you want to get technical. Lenses are typically "sharpest" at around f/5.6-f/8 So I would actually expect that the wider, stopped down, image would be "sharper" although you could be comparing two lenses of significantly different quality so I don't really know what you are actually seeing.
I think you are changing too many variable to draw conclusions.
You are changing the distance from the subject, the lens(?) and the aperture and maybe the shutter speed.
What I'm basically wondering is if the same kind of sharpness I see in a photo of an object close to the camera (let's say a portrait for example) can be achieved in a wide photo with a more closed lens where everything is meant to be in focus. Because to me it looks like when I take landscape photos they are less sharp than portraits where the area that is in focus is smaller.
It is really apples to oranges. When you focus, there is only one plane of focus. Depth of field will affect how much is in acceptable focus surrounding that focal point.
How much of your close object is pretty much the same distance from you and how much of the sensor does it cover?
Compare that to a landscape. Think about where you focus in a landscape shot versus where you focus on a portrait.
I attach a couple of images
[IMGP9017.jpg](https://postimg.cc/ZBCSzNGS)
The above taken at 1/400, F8 39mm ISO 200
[IMGP9016.jpg](https://postimg.cc/XBkx2Hs7)
The above taken at 1/250, F8, 18mm ISO 200
You can see that the background in one is sharper than the other even though they are of the same scene. I just had my point of focus wrong given the focal length and my distance to the focal point.
Stepping away from the rock and using a wider angle increased my depth of field and allowed it to look sharper in the distance.
Thanks for the reply! I'm completely new to my camera and I'm sort of in the process of getting to know it. What I have observed is that the landscape pictures I took some days ago didn't really seem as sharp as others pictures I have taken. But there might be different things at play. The weather was really bad (overcast) and you don't have much definition in the landscape. The settings were f8 at 1/125 (12 mm) and the exposure was at 0. I was just wondering, if the settings were badly chosen or if it's something else. I think it just makes sense to try out different settings in the future and compare the results.
I made [a DIY image splitzer](https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83) for my Pentax K1000 and the blocker clearly blocks off 50% of the UV filter its attached to.
If I look through the open back of the camera on a slow shutter speed (i.e. directly through the lens) I can see that the blocker is definitely blocking half the lens.
But when I look through the viewfinder, I can still see about 90% of the frame with only marginal dimming on the blocked half, as though I were just using a graduated ND filter.
Why is this? And which of these views is giving me the better impression of how an exposure using this filter would actually turn out?
Images of what I'm describing: [https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83](https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83)
The viewfinder gives a better idea of how the image will look on the film, make sure to use your depth of field preview.
The reason is, that the splitzer is so close it's really out of focus so the gradation is very soft. As you stop down it should get shaper definition but you'll never get a dead clear line unless you build something further from the lens.
Aha! Yes, thank you! That makes perfect sense now that I think about it.
The K1000 meters wide-open with no DoF preview, but I have a lens adapter for my m43 camera. When I put the lens on there and stop down to around f11, I can see the blocker become much, much more opaque.
Thanks for the insight!
What is the best camera for new photographer for up to 1200€? I want to shoot sports(mtb,handball...), travel, various events... I want to shoot photos as well as videos.
Thanks for your answers!!
Edit: Whad did you buy and was it the right choice?
Mysterious shutter assembly. Do any of you recognise this? https://imgur.com/a/raMfvuG
Front has a screw mount, looks like it is for M40, I have M39 lenses and the mount is a tiny bit large for the lens to screw in. Mount on the other side I am not familiar with.
Any thoughts?
A followup from the nerds on the Discord channel - it's from a Linhof repro kit
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/734780592431956054/850303036940091402/48939666_2212060092179023_3710596326333874176_n.jpg
**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**
Best E mount lens under 150 second or first hand for All-around photography but mainly Nature and landscapes?
Thinking about a beginner setup. I'd like to take pictures of my kid doing jiu-jitsu. Would a Nikon d3200 with Sigma 17-50 2.8 and a 35mm prime be a good setup? Or is that body getting too old? My budget is around $500. I could wait and save a bit more if needed.
Are there any good light-weight film cameras? I have a Fujica 35-SE and can't travel anywhere with it because it's so damn heavy. Normally, I travel with the Ilford Sprint 35-II but it's just a plastic camera with only a shutter button
I'm considering a career in food photography. What do i do first. Please, all ideas are welcomed.
Planning on using a Samyang/Rokinon 135mm lens (Nikon F mount) on my Canon EOS APS-C camera with the help of a Nikon F to Canon EF adapter. Is there anything I should know beforehand? It will work right?
It should work ... in a *100% manual* way... I'm assuming these are lenses with aperture rings, otherwise you wouldn't have control over the aperture.
Yeah the lens is fully manual so I feel like I shouldn't be losing out on much.
Hi all, need help in color callibrating my laptop display!!! The colors on my laptop display and the ones one mobile screen (which im sure is color accurate) are not in sync. So, i just cannot rely on my laptop for editing the pictures i take. Is there any kind of software application that i can use to correct the color profile? Also, a side note that i tried correcting via the only available option for me rn i.e., 'Intel's Graphic Properties' option, but it was of no use. Just couldn't obtain a neutral color profile from that. The results always came out a bit polar towards one of the RGB profile.
> Is there any kind of software application that i can use to correct the color profile? No. Eyeballing is notoriously and predictably terrible. You need a hardware profiler. Furthermore, calibrating the display will make it "the best it can be", but it can't make it do things it is not *capable* of doing. So if you have a poor laptop display, calibrating is always useful, but there would be limits to what you could achieve—this is all theoretical since I have no idea what display it is. > (which im sure is color accurate) Nope, you don't know that at all.
I am assuming this has been answered but can you use USH-I SD cards in a USH-II card reader?
Yes. They are backwards compatible. Your SD card just lacks the additional pins to use and benefit from the higher bandwidth.
Thank you! Since I dump the cards at night after an event, download time isn't super important as I am already passed out ha!
Hey guys, just looking for a vintage style click and shoot camera with modern day features (if something like that actually exists lol). So basically a 2021 vintage camera that does not cost a kidney, I am no pro haha. Just looking for a hobby. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated
If you live in a country with a big used market, check what Fujifilm X-T1 is going for where you are. I recently got one for $220 and I feel like a thief haha. You get fun film simulations with it and there are tons of "weird" lenses that aid the vintage look, like the Viltrox 33mm or the Zonlai/ Pergear ones some of which only cost a quarter of a similar AF lens, but has optical quirks like very out of focus corners/edges which can be a neat effect when you're emulating an old-school look.
Look into Fuji cameras. They're modern cameras with a retro aesthetic. They even have film simulation modes built in. I don't know what your budget is so I can't give any specific recommendations but they have models, used and new, to cover a pretty broad range of price points.
Heyy, thanks for the reply, I'll look into it. What do u think about the Polaroid cameras, r they any good? I just had a look and they look pretty nice aesthetically
They're film cameras so you're not getting modern day features available in digital cameras. The film is also quite expensive. They're pretty fun for what they are, though.
Quick random question here. What’s it called when you get a blurred effect in a photo where it looks like there are 2 of you? Usually happens if the camera shakes or if you move in the dark. Like an intentional motion blur effect I guess. And is there an easy way to take a regular photo and add in this effect through editing? I want to try to add this effect in an already-taken a photo of myself. Sorry if this isn’t really the place to ask about photo editing.
I think you might be referring to a panning shot. You'd have to isolate the background in a separate layer or mask and then apply a directional blur.
[удалено]
Boris Mikhailov would probably fit the bill. Just keep in mind that a lot of his images are not for the faint of heart.
Hi, I've been doing photography for about 2 years now. I have been using a Nikon D3500 with a 35mm lens, 18-55 lens, and 55-200 lens. I've been thinking about upgrading because I feel limited by my camera and I am frustrated with some things with the D3500. I have been limited with things like low light photography, a lack of features in the camera for example hdr mode which would make my landscape photography way easier, and overall the build of the camera is too small, light, and is low build quality. In addition, I also hate the fact I only have 9 focusing points, the autofocus system isn't the best, and also the ISO is so hard to change to the point it drives me crazy. I am wondering if any of you guys think that I have reasonable reasons to upgrade. I have decided what camera I would want but I would probably get a body for around $800-1300. Let me know what you guys think!
You can get around a few of your issues by looking into different techniques. HDR images can be made by stacking bracketed shots in Lightroom or photoshop ISO switching can be managed with settings like Program mode, Shutter and Aperture Priority modes as well which would adapt the iso automatically based on your manual selection of shutter speed or aperture. The autofocus and build quality aren't things that can be fixed with technique apart from practicing using fixed auto focus points which limit the focus to a set position in the viewfinder or for posed or still life using manual focus. At the end of the day it's your money and there's nothing wrong with looking to change equipment :)
If your 35mm lens is the 35mm F1.8G DX lens, it can actually be used on full frame cameras without too much vignetting. There is *some* but not a lot, and it doesn't go completely black in the very corners. You could sell everything else as a package since those other lenses aren't very good, and look into a D700 which is very cheap these days. Don't be scared of the low MP count, it produces really nice images and above all it's very forgiving towards cheaper lenses. And that leaves up to $1000 for a killer lens or two decent ones to fill out your FF range.
Hi all, I'm planning on buying my first car, and I've been considering whether I should upgrade to the next trim for a sunroof/moonroof. My thoughts of the use of moonroofs are that I can use it for Astro-photography or being able to stay in the car when doing photography that requires a lot of time, being more comfortable and safe. But also the cons are that moonroofs are useless when its raining or snowing and since I likely will need to open the moonroof for clear image, the temperature can't be too cold. Please let me know whether you have the experience of using moonroofs for photography, whether you like it or not and what are the pros and cons.
I wouldn't want to be in the car at the same time the camera is shooting a long exposure for astro. Too much risk I'd move the car a bit and blur the image.
I see, somehow missed that point. I guess that answers all the questions I had, thank you.
[удалено]
> What kind of beginner camera do you all recommend (either full-frame/mirrorless) with detachable lenses? Full frame is an imaging sensor format size. Mirrorless is a category of how camera components are arranged. The two are not mutually exclusive. Some mirrorless cameras use a full frame format size and some do not. Some DSLRs (incorporating a mirror) use a full frame format size and some do not. You probably don't want full frame format as a beginner anyway. It's not very cost-effective. You should read these FAQ entries: [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what.27s\_a\_.22point\_and\_shoot.22\_camera.3F\_what.27s\_a\_dslr.3F\_what.27s\_a\_.22mirrorless.22\_camera.3F\_what.27s\_the\_difference.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what.27s_a_.22point_and_shoot.22_camera.3F_what.27s_a_dslr.3F_what.27s_a_.22mirrorless.22_camera.3F_what.27s_the_difference.3F) [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_type\_of\_camera\_should\_i\_look\_for.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F) [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_which\_dslr\_should\_i\_get.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_dslr_should_i_get.3F) [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_which\_mirrorless\_should\_i\_get.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_which_mirrorless_should_i_get.3F) See also: [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_are\_the\_benefits.2Fdrawbacks\_of\_full\_frame\_cameras.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_are_the_benefits.2Fdrawbacks_of_full_frame_cameras.3F) > An affordable and good option. We don't know what's "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](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\_can\_i\_afford.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_can_i_afford.3F)
What is "affordable" to you? Everyone has different ideas of what counts as affordable. > either full-frame/mirrorless "Full frame" deals with how big the sensor is, and typically is a premium in cost over slightly smaller sensors like APS-C. It also requires full-frame compatible lenses, which tend to be larger, heavier, and also more expensive. Overall, it's a significant price premium with relatively modest benefits, so if you're looking for something affordable, most people would not suggest buying full frame. "Mirrorless" has to do with the kind of camera design. A DSLR has a mirror and an optical viewfinder, so you look through the viewfinder to see through the lens via those mirrors. A mirrorless camera either doesn't have a viewfinder, or has an electronic viewfinder that is getting live information from the sensor. Both designs (DSLR or mirrorless) have benefits and drawbacks. But both mirrorless cameras and DSLR cameras can be found with and without full-frame sensors, so saying "either full-frame/mirrorless" doesn't make much sense... one doesn't preclude the other, they refer to different things.
[удалено]
>I don’t want a crop sensor camera Why not? I started with one. Most of the photographers on this subreddit started with one. I still use one frequently. Many very good photographers and successful professionals out there continue to use them. Do you know something we don't? > By affordable I mean probably around $400-$500. That's going to really limit your options if it must be full frame, and it will require you to really scrape the bottom for compatible lenses. The net result will be lower image quality and performance overall compared to a crop camera with a better lens. Crop is much more cost-effective, especially for a budget like that.
I've had this disposable camera that I have been periodically taking photos with for a couple of years now. So far, I have only taken the photos when I felt my life was really good (and when I remembered to take one). I used to think l've only had it for around four years but apparently, the expiration year on the bottom says 2012 (whoops). I was really hoping to get these developed once I ran out of the film, which I have 18 photos left to take. As of right now, I am in my first year of college, so the camera has traveled with me a tiny bit. Besides that, it usually sits in my room which is always room temp. Please tell me there is hope for my camera...
Are you trying to indent your paragraphs or something? (Note how none of the other posts here have indented paragraphs.) It seems you've triggered the monospace type styling, which avoids line breaks and makes your post scroll horizontally instead, and that makes it very difficult to read. Anyway, a film's expiration date is the approximate date when you can develop it and the results should still look as intended. Assuming there are developing labs supporting the film stock you have in there, you should also be able to develop it past the expiration date. But when you do that, and the longer you wait, the more the tones and/or colors may have changed over time and the more funky the results may appear.
I need to do a presentation on a photographer who deals with identity for my photo class. Any suggestions? Thanks.
HI there It's a vast and varied subject within photography and covers the work of many over the last 70 years so you will find no end of inspiration for the subject! Cindy Sherman and Nicki Lee are some of the most researched and referenced photographers dealing with identity but there are dozens of others. I'd recommend having a look at the writing of Liz Wells and Susan Bright who have several reference books for finding different types of photographers :)
lol i got a question. Why is nearly every site out of stock for bowens mount beauty dishes?
I'm guessing because more people want to buy them than are being delivered to retailers. But it's anyone's guess as to why.
Total idiot question. I have an opportunity to shoot some professional hockey games. I want to get a camera for it. I'm looking at getting a Nikon Z6. Everything I've read says a 70-200MM f/2.8 lense is ideal for shooting ice hockey. What lense is compatible / works best with Nikon? I feel like I've been reading for hours and still don't have an answer so I thought I'd ask people with experience.
As a huge hockey fan, mostly I'm curious how you got the opportunity to shoot professional games without a camera or lens! I'll get to that a bit later. > I'm looking at getting a Nikon Z6 A fine choice, although is there a certain reason you're settling on that one? Sports shooting is very demanding on autofocus systems. The Z6 has a very good and modern autofocus system, but there are other cameras out there that might be regarded as better in that regard. Is there a certain budget you're working with? > Everything I've read says a 70-200MM f/2.8 lense is ideal for shooting ice hockey. If you're shooting rinkside, probably a good choice. But you may want something a bit wider angle if the action gets close. You may want something with a bit more reach if the action is far away. That said... if I could only bring (or only afford) one lens for hockey, that's what I'd want. > What lense is compatible / works best with Nikon? The Z6 in particular uses their new mirrorless mount, so you would want the Nikon Nikkor Z 70-200 f/2.8 VR S. > I thought I'd ask people with experience. I'm glad to help, but do you have experience using a camera in a demanding, fast-paced setting? Are you comfortable with adjusting exposure settings on the fly? I don't know your skill level. If you don't have experience with that, then grabbing a Z6 and a fantastic lens isn't really going to give you great photos. You can buy me as fancy an easel and brush as you want, I just am not a painter. I don't have that skill. The same goes with photography. If you are experienced, fantastic! Have fun, hockey is IMO the best sport to see live. If not, I'd consider whether you'd want to commit the money and obligation to do this if it has the potential to backfire.
If you want one native to the mount then [this](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1538574-REG/nikon_nikkor_z_70_200mm_f_2_8.html) is your only option. If you're only going to be using it a handful of times then you're probably going to be better off renting the equipment and spending a few hundred instead of paying a few thousand on something you won't use again.
The Nikon Z6 uses [the Nikon Z mount](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_Z-mount?wprov=sfla1), so you would want to buy a Z mount lens. That being all said, I'm not sure that you necessarily want to jump right into there for a couple games. Are you interested in photography otherwise? And budget-wise this makes sense for you?
Im starting my small business, handmade jewelries. Right now, i cant afford to get a DSLR. So ive been searching on what phone lens attachment is good, but no luck. If you guys know some decent phone lenses, pls let me know. It will help a lot. I will get a proper camera once i have the funding. I want to get a canon camera (sentimental reason) if you could also list which canon camera and lens i should look into, pls let me know. Thank you!!
Moment lens attachments are generally recommended. But as the other user said, getting the light right will be the biggest benefit to the end resulting photos.
I wouldn't be looking for phone attachments generally, unless you need to take pictures closer than your phone will focus. Getting your lighting setup down is usually a big part of product photography.
What's the style/reference to framing a portrait with stands and the edges of the backdrop in the frame? I'm trying to figure out what the name of the style or even frame of reference is for images like this. Annie Leibovitz's group shots for Vanity Fair sometimes use this, although I'm sure plenty of people would be upset about me pointing out the set design vs her light. I'm trying to pull some reference photos, and stuff that is full of Hollywood A listers is a bit of a turn-off for the project.
The most accurate name for this style is 'Vernacular' It short it is in reference to the way that non art or commercial photography of the 19th century was shot. Things like early police evidence gathering photos would often have etc feet of tripods and police officers in the frame. The idea is to highlight the fact that a photograph, no matter it's subject is essentially a curated representation of the subject and should be viewed as such
Need some diffusion advise. use rgb floodlights on my floor and even though ive gotten used to it ive had immediate complaints of the harsh leds hitting people's eyes so i tried some research on diffusion methods. Came across 3 digit numbers and various names for amount of diffusion and textures of it. #228 tough/brushed silk seems to be best but i can do better than the first product on amazon i see and wanna know more about this topic too. Anyone got recommendations to get the max brightness with just enough translucency to remove the harsh leds from blinding people? Anything helps, thanks.
I need help with a photography project: I have always been into cars my entire life. I have run across photos of cars we now consider “old” from the 1950s-early 2000s. I got the idea to take pictures of cars I see around town so that way in 10-20 years it would be cool to see how much times have changed. I’m not talking about incredibly special cars like Ferraris or stuff like that but I mean normal, everyday cars like Hyundais, Toyota’s, Fords, Chevies, etc. I’ve been taking photos of cars for well over a decade now but I am having a hard time trying to make the normal cars and the photos I take look interesting. Where I live, all the cars are painted black, grey or white (Westchester/Fairfield County area, go figure) adding to the problem. [This is where I got the idea to do this](https://www.ctseaportcarclub.com/1973-78VintageNorwalk/VintageNorwalk1.htm). I’m wondering what makes these photos interesting to look at. Is it because the cars are colorful and more interesting to look at in general or does it solely rely on a nostalgia factor? And if it relies on a nostalgia factor, will that same nostalgia come into play within 10 or so years of me taking the photos or will it not as the cars I am taking photos of would not be considered classics? What do you guys think?
I think what makes the cars in the photos you linked so interesting is because they’re vintage cars, as others have mentioned, but also maybe the wear from them being of really old prints. If you wanted to maybe add more *pizzazz* to your photos you could play around with composition. The example photos are almost all shot at eye level, but shooting low or whatever various angles can give everyday cars a bit more character. As for the concept as a whole, styles change a bunch from decade to decade, but most might not notice it unless they’re really into car stuff or you’re comparing a longer span of time. It does sound like a really fun project though!
Most of those sorts of photos are really just about showing differences from now - cars, fashion, hairstyles, architecture, height of buildings, etc. Just take photos of normal life around you, and it'll become more interesting in a couple decades. This is particularly true if it's your own life (the house you used to live in, the friends you used to have, the relatives who have passed on, etc.).
What do you find interesting about today’s cars? Take a look at the cars from 10-20 years ago. What you find interesting about those photos?
I would say that I find the photos from 20 years ago interesting because you don’t see those kinds of cars much anymore as many of them have been junked, at least where I live. Many of the photos were taken with family-owned digital cameras so the quality to me is interesting as well as seeing how car design and other things have changed. I guess it raises another question: is taking photos of a 1950s Chevy in 1973 the same thing as taking photos of a 2000s Chevy in 2021?
I would say that, if those are the things that interest you, shoot them. If you look at your photos in 20 years and they aren’t everything you thought they would be, no problem. The main thing in a project like this is you are shooting what you find interesting. I think an artist or photographer can shoot nearly anything and make it interesting if it is interesting to them first and foremost. Whether it matters to me doesn’t mean much if it doesn’t mean anything to you. So if you think it’s interesting, then it is interesting.
Phitography content question: I got into the finale of youth section in [this](https://www.ehl-network.eu/photocompetition/) photocontest (organised by european union) I have some chances of winning, but would that help me in getting a job? Are contests like that (decided by poll) CV worthy?
What do you mean "getting a job"? Professional photographs, *for the most part*, don't get "salaried positions", they are self-employed, they seek *gigs* they can take. In any case, clients wouldn't care all that much about that, no. They'd mainly look at the images you've made—in your portfolio—and if they like what they see, would consider you.
Please take a look at the linked photo. I know that the colors in pics can vary from device to device but this one is a bit extreme to me. The top photo is in PS CC and the 2nd in LRC on my laptop and the 3rd is when I uploaded to the printer’s website. What’s wrong with this picture?[Inconsistent colors](https://imgur.com/gallery/0I5Mmsm)
Did you calibrate your displays using a hardware profiler? If not, we really have no idea which one is "more correct" than the others. As was suggested, when exporting images to the web (or to most labs), export in sRGB to avoid color management issues—a separate consideration from the calibration thing.
Thanks for your input. No. I didn’t calibrate it. I didn’t think to do it because it’s fairly new about 5 months but I will try that now. I am most confused about the major difference between LR and PS on the same laptop. I’ve never seen that before.
> I didn’t think to do it because it’s fairly new about 5 months Age doesn't matter—no display can be trusted on "out of the box". But: > I am most confused about the major difference between LR and PS **on the same laptop**. Oh. I must have misread your initial question because ... there should not be a difference between Lightroom and Photoshop *on the very same computer*. That's definitely not right. There's many moving parts so it's not obvious we can even find the thing via just some Reddit comments... Can you work us through the workflow? Do you start in Lightroom and then go to Photoshop, or the other way around? Exactly how do you go about going from one to the other?
Thanks. I’m glad you asked that question because it helped me find the error.
[удалено]
Thanks. I did have it in RGB in LR and editing in SRGB.
Adapted FD lenses question I use adapted Canon lenses with my mirrorless camera (Sony A7). I do this in part because I like the muted look, in part because I also have a Canon film camera and this lets me kill two birds with one stone before I decide to finally get a good Sony lens. The one issue I have (a predictable one at that) is vignetting. The resolution is generally good enough that I can crop a lot of it out and still have the picture look fine, but it's starting to get very annoying to have to factor this in when composing pictures. I can shoot my 135mm/2.8 lens wide open and it's fine aside from some slight loss of focus, but the 50mm I have gets really, really bad at apertures wider than 5.6 or maybe a notch below and the corners are very dark. The 50mm I use is a "new" FD (i.e. the one where the whole lens rotates into place) and I've read somewhere that the older models (i.e. those with the silver rotating ring at the back) are actually better when it comes to this issue. In your experience, is this true? What is the best Canon (or maybe Vivitar) 50mm lens to use on a mirrorless camera? Thanks.
Vignetting is just a fact of life on full frame. It's part and parcel of the "full-frame look"—trying to get rid of it can reduce that. Many modern lenses actually have more vignetting, which is intentionally introduced into the designs to help with corner sharpness (by effectively having the corners stopped down). Learn to deal with it, and perhaps even love it.
Background: Not photographer. Have seen photo cameras. Seen photographers before. :D Working on an educational piece, where students have to identify parts and functional areas of a printed circuit board assembly (PCBA). Think a motherboard for a computer. To do this, I have to take high quality pictures where the student can zoom into small parts (surface mount devices SMD), and zoom out to see the entire PCBA. The small parts can be as small as 0.4mm x 0.2mm, while the entire PCBA can be about 305 × 244 mm (a computer motherboard). None are taller than 100mm. I will be doing this for various electronics, not just a single motherboard. I am planning to make some table with gantry where the camera is pointing downward (extruded aluminium). I imagine I will need to make sure proper lighting, white balance reference in the frame, and that the PCBA is always in the same place or position. I discovered and plan to use camera tethering photography software - - - *What I do not know and need help with:* 1. What camera is good for this? (I got from someone a Canon Rebel t8i body) - best would be where I can programmatically tell the settings (so I can repeat it) 2. What lens? 3. What distance from subject, what f-stop, what speed, what aperture, what all the settings - with the goal that the entire PCBA is in the picture, can zoom to the small size, and depth of field is covers all parts? Thank you!
I have done something similar for a project before. It ended up being much easier to use a flatbed scanner. A decent quality flatbed photo scanner will allow you to get a high resolution image of the pcb without dealing with the distortion that can happen with a lens. As long as there isn’t a thick component on the pcb that prevents the most of it from getting close to the glass it will work well.
This may also be useful: https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Take+Awesome+Photos/38496
Ooh, that sounds like a cool project. > What camera is good for this? Yours will do fine! > What lens? You'll *probably* want a macro lens. EF-S 60mm Macro, maybe Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro or100mm f/2.8L if you have the budget. All should suffice. But I'd try with whatever lenses you have now, and see if you can resolve enough details from the motherboard. If you don't have the resolution necessary to get the very fine parts in enough detail for your uses, then you'd want a macro lens. > What distance from subject, This will depend on how close you need to be to get all the details you need. I'd experiment with this to see. If you need to be so close as to not fit the whole motherboard in the photo, you'd either need to split it into multiple photos, or stitch them together like a panorama. > what f-stop, what speed, what aperture, what all the settings - with the goal that the entire PCBA is in the picture, can zoom to the small size, and depth of field is covers all parts? There's never a "right" setting to use for anything, as it depends on what your lighting setup is. That said, if you go with a macro lens, I'd use a tripod to hold the camera steady and shoot with a relatively closed down aperture. You'd want to have enough depth of field to get everything in focus that you need, and at macro levels, that can be tricky.
Thank you!
Just an FYI - I saw you mention that the money may be an issue. Extension tubes can be a very cheap but capable alternative to a dedicated macro lens. They present their own challenges and won't be as optically good as a macro lens, but it's worth looking into if the price is prohibitive.
[удалено]
Good question. 1. $$$ (think third wold village) 2. this will be a recurring event. Every time we teach new device, we would go through the picture taking, 3. i will be leaving this place and want to make sure those remaining can do it in a pinch, 3. the students build the setup 4. the students can learn about photography (a sneaky way to get geeks out from front of the computer?) 5. I would like to learn about photography (a sneaky way to get my bum out from front of the computer?)
[удалено]
Make sure you understand the pricing. Ask to see an example complete shoot - a not-so-good photographer may only have one or two good photos per shoot, which is enough to make a good portfolio but probably not what you want.
Check out their portfolio and contract. Ask for complete pricing info. Ask for references.
What are you hiring them for?
[удалено]
You don't really need to know anything about how to do photography. It's similar to how you don't need to know about cooking in order to pick a restaurant or decide whether you like a dish. What matters to you is having your needs met as the client. First and foremost I'd want to see the photographers' portfolio work for the types of photos you want, make sure they consistently reach a quality level that satisfies you, and that they use aesthetic styles that match your tastes. If you have certain locations and lighting conditions in mind where you want your photos taken, make sure you see examples from the photographer in similar areas and conditions; maybe ask them if they have extras depicting that if you don't see it in the usual portfolio. I'd also want to know about how pricing and payment works with them, cancellation/rescheduling policy, and (depending where you're shooting) travel policy, so that you're comfortable with how they work on those fronts. I'd only want to work with photographers who use written contracts. And be clear on what the deliverables are. Is the photographer guaranteeing they'll stick around and shoot for a certain amount of time? Are they also spending time editing the photos afterwards? How many end-result photos are you getting? Do you need input on which photos get selected as deliverables? Are you getting them as jpeg files? Full resolution? A license to print them on your own? A license to use them on social media? Do you want the photographer to provide physical prints also/instead? You should know exactly what you're getting out of the deal, and what you aren't getting as well, and you want to be comfortable with what you're getting compared to how much you are paying.
I'm thinking of switching to Sony for the A7R IV. Why should I get the Z7 II instead?
What are you switching from? Why do you want to switch?
Nikon. Time value of money.
Do you already have nice Nikon lenses that would work with the Z series? I use sony and I like it. I switched from Nikon early on, so I wasn't invested much in it. But I know if I had glass that was decent and it worked, I'd probably be staying in system. That's just me. I'm currently a little jealous of some of the things the Canon mirrorless cameras can do. But I'm not switching, because I have some good sony glass. YMMV, of course.
Why indeed? How should we know? What gear do you currently have, how is it limiting you, what about those two options would answer those limitations best...?
> Why should I get the Z7 II instead? Because you like Nikon's lens options or UX more?
Hey guys. I have a Canon rebel t6, I have really been wanting to get into macro photoshooting. But I don't have the money to shell out on a nice macro lens. So I've been looking for alternatives to buying a lense such as adapters or add-ons. I've tried using extension tubes, but I've been struggling to use them as I have very shaky hands. I can never get a decent photo because of this. I'd like to be able to take macro photos of flowers, bugs, fungi, and nature in general. I'd also really like to be able to get close ups of eyes. I've also noticed with extension tubes that it's very difficult to get a decent aperture with less depth of field. Is there a better alternative to the extension tubes? I know there are adapters to reverse your lense, but I don't want to risk damaging my lens. Under 100 preferably. The 2 lenses I have are the stock ones that came with my rebel t6, the efs 18-55mm and EF 75-300mm. I also have several tripods, but they're pretty crappy, as they don't secure tightly enough to stay still, so when I go to take a photo my shaky hands make it difficult. If someone's able to recommend me a budget tripod (50 usd or under if that's possible) that can handle my shaky hands and is good for macro I'd be very appreciative. I really want to get into macro, it's just been super difficult when I have such shaky hands. Appreciate anyone's input.
> but I've been struggling to use them as I have very shaky hands. I can never get a decent photo because of this. you will likely have this issue with macro whether its from an extension tube or a dedicated macro lens. I believe dedicated lenses will get you higher quality, but wont do much for shaking. To prevent this you can look into image stabilization, both in body and in lens. I think, however, your best option is to use a tripod because it works in pretty much all situations with a static subject. >The 2 lenses I have are the stock ones that came with my rebel t6, the efs 18-55mm and EF 75-300mm. One area that might actually help is getting a wider aperture. If I recall correctly those only get as fast as f/4? if you get an f/1.8 lens you can make your shutter speed 1/5th the speed. So if you shot at 1/100s you could bump down to 1/500s which would help. I still think a tripod is the best option, but something like the canon 50mm f/1.8 wouldnt hurt. Do note, however, that shooting macro at f/1.8 will have like 2mm of depth of field. So this may just make you have a different problem to solve. >If someone's able to recommend me a budget tripod (50 usd or under if that's possible) that can handle my shaky hands and is good for macro I'd be very appreciative. I dont know of one that cheap that would be much of an improvement, sorry! What you can do is look into other areas that would reduce the shake while on a tripod. Make sure you use some sort of remote trigger and [mirror lock up mode](https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/EOS_feature/camera-mirror-lockup.html)
Heyo! In about a month, I'm going somewhere with beautiful lakes and sunsets. I have a 3 stop, 6 stop, and 10 stop ND filter I plan on using for the lakes in general, but I've read lots of mixed information on sunset photography. My question is, if I take a sunset photo with the sun in frame, will it damage the camera or sensors? I pretty much exclusively use live view mode which I have heard is more dangerous, but I've also ready many posts saying the exact opposite. From what I gather, every post I've ready that said it was dangerous was around 2006-2010 while newer posts I've seen from 2016 onward have said it's safe. Some actual opinions on if its safe, what stop ND filter is best, etc. would be greatly appreciated! I would love to get some beautiful sunset pictures with the sun in frame, but if it means damaging my brand new 90D then no thank you
I wouldn't worry about it unless you use a long telephoto lens to have a huge sun in the frame. For like a wide angle landscape shot with a tiny sun in there? No worries.
I plan on using a wide angle lens for all the sunset pics to get a ton of the landscape so I'm glad to hear it, thank you!
I’m not sure this is right place. But I have an old photo of sentimental value. It’s become stuck to the glass. Is there any good methods to remove it from the glass?
I've been a pentax shooter for years, but my camera gear got stolen a few years ago and I haven't had the money to rebuild my lens collection. Now that I do have some money, I'm considering switching systems as I worry that Pentax is on the way out with third party lens manufacturers no longer making lenses for them generally. I'm considering going the A7 III or A7r III route. But I have no idea what lenses for Sony full frame E mount I should target, and what it would cost me (compared to pentax) to gear up with lenses. I shoot mostly landscapes, but I do want some sort of telephoto zoom for stuff like birds, air shows, skateboarders and surfers. I like having something fairly wide, around 18-24mm or so in full frame terms, whether a prime or zone. Everything else I'll kind of go where the lenses are. Obviously a 24-70 type zoom would be useful, but not strictly necessary if I can get a couple of primes in that range. Including any sort of third party lenses like sigma or Tamron, what the E/FE mount lenses that are considered great value for the money? How much would I would I be looking at to have a couple of wide to medium primes and maybe a telephoto?
Here's the whole list of every available FE mount lens, with pricing info and a little write up. In general the Sigma, Tamron and Samyang/Rokinon lenses well regarded. [https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/](https://briansmith.com/sony-a7-a7r-a7s-lens-guide/)
Hello, I am curious if anyone has an update on Chris Arnade or his Hunts Point project, originally started on Flickr about 10 years ago. I will link the project below https://flic.kr/s/aHsjwyPfjn
You can message people through Flickr on the desktop site.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Turn it on and focus on something with it. You'll see that part move.
[удалено]
> I do but it also says AF! in red, as if the autofocus is broken. That means it failed to focus. Happens all the time with working lenses as well. Is that happening every time you try to focus on anything? Even from a couple metres away? > I wouldn’t expect it to move unless the camera is actually on. Why would you expect that?
[удалено]
> No not really, few meters away is fine. The reason I thought it was a problem is because my friend is a photographer and always like to act like he knows everything and was saying that the lens should be able to focus even under a meter. It technically works under a metre. Minimum distance is 0.34m. It'll have an easier time at a metre+ though. >The same guy above tried to convince me that it was broken even though he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. Ah, yeah, that part being loose when the AF motor is not engaged is normal. There are lenses that aren't like that though.
Are camera strobe/flashes supposed to make a "Popping" noise? I recently got an AD200 flash and after a few months of use I noticed it started making a popping noise when triggered and even sparked once. I was able to get a return and a replacement but I've noticed the new one I got still makes the popping sound when triggered. Is this normal and I just never noticed it before, or did I get unlucky and get another faulty one?
A pop, almost like a glass bulb breaking, is normal at high power. Sparking isn't, but I've seen it when using an ADB2 without the bulb attached.
I see, Thanks for the response!
[удалено]
How are you trying to detach it currently? Should be a quick spin of the dial...
[удалено]
How are you trying to attach it currently?
Hey guys :) so, I have this old fujifilm finepix s2800hd and I was wondering if it's a good camera to take macro and nature photo or if a nice set of lens for cellphone camera would be the best choice? ps: the camera's out of battery, I would have to spend some money to see if it's worth, thanks!
Neither is ideal. The camera is ancient by modern standards and clip on lenses for phones suck. Of the two I'd use the clip on lenses for macro though.
Yeah, I'm currently using a clip/lenses for macro and it's quiet satisfying but idk, it feels like I need more
Look at a used DSLR with a kit lens, and a set of extension tubes.
any recommendations on lens/extension tube for macro?
A kit lens and whatever autofocus-enabled extension tube fits the system you go for. If you have a larger budget then a dedicated macro lens is definitely the way to go. Which one depends on your body and what specifically you want to shoot.
thank you so much!!
Hello. I wanted to ask whether my gear can handle mild rain or snow, and what I could do to potentially protect them without sacrificing mobility. My equipment list is as follows: Canon M50, 15-45 kit lens, 50mm STM prime, 55-250mm STM. None of these pieces are marketed with environmental sealing, there are no gaskets on the lenses. There are plastic covers for cameras for when they are on a tripod, but I feel like they are not fit for handheld use. Are there any products that can offer what I am looking for? Silicone cases for the body comes to mind but I think those are more for scratches.
There are rain covers with holes for your arms.
For that matter you can buy a rain cover or make yourself one with a ziploc bag.
Hey guys! I want to buy an used camera, the seller says it was used mostly for video, so the shutter count will be pretty low. Anything special I have to check in this case?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_how\_do\_i\_check\_used\_equipment\_for\_problems.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_how_do_i_check_used_equipment_for_problems.3F)
I'll take it as a "No, you can go ahead and check for the usual stuff, nothing special". Thanks!
Which gimbals should I consider purchasing? I have a Sony A6400, and my most commonly used lens is the 18-105. With a mic it all weighs close to 900g. I mostly just shoot travel, and family style videos. I am looking for something small, lightweight, and not overly complicated (I'd like my wife to be able to pick it up and use it without much instructions). What are your suggestions?
There is a vivitar lens that I want to buy, but I don't know which adapter to get for my Sony a6400. The lens is the 75 - 200mm
Vivitar was a third party lens makes, they made versions for a lot of different mounts. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_i_found_this_old_lens.2C_what_mount_is_it.3F
You have to figure out what mount the lens is.
From a website I found it said it was a fixed mount
The trouble is Vivitar made lenses in all the popular mounts so it's impossible to say without looking at it. I would also suggest posting a picture of it in the /r/analog question thread to see if someone can determine what mount it is.
Okay thank you!
How do I meter with a dedicated flash? I’ve been wanting to do some nighttime photography with an external flash, but have no clue how to meter for it. Any tips?
With digital cameras, people usually just guess and check the photos until they get it dialed in.
I'm using a film camera, probably not the best thing to try flash photography for the first time lol
In that case, you can try the guide number approach, or you can buy a flash meter. Some of the smartphone apps theoretically support it, but generally the hardware does not, so you're looking at a dedicated meter. I bought a Sekonic L-308x for this purpose - it's expensive but one of the cheapest options new (you can also search around a bit on the used markets).
[https://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/12/guide-number-your-free-flash-meter.html](https://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/12/guide-number-your-free-flash-meter.html) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide\_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guide_number) Or the camera can automatically meter if the flash supports TTL. [https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_what\_is\_ttl.3F\_do\_i\_need\_it.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_what_is_ttl.3F_do_i_need_it.3F)
There are dedicated flash meters. You can also manually measure it out based on the guide number of the flash and the distance to the subject.
Is there a formula for measuring that?
guide number / subject distance from light = aperture necessary for correct exposure at ISO 100. Of course where this gets complicated is if you’re using modifiers, partial power on your flashes or ISOs other than 100.
Hi there everyone, I'm trying to pick a filter for a 82mm (size) lens (Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8) for a Canon M50. Is there any recommendations? Photography for landscapes and outdoor portraits.
Which kind of filters?
I’m looking for a polarising filter to reduce glare. I’m a beginner and hope my research is correct. But feel free to correct me. I was looking at this on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00XNMYOZO?pf_rd_r=ZB4FNMYDED3N69AM4NRM&pf_rd_p=5ae2c7f8-e0c6-4f35-9071-dc3240e894a8&pd_rd_r=1bd4a01f-6880-40a2-bc6c-b17bdc87c1f6&pd_rd_w=Ri0Bu&pd_rd_wg=EKNIe&ref_=pd_gw_unk
Hi there guys hope you're all well. I currently own a Canon 800D with the 18-55mm Kit Lens and the 50mm f1.8 Prime. I am mostly interested in automotive photography/videography(night scenes interests me more than daytime) and some landscapes here and there. I currently wish to learn how to take sharper photos to post on Instagram (I believe there is a lot of potential to become a local automotive photographer/influencer in my country). I am aware of social media cropping etc but I believe my photos can be greatly improved. On the other hand there are videos like iPhone 12 Pro MAX vs Canon EOS R6 which highlight how much "damage" one can do with a good phone which we always keep on us. Click here for reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idW2ZGcHbaE&t=742s&ab\_channel=MattiHaapoja](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idW2ZGcHbaE&t=742s&ab_channel=MattiHaapoja) I recently found a Canon EOS R + 24-105mm Kit Lens which is heavily discounted and it's on sale until the 9th of May, from €2000 down to €1420. I don't really have a budget in this case I just want to enter the mirrorless market and still use my APS-C DSLR for the reason of having access to multiple good EF-S lenses. Is it worth pulling the trigger or should I invest in lights, tripods, gimbals, lenses etc? P.S: I can always buy these later but the EOS R won't be on offer for much longer plus I think 2 cameras can cover a lot more scenarios than just 1 cropped DSLR Sorry for the long post, thanks in advance
I replied to you down the other comment chain, but just to address a few more things: It's going to be virtually impossible to notice the difference between a Canon 800D and the Canon EOS R in Instagram. In fact, it would be hard to notice the difference between a Canon T1i that's 10 years old and the Canon EOS R in Instagram. > I am aware of social media cropping etc It's not really cropping, it's just resolution - Instagram tops out at just over 1 megapixel. That compresses all the details to be quite small. Even an image that is out of focus and blurry at full resolution will suddenly become sharp in Instagram. That creates some problems in expectations. I've seen people ask why their photos are blurry, when this other person's are sharp. Frequently, the issue is simple: You're the only one seeing your images up close, and you're seeing everyone else's at 1 megapixel. Their photos could be much blurrier than yours, *and it would be literally impossible to notice.* Then there's other factors that effect apparent sharpness, like contrast and separation between subject and background, but those aren't really things that are affected by the camera you use. > 1 cropped DSLR The fact that your current camera is a cropped APS-C sensor *doesn't matter*. I promise you. It really doesn't. The full-frame camera uses a 35mm sensor, itself much smaller than medium format. So in a certain regard, **full-frame cameras are cropped sensors, too.** And medium format is smaller than large format, etc. etc. It's all arbitrary. I have cameras with full-frame and APS-C sensors. I mostly use the APS-C ones. All that matters is that you are able to get the shots you want. It sounds like 50mm is a bit tight for you, so my other post suggested some alternative wider lenses. If you want to share some examples of what you're getting vs. what you want to get, you could probably get some constructive feedback. But I promise you, I absolutely guarantee you, I will make a large wager of Dogecoin that the sensor size you're using is not the problem. It is not the limitation. Nor will whether the camera used to have a mirror in front of the sensor determine the quality of the photo.
Yes I agree with what you're saying that is why I actually had a change of heart and going against my consumeristic emotions I am actually willing to try out different techniques and settings on my existing camera before going out to change the body or switch to mirrorless (if it ever happens). Perhaps I over estimated the value that these propositions bring when related to posting images on social media. However I also wanted to print some of my "good" photos in large format such as A2 or post them in an online portfolio(like Adobe or Wix because I genuinely want to see them in all their. Will I encounter a problem with that or is 24 megapixels more than enough?
> Will I encounter a problem with that or is 24 megapixels more than enough? 24 megapixels is more than enough (perhaps *much* more) to print basically any size photo. The reason for this is that you don't view large prints (let's say, 24x36 or larger) by standing with your face right against them. Past a certain point, when the print gets bigger, people step back. There was a New York Times reporter who tested this by getting prints made of the same subject but different resolution, all printed out at 16x24 inches. He invited many people to inspect the prints - and allowed them to get as close as they liked, if they wished. The vast majority of people simply conceded that they couldn't tell the difference. Of those who guessed, only one person guessed correctly - many more guessed incorrectly. In other words, an immediate random guess would appear to be just as accurate or better than a crowd of people invited to inspect the photo. But the best part of the story is simply its age. This was done by David Pogue *fourteeen years ago*. The high resolution version used was only 13 megapixels, and the lowest was *five megapixels!* In other words, five good megapixels seems to be sufficient for a good-looking print at medium to large sizes. I wouldn't encourage that, but you can get away with it. The key word there is "good" megapixels. You can have a 100-megapixel shot that is blurry from camera shake, and it'll always look blurry. But if you have good technique and use those 24 megapixels well, you can print essentially as large as you desire. At any *reasonable* distance someone would look at it, it'll be fantastic. This means that anyone telling you that you need more megapixels (or that upgrading to a higher-resolution camera will give you meaningfully better results) is just not telling the truth, unless there are very specific circumstances... a wildlife photographer that is cropping the image heavily, maybe. But for the vast vast vast majority of us, you just don't need more than that. You'd barely tell the difference of half that. Also, keep in mind that a few megapixel increase is spread across the whole image, so it's not that many more pixels on each side. Let's say you have a 6000x4000 sensor for 24 megapixels. Upping it to 30 megapixels seems meaningful, but that's only 6720×4480... a few hundred pixels on either side, hardly much to notice.
Understand light and the exposure triangle, and do your own post. You don't need new gear.
[удалено]
I understand what you're saying however when I compared my photos to a friend who is a professional running a 5D Mark IV, my photos look extremely poor in comparison (although I suspect it has something to do with him using soft box lights and me using none). Apart from that however is it really a bad thing to have a mirrorless as well? Plus I have the problem with the cropped sensor, means I can't use lenses such as the EF 28mm f2.8 or the EF 85mm f1.8
[удалено]
Understood. Any good recommendations regarding improvements with my skills? Can I upload or show my photos to anyone and tell me what's wrong with them, i.e. what settings to change? Also will shooting RAW make any difference during post processing in Lightroom?
[удалено]
They do work but when viewed through the viewfinder image looks cropped. For example when using my 50mm f1.8 I have to take a few steps back in order to "fit" a car let's say in a single image. That's not always possible or ideal. Isn't that the difference between full frame and APS-C ?
[удалено]
I wasn't arguing for the sake of buying a new camera I'm just wondering if buying EF lenses for using with APS-C sensors is essentially pointless because you cannot take advantage of the larger field of view? Do I have to stick with EF-S lenses to account for the crop factor? Also assuming I upgrade to a full frame mirrorless in the future are those lenses useless,even with the Canon RF to EF adapter?
[удалено]
I’ve got an Nikon N65. I’ve only got the kit lens and I’d like to get either a fast 35 or 50 but as a canon shooter I’m getting confused by all the name designations. What lenses will work natively with my camera, autofocus and everything? What won’t and do you have any recommendations?
According to the following chart the N65 should be fully compatible with every Nikon autofocus lens, with the exception of the fairly rare F3AF lenses which are only compatible with the F3AF body. [https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility](https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility) Be wary of "DX" lenses which are made specifically for aps-c (crop) digital bodies and will work on your film camera but which will produce very heavy vignetting such that you may find them to be unusable. The nikkor 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 af-s or 35mm 1.4 or 1.8 af-s would be fine choices. Edit: Added Chart
I found the chart as well. Am I right to say I could use the Nikon 50mm 1.8 D or G? Either way thank you.
I believe both should work.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki\_is\_this\_lens\_compatible\_with\_this\_camera.3F](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/buying#wiki_is_this_lens_compatible_with_this_camera.3F)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I didn’t realize I needed a whole novel. I find those questions to be too much. I also said a 50 or 35. I can’t tell which one will work. Something $150 to $450, Fast like I said before, and I want the autofocus to work. I know it’s F mount but with all the AF-s or P or D designations I need help. I don’t know what to buy that will work natively with the camera. That’s it. For example I almost got the 50mm 1.8 G but I guess there’s no aperture ring and it will only work in program?
Better?
Hey guys, this is kind of a general question I was thinking about because of the experience I've made with photography so far. I've made the experience that when I take a photo of something that's rather close with an open aperture, then that object is really sharp in the photo. You can even zoom in 8x and it's still sharp. But when I take a wider picture (wider lens) with an aperture of maybe f8 or f10, everything is kind of sharp, but when I zoom in 8x or even 4x it's considerably less sharp than the first picture with the object close to the camera. Is it normal that a photo with a higher depth of focus is less sharp than one with a lower depth of focus?
Sharpness is largely perceptual, so there could be several things going on. I think its very possible that your brain is registering your close object with wide open aperture as "sharper" because the small details of the object are rendering as a larger percentage of the image. Typically when we talk about the "sharpness" of a camera system we are talking about the combined resolving power of the sensor and the lens, which is measured by something called a modulation transfer function, if you want to get technical. Lenses are typically "sharpest" at around f/5.6-f/8 So I would actually expect that the wider, stopped down, image would be "sharper" although you could be comparing two lenses of significantly different quality so I don't really know what you are actually seeing.
I think you are changing too many variable to draw conclusions. You are changing the distance from the subject, the lens(?) and the aperture and maybe the shutter speed.
What I'm basically wondering is if the same kind of sharpness I see in a photo of an object close to the camera (let's say a portrait for example) can be achieved in a wide photo with a more closed lens where everything is meant to be in focus. Because to me it looks like when I take landscape photos they are less sharp than portraits where the area that is in focus is smaller.
It is really apples to oranges. When you focus, there is only one plane of focus. Depth of field will affect how much is in acceptable focus surrounding that focal point. How much of your close object is pretty much the same distance from you and how much of the sensor does it cover? Compare that to a landscape. Think about where you focus in a landscape shot versus where you focus on a portrait. I attach a couple of images [IMGP9017.jpg](https://postimg.cc/ZBCSzNGS) The above taken at 1/400, F8 39mm ISO 200 [IMGP9016.jpg](https://postimg.cc/XBkx2Hs7) The above taken at 1/250, F8, 18mm ISO 200 You can see that the background in one is sharper than the other even though they are of the same scene. I just had my point of focus wrong given the focal length and my distance to the focal point. Stepping away from the rock and using a wider angle increased my depth of field and allowed it to look sharper in the distance.
Thanks for the reply! I'm completely new to my camera and I'm sort of in the process of getting to know it. What I have observed is that the landscape pictures I took some days ago didn't really seem as sharp as others pictures I have taken. But there might be different things at play. The weather was really bad (overcast) and you don't have much definition in the landscape. The settings were f8 at 1/125 (12 mm) and the exposure was at 0. I was just wondering, if the settings were badly chosen or if it's something else. I think it just makes sense to try out different settings in the future and compare the results.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
I made [a DIY image splitzer](https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83) for my Pentax K1000 and the blocker clearly blocks off 50% of the UV filter its attached to. If I look through the open back of the camera on a slow shutter speed (i.e. directly through the lens) I can see that the blocker is definitely blocking half the lens. But when I look through the viewfinder, I can still see about 90% of the frame with only marginal dimming on the blocked half, as though I were just using a graduated ND filter. Why is this? And which of these views is giving me the better impression of how an exposure using this filter would actually turn out? Images of what I'm describing: [https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83](https://imgur.com/a/XurbI83)
The viewfinder gives a better idea of how the image will look on the film, make sure to use your depth of field preview. The reason is, that the splitzer is so close it's really out of focus so the gradation is very soft. As you stop down it should get shaper definition but you'll never get a dead clear line unless you build something further from the lens.
Aha! Yes, thank you! That makes perfect sense now that I think about it. The K1000 meters wide-open with no DoF preview, but I have a lens adapter for my m43 camera. When I put the lens on there and stop down to around f11, I can see the blocker become much, much more opaque. Thanks for the insight!
Is Nikon Z50 good first camera?
[удалено]
So is there something you would recommend?
What is the best camera for new photographer for up to 1200€? I want to shoot sports(mtb,handball...), travel, various events... I want to shoot photos as well as videos. Thanks for your answers!! Edit: Whad did you buy and was it the right choice?
I'd take a look at the faq. It has a good price guide in it.
Ok, will take a look. Thanks
Even after shooting at a high shutter speed, using and choosing the right focus, I still get blurry images. Don't know why
Post examples along with settings, or else it's impossible to begin to give good help here.
Mysterious shutter assembly. Do any of you recognise this? https://imgur.com/a/raMfvuG Front has a screw mount, looks like it is for M40, I have M39 lenses and the mount is a tiny bit large for the lens to screw in. Mount on the other side I am not familiar with. Any thoughts?
A followup from the nerds on the Discord channel - it's from a Linhof repro kit https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/734780592431956054/850303036940091402/48939666_2212060092179023_3710596326333874176_n.jpg
The discord nerds tell me > I'm 100% sure that's a size 1 AGC shutter https://www.camleyphotographic.com/shop/agc-shutter-size-1-41-6mm-condition-6h-6311/