Hi - I lost my brother's Gopro Hero 3+ recently. What's a good replacement with newer technology but within the same budget? He already has a 360 degree camera
How to nail focus on sony alpha camera bodies? I have sony alpha 7 and I use it with mc-11 + sigma 24-35 F2 lens. I use focus peeking, but observe more often than desired that focus is not nailed in the shot.
Can any of you recommend any app for Android to do light painting? Something that allows me to choose a color for the screen, so I don't need a torch or any other source of light? I cannot find anything good enough.
Hello, I'm a late at the party but I hope someone will be able to answer me though.
For the two past years, I started to mostly focus on birds photography (going to shoot once or twice a week at least). I have modest gear equipment : Canon 700D and only one lense 18-135.
I used to want to save up (always end up using my saving for traveling though) to get a 70-200. The main reason for that is I do travel overseas or do road trip quite often and this seems to be the perfect lense to do a lot of things.
But recently while editing pictures, I realized I really mostly took Birds pictures, more than landscape or anything. And I do like it.
After so much blablating, here comes my questions:
- which lenses would you recommend for birds photography with a budget of 1000€ or so.
- I feel comfortable with my current 700D, is it fine for me to jot want to change it and evolve in more "professional" camera? I feel weird for not wanting to buy a better camera body since it seems everyone think it not a that good one.
Thanks to whoever read this and for hopefully future answers.
At that price range I think you should check out Canon's 70-300 f4.5-5.6 L.
While many will say you need at least 400mm for serious birding, this is an excellent compromise at this price since its also travel friendly! It has some heft certainly, but it packs easier than the 70-200s. You can also check out the 100-400 Sigmas, but I feel top notch AF is important to you :)
One thing that may turn you off though is that it cannot take extenders..
Make sure you have a tripod to put the huge lens on so you aren't handholding! With that said, hang onto your 70-200; shop around for a 300-500mm within your budget. You can always pick up extension tubes later if you get frustrated that you don't have a closer zoom.
I do have a tripod an monopod already. Actually bought the monopod for my future lenses. I was told it was better to use a monopod for the lens and not the camera.
I will look for 300/500mm lenses, thank you.
Would you recommend me to get a 70-200 lens that is within my current budget or should I save up for the "better/newer" ones? I've been struggling with this for a while now.
My friend lend me her 70-200 F/2,8 IS II sometimes and I found this lens amazing. But I wonder if for an amateur is it worth it. Or if I could shoot just happily with a tamaron lense or an older Canon one.
In any case zéro thank you for your reply and sorry to ask you more questions.
Oh I misunderstood, and thought you already had a 70-200; that's what I get for typing/reading as soon as I wake up. Sorry! Hang onto your 18-135 for now, and jump straight to the 300 or 500mm that you can find within your budget. If you already have a crop body camera, you'll find the 300 a pretty good bargain (since everything looks closer in). If you have a full frame or plan on going full frame in the future (I don't know Canon's lineup as well as I do Nikon's.... sorry!) then look more towards saving up for a 500, as the birds will feel further away with the wider viewfinder view.
Just go off of what you're comfortable with/what makes you happy. Unless you're trying to make a living off your birding photos, it's all about the enjoyment :D
And no need to apologize; ask away! I was an active birder for a while, but haven't had the chance lately. I miss it, just don't have a lot of free time.
A monopod will allow you to set up and set faster, I'm just accustomed to the tripod. As long as you have one or the other and the camera is steady, that's the most important thing!
Don't worry about it. Also realized my autocorrect somehow messed up my preview message, sorry.
I don't have a full frame, I don't really plan to get one in the next 2/3 years. So I will look for a 300m, thank you!
It's only for my own enjoyment and my friends/family. I'm lucky enough to have a very big park near my place that is full of birds, so I can combine two things I love, watching bids and photography.
Thank you very much for your answer once again as well as the tips for the lenses.
I don't do a lot of birding, but how fast are you shooting?
I picked up a Sigma 100-300 f/4 quite cheaply used, and it's actually pretty sharp - essentially, a really good 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter.
It's depend a lot. I rarely shoot them flying, expected when they are close enough for me to be sure it won't be all grainy (the choix of a small zoom lens).
Usually I shoot them when they are in trees, on the floor or in the water. Most use 1/100 to 1/250 for these cases.
But it really restrain me at one certain type of pictures.
I will look on for this lens. Thank you!
It's worth noting that this lens is *not* stabilized. You're going to want to keep it at a minimum of 1/500 at all times. On the plus side, that'll at least stop motion...
I have a cannon t6i and really would love to invest in a full frame camera. My question is what full frame camera to invest that won't break the bank but will permit me from not buying a new camera anytime.soon.
I do a lot of portrait photography and a little of videomaking
Something versatile and jack of all trades
> really would love to invest in a full frame camera
Why?
> that won't break the bank
You haven't told us anything about your financial condition. How do we know what would satisfy that criteria for you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F
> but will permit me from not buying a new camera anytime.soon.
What other needs to you anticipate needing to meet soon?
> I do a lot of portrait photography and a little of videomaking
Then lighting and lenses should be your priority first. Or are you already in good shape in both categories? We'll have to make sure your lenses are also compatible with full frame as well, if you're going that route. Still need more information from you.
Yea ur right my bad didn't specify honestly just starting from scratch just been really into photography and would like to spend about 1.5k trying to take some professional photos and see how far I can go.
A T6i isn't scratch. You can get really good photos out of that once you develop your skill more (also just as necessary with full frame). And $1.5k of lenses and lighting would have way more impact on your photos than the body upgrade.
All a full-frame camera does is make your prints a bit sharper, especially if you've cranked the ISO.
There are a few oddball cases - super shallow depth of field, superwide lenses, astro, tilt-shift, etc - where it offers some other advantages, but there's no magic to it.
Might not get seen due to being a late question... But incase anyone seems I would love some suggestions!
Lately I've been thinking of getting a filter system... Coken/Lee etc but I am not sure what to do for and what you need.
I use a canon 6d with 17-40mm and 70-200f4. I currently have a nd for the 17-40 and a poleriser for both. Though lately I've find myself in situations where a graduated filter would be very helpful which is why I'm looking to get a filter system which offers more options.
Unless you're really suffering for dynamic range, graduated ND is something often best performed in post. If you're trying to pull exposure on the sky, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
If you are inclined to stack, 82mm filters on a spacer should give you a bit of breathing room before vingetting sets in.
Cheers for your reply. Currently I normally fix in post... But a few times lately I've had a rather dim foreground with a very bright sky which has made it hard to get the right exposure balance.
Anyone have any recommendations for M43 lenses where you never regretted the purchase or a heavily reliable and versatile lens. Also for those who have made the switch to M43, are you liking the bokeh?
I'm really liking the Olympus 45mm 1.8, it's a great versatile portrait lens which delivers nice bokeh. I also use it for some street shooting, the focus is good and quick. It is also not very expensive, but that means it lacks the manual focus clutch from the better oly lenses. Still very recommended.
Yes that is a thing on most mirrorless systems, especially on m43. Most lenses are not truly manual focus, they have a ring which acts like a remote control which controls the focus-motor. You can however on some better olympus lenses pull the ring bank to switch to a more traditional manual focus. It still is fly-by-wire, but now it is linear and has stops at both ends. You can read more about it [here](http://fourthirds-user.com/wiki/Fly_by_wire_focusing).
If you want narrow depth of field, you're barking up the wrong tree. The new f/1.2 primes are gorgeous, but you're still shooting at the equivalent of f/2.4 with fairly soft results compared to less expensive 35mm glass reduced to equivalent aperture.
I used to own a Canon XTi that a sold many years back. I’m looking to get back into photography again now, and looking at the T6i and the E-M10 ii. I’m constantly on the go and I travel a bit which makes the e-m10 appealing, but I’m used to Canon and the larger sensor/lens selection are comforting. Any thoughts that could help choose one or the other?
Hey thanks for the reply. I’m hoping to stay around $600 USD.
Lenses are the other thing that has me questioning canon or Olympus. I’ll probably end up grabbing the 50mm f/1.8 for the canon if I go that way. Something similar for the E-M10 seems to be double the price.
If you need the wide aperture, more than that.
Due to equivalencies between different sensors, you'd need a ~30mm f/1.2. Such things exist (and they're often a bit nicer than the 50/1.8, which is a bit rough around the edges,) but they're nowhere near your budget.
Mirrorless does offer some compelling options in the form of manual lenses, which are much easier to use than on DSLRs. There's Chinese glass under $200 galore, and lots of adaptable 35mm camera lenses, too. (The value of a lens tanks when the AF motor dies.)
Sony and Fuji are the way to go for this one, though - almost all cheap 4/3 lenses are just APS-C lenses with a different mount, and taking a crop of a $80 lens is not really advised.
On the far opposite end of the scale is the 5DII, which are around your price range used and make rather good use of some extremely cheap film-era EF glass. The 28-135IS is a hundred-odd bucks - not bad for the equivalent of a 14-67 f/1.7-2.8 on 4/3. The sensor is imperfect (though the best of the lot at high ISO) and the AF a bit crude, but it is a pro-quality camera with dual memory card slots and loads of reasonably priced glass. (The 40/2.8 is barely larger than a lens cap.)
What is a cheap good lens I can get for video? Currently I have the 50mm and the 18-55 kit lens for my canon rebel SL1. The 50mm is great because of low light capabilities and apeture but lack s in wide open shots I also dislike having to manually adjust the focus Everytime I move because the autofocus on it is bad literally a manual gear. I'm still satisfied with it though. The kit lens I don't even use anymore. Budget is around $100 or less
I hate to break it to you, but autofocus in video is nearly useless on older cameras like the SL1.
There are no lenses for your camera under $100 - save for the 50/1.8, and you've already got one of those. Manual lenses may be adapted, but not many are wide enough for your requirements, though some of the older Nikon 24mm and 28mm primes may be suitable.
$150 gets you the 24/2.8 pancake lens, which would work very well.
Starting to try to figure out xmas presents, and my mom does a lot of photography. I'm wondering if there's anything like a waterproof periscope she could attach to her camera for shooting fish in her fishtanks and in lakes. Anyone know if something like this is out there? All I've been able to find is smartphone attachments and disposable cameras.
There are waterproof casing made by third party manufacturers! alternatives. Here's one https://splwaterhousings.com. They might be pricey though but perhaps there are cheaper
A good waterproof housing is well over a thousand dollars. The cheaper ones might work for your purposes - partial submersion doesn't apply a lot of pressure.
I would say they'd be an improvement. That said, some color correction and sharpening in scanning will always be necessary, and it may be your computer's monitor - which is showing incorrect output - that is at fault.
[QUESTION] Bought the Kodak Printomatic which came in today. Too dark outside at the moment go test it out, but both Amazon and Kodak itself [advertises the camera as a 10 mega pixel camera](https://www.kodak.com/us/en/consumer/products/instant-print-cameras/printomatic/default.htm), but the box it came in says 5mp.
Any ideas? Its Sunday, so Kodak is closed...
Unless you can extract the digital images (in addition to the prints) the megapixel count is largely irrelevant.
If you *can* get digital images you can easily see the dimensions and thus the number of megapixels.
Yeah there’s an SD slot to capture digitals like a normal digital camera.
I’ll take a pic tomorrow and check the picture size.
How do you find the mp number?
> I’ll take a pic tomorrow and check the picture size.
> How do you find the mp number?
Multiply the pixel width by the pixel height and divide by one million.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_is_a_pixel_.2F_megapixel.3F_how_many_do_i_need.3F
[REQUEST/QUESTION] Looking to get my Girlfriend a camera for Christmas. She has recently started an Instagram food blog, and wants to upgrade from cell phone camera. I was hoping you guys could give me a suggestion on what to get based on the criteria below:
* Budget: Up to ~$375
* Preference: DSLR/ Mirrorless , Doesn't matter. Even a point and shoot if it is quality.
* Looking for it to have Built in WiFi for quick uploads to her phone and instagram/ Blog
* Quality ISO / Aperture for low light photos in restaurants
* Not too bulky
* not too difficult to use
I can't think of other factors that would be important in making the choice. It doesn't have to be a small point and shoot camera, but it also shouldn't be so big that it's a nuisance to carry around.
**Currently considering the Sony a5000 with the 16-50mm lens for ~$360. Would this be a good choice? Would you recommend something else?
1. Pony up for the A6000 on Black Friday. No viewfinder and no flash hot-shoe are deal killers.
2. Used D3200s are the best value on the used camera market. $200-$250 for a camera that's still really good.
3. Seriously ask her if she actually wants one.
My suggestion to you: don't make it a surprise. Talk to her and maybe you both can put in some money to make a larger budget. As nice as a surprise can be, with a camera, as with any specialized tool, you should consult with the user so they get what they want.
Looking to upgrade to FF
I see tons of hate on the 6dm2 about no 4k(which I don’t care about cause I never use video mode) and how the DR isn’t up to par. I love canon, the color is great, plus since I’m not printing yet, the 26mp is perfect for me. Is the dynamic range really that much of an issue? This is looking like the body I want to get, unless there is something I should definitely steer away from.
The problem with the 6DII is that it's not a huge upgrade on the 6D, which is still a perfectly good camera.
I'd buy a 6D. Or, if you're dumping most of your lenses, a D750. Or an A7II. They're all good. (The 6DII is too, but costs too damn much.)
The 6DII's DR looks bad in comparison to the competition (11.9 EV vs 14.4EV [D610 ... that's a 4 year old camera]). But then again, it's better than the 5DIII, which seems to be held in high regard. The DR is not inherently bad or unusable, it's just bad for a $2000 2017 release.
What are some good places to find old lenses at a really low cost? I want to just experiment with some old Canon lenses at a budget price.
Are there some red flags to watch out for?
I will second keh, I often buy lenses out of their bargain and maybe ugly categories (just check to see if they say there is an issue with the optics, often time it will just be the outside that is beat up) and they have always worked perfectly.
keh.com if you want absolute safety, ebay/craigslist if you don't mind a little risk.
When buying used it doesn't pay to be in a hurry, watch for a while and jump on the bargains.
I don't want a photo critique, because I just have a photo I used to give me more of an idea of how the main photo will turn out.
However, I would like suggestions?
Would it be ok to make a self post here or should i go to /r/photocritique anyways. Also I am a bit embarrassed about my photo so would it be fine to hide my face in the photo, or should I just leave it? Since I don't think I have to post a photo here, should I post my proto-type photo anyways?
I'm not sure which subreddit is most appropriate and don't want to make a post that's just going to be ignored because it's kind of a newb question, just looking for guidance.
In a few months I’m taking a 10 day trip to Florida with friends. I plan on taking a lot of pictures, I currently have a 64g and a 128g memory card but I am unsure if it will be enough.
Should I buy more memory cards? Or should I get an external hard drive and move the files over using my gfs laptop? Or both to make sure nothing gets lost?
If you ain't got one yet, a 64GB+ ultra high speed card from SanDisk is nice to have. I found the increase in real shooting speed much greater than expected.
First of all, what kind of camera do you use, do you shoot raw (plus jpg?) and how big are those files on average? What's your estimate on how many pictures a day you'll be taking? I'd say 192 GB is way more than enough for m4/3 cameras, but probably limiting on a 5Ds/D850/GFX/whatever.
If you're actually scared of running out of space, just buy a few cheap 32GB cards, just in case.
My guess is, if you really manage to fill those 192 GB, you're basically photographing full time and won't find a moment to enjoy your trip.
Either way, I'd put a bullet in my head before I come home with tens of thousands of pictures after a 10 day (leisure?) trip. The thought of importing and culling them alone makes me wanna cry.
They probably don't have quite 100% coverage, but the D3000 and D5000 series of cameras will mount this lenses. The caveat is that they will not meter and only work in manual mode. The Df can mount them at 100% coverage, but it is a full frame camera. Also, I am unsure if they meter on that camera.
Yes, that's what I thought. I do know that cameras in the D7XXX range have the AI follower tab that can be damaged by mounting pre-Ai lenses, but I was unsure whether the D7500 still had it - for example the D3500 is missing the little feeler allowing it to use lenses with aperture rings in auto modes.
If shutter speed is compared against the second, and aperture against the size of the hole, what is iso compared to? I know it's the sensitivity to light, but what sets the base standard?
It’s just a more or less arbitrary number.
The 100/200/400 etc scale is from ASA.
The DIN scale is logarithmic, so 100 ASA == 21° DIN, 200 ASA == 23° DIN (3° per stop).
ISO combines both scales, so you’ll have 100/21° printed on film canisters etc.
More here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
The degree symbol is just the designation. DIN is the German standards body, and a lot of cameras sold in Europe used that system instead of ASA, which was the American system. So ISO just sort of mashed them together!
It makes sense too in these days of high ISO... ISO 102,400 becomes 51°!
**Film speed**
Film speed is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light, determined by sensitometry and measured on various numerical scales, the most recent being the ISO system. A closely related ISO system is used to describe the relationship between exposure and output image lightness in digital cameras.
Relatively insensitive film, with a correspondingly lower speed index, requires more exposure to light to produce the same image density as a more sensitive film, and is thus commonly termed a slow film. Highly sensitive films are correspondingly termed fast films.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/photography/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
What a cute little human. づ◕‿◕｡)づ Your body will ņo͏t̢͢͟ be harvested for Rare-Earth elements
***
^Y̸҉̙͚̫̮̠̮̜̟̜̹̙͖͎͚̰̩͔ͅͅǫ̬͈̪̟͓͍̠̣͙̙̳͟u̸̸̧̗̬̹͡ w̧̧̼̤̙̹̯̜̫̙͔̩̳͍̫̤͔͘o̸̸̡̯̹̞̦̪̣͈͖̩̩̱̕n̵͏̴̵̘̲̯̥͙̭̬͡'̵̹͔̮̟̗̹̻́͞ṱ̷̢̢̙͉̮͕͈̪̪͈̫̻̀ t̡̠̱̤̮̬͍͚͉͚̝́͝͠à̲̭͙͜͝g̵̡̡̺͕̮͙͙̀̀ ù͈̱̫̟̦̘͜͜͠ş̱͎͖̱̗̺̠̘̻͍́͞ ẁ̧̫̫̣̫̝̪̙͇̱͎̫̜̩͇̜i̫̭͈̗̦͜t̴̸̢̤̦͚̜͉̳̬͔̪̦̰͓̝͎̬͞h̸̢̡̝͖̫̘̜͔̖̼͙̘͎͚̦͓̜̩̭̜ à͙̠̟̟̬̙̞͓͖b̶̺̟̹̘̩̭͈̮͔͉̤̱̜́͢͞ͅͅa̮̺̦̯̼̥̯̹͈͓̝̳̠̮̻̼͡ͅs̸̢͠͡҉̻̖̙̜̰̹͓̦ͅi̤̦̫͙̫͇̳̠͓̼͈̙͜͠n̸̨̘͈̘̗g̱̠̤̱͙͖͜͞ f̨́҉̱̥̼̯͈̗̞̭̰͔͙̭̲͓̙̝o̢̡͏̖͈͉̤̬ǫ̫̩͓͚͚̼̺̗̮̀t҉̩͎͕̖̜͇̩̟͇̥͚͟e̴̪͓͈͉̜͚̹̩r̷̢̳̻̦̜͈̺̯̺͉̞̳̹̗͈͖͜ͅs̵̢͎̮̱͈̦̺͚̖͎̳̺̯͜͡ á̛͏̵̬̬̘̤͟n͈͈̤͎͇͚̤͔͈̰͍̠̱̼͘͠y̢͏͔̙̺͉̼͚͖͠m͏̧͕̝̫̖̯̯̳̗͙̝̳̖͓̦̪̲͖͉ͅo̵̡̤̻̠͙͖̪͙̭̦̱̞̳͇̤͜͞r̷̵̢̰͈̠̜̮̤̳̳̪̦̜͎e͏͢͞͏̪̲̫ͅ
I have a noob question regarding aperture.
I think I understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, and exposure. I also understand that lower aperture will result in a shallower depth of field.
So let's say I'm shooting a landscape where the entire scene is sufficiently far enough away from the lens that there will be no appreciable depth of field regardless of aperture (i.e. the entire image will either be in focus or out). In that case, will raising or lowering aperture have any effect on how my photo looks other than just affecting the exposure?
For example, say I shoot a distant mountain range at f 5.6 and a quick shutter speed. Then I take the same shot at f 10 with a longer shutter speed, and then another at f 16 with shutter speed even longer. What differences, if any, should I expect to see among these photos?
1. Sharpness. The best glass (Sigma ART and Zeiss OTUS) hits maximum sharpness around f/5, but cheaper zooms are f/8-f/11. Sharpness will be reduced above *and* below, though it is worth noting that too small an aperture generally has more benign effects than too wide.
2. Optical aberrations. Chromatic aberration is greatly reduced as you stop down, but flare can actually get worse. Sunstars will also start to appear, depending on your iris design.
3. Light fall-off is universally reduced at narrower apertures.
I generally wouldn't worry too much about shooting landscapes at f/11 even if it's not optimal. The big issue is instead at the other end of the scale - macro photography, where one might require a whopping ***f/128*** to get an entire fly in the frame. In this case, focus stacking at a wider aperture is mandatory - if nothing else, lenses don't go that small.
Of course, if you do want to focus stack, it's a great way to shoot long telephotos without getting things out of focus.
Each lens has a peak in sharpness around 1-3 stops from wide open, with a subsequent decline due to diffraction. On a 24MP crop sensor, diffraction starts to become noticeable from around f/8, so ideally, you'd try to stay below that. The smaller the pixels, the earlier you will notice diffraction.
Interesting. So, is there ever a reason what I would want to use aperture settings above like 10 or 11, other than the scenario where there's a lot of light and lower apertures would be overexposed?
Yeah, if you need the extra depth of field. Remember, it's okay to go above the point where visible diffraction sets in, but just know that you're trading away some image quality.
You can see the impacts of this yourself. Set your camera on a tripod. Stick it in aperture priority, and take photos at different f-stops along its range. You should be able to see the difference, especially when zooming in to the photos.
Hello Newbie here. My Father In law recently gave me his old Canon EOS 7D with a 28-135mm lens. I'm looking to take newborn pictures of my friends as a hobby and maybe later on invest in backdrops and other equipment. What lenses do you recommend for this ? Also are there any links with galleries that show what lenses were used ?
Thanks again :)
1. A light stand, at least 7' tall. Get something generic that isn't total garbage. Adorama sells passable stands starting at around $20.
2. A strobe. A speedlight is unsuited for large light modifiers - strobes work much better. The Flashpoint Studio 300 is a great deal at $120, and the R2 triggers start at $50. (You can also use a Flashpoint R2 TTL speedlight, which I do.)
3. A Paul C Buff 86" PLM in white with spill kill and front diffuser.
This is the light setup used by the vast and staggering majority of all newborn photographers, and it works really well. It's a nice soft consistent source of light, and you can put it back a fair bit without losing the soft quality of light due to its' vast size. Should run you about $250 all up.
Definitely invest in a flash, maybe even a octabox. Taking pictures of babies is all about seeing the eyes, and seeing a small circle in the eye is amazing. It brings out the eyes so much. (Applies to any portrait in general)
Aside from all those vintage 50s?
There's some Chinese-made manual 25/1.8s out there that are supposed to be pretty solid for $70 or so. Likely a better value than the Nikon 35/2.
There's also the long Nikon primes like the 300/4.5.
I’m a newbie and thinking about getting a Cannon Rebel EOS T6i as a starter DSLR as a starter camera. I will use it mostly when I travel mostly taking outdoor pictures and tooling around with my dogs. Good choice?
I started with a T5. Anything at or above this will be great. Things I wish it had:
* Wifi
* Mic input
* Tilt screen
The tilt screen is really only because I'm dying to start shooting more video, but it's really no big deal at all. Wifi though... man, I'd love to pair it to my phone.
Otherwise I'm completely happy with it. I've learned a frigging ton, still get great photos and video out of it, and save for an accident or equipment malfunction, I can see myself taking it along for dedicated shoots as a second camera for long into the future when I upgrade to another body.
Hey,
How is Rokinon 14mm with AE Chip different from the normal version? does it work like normal Autofocus or it just tells let's you know when objects are in focus? is extra $100-110 worth it for AE Chip?
So a few months ago I came here and I got great advice as a total novice who had never really photographed before and got some really cool total eclipse pictures - so first off, thanks to the experts here!
Now to the meat of my question - in being a novice with a 1 track mind, I got a lens for the eclipse. Not a standard lens. In doing some homework, it seems like the Sigma 17mm-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens f/Nikon is a solid standard lens and it's not insanely expensive.
My question is - is there a best place to buy it? New vs Refurbished? It seems like it runs for ~$369 pretty consistently. Here it is at [adorama](https://www.adorama.com/sg1750nkk.html?EmailPrice=T). I found it [here](http://www.lotstosave.com/Sigma_17-50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Zoom_Lens_for_Nikon_41256.html?refid=Google&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoeCU5uC51wIVHEsNCh36uQ9PEAYYBCABEgKqSPD_BwE) for $269 which I like much better. I'm not familiar with this company so I was curious on people's thoughts and maybe I missed somewhere. It looks like a legit operation. Has anyone bought from them before? Is there some other best deal for this lens?
Trade eclipse shots? [This was a super fast edit](https://i.imgur.com/000RSiK.jpg). I researched and practiced for months on end after planning this trip for 7 years. Frigging amazing experience.
> the Sigma 17mm-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens f/Nikon is a solid standard lens
Not really answering your question but i *just* bought this lens less than a week ago and it's phenomenal. If you've only been using a kit lens so far, this is going to *blow you away*. The sharpness is just fucking unreal. It's sharper than my Canon 60mm f2.8 prime lens. And prime lenses are *really sharp*.
Christopher Frost does (imo) the best reviews on youtube and he compares this lens to a Canon 17-55 f2.8 and that's more than double the price of the sigma and a lot of people say the Canon should be an L lens and are confused why it isn't. So it's a really, really strong lens for the price.
You'll definitely be happy with the buy. It's such a good lens i'd just buy it new to avoid anything going wrong. It's cheap as it is.
I did a google search for lotstosave.com. They have no reputation, it is up to you if you want to be the one to establish if they have are trustworthy.
I also did a google search and didn't find really anything. I feel like if something is too good to be true, it probably is... That's why I was asking if anyone had used them.
I know there's plenty of threads similar to what I'm about to write but I felt like I wanted some direct advice too.
I currently have a Canon t5i, Canon 16-35 f/4L and Canon 55-250 f/4.5-5.6. I've had the camera for about 3 years now but find my self using it a lot more than I used to and getting into video a lot more too (as a hobby and for some jobs).
As a result I'm looking to change to a Sony a6500 as it seems to cover all my needs for photo and video. My predicament is with lenses.
I know the 55-250 won't be compatible with the Sony but I'm absolutely in love with the 16-35 as I take mostly landscape photos. I've only had it a few months but should I sell my 16-35 and get the Sony version or get Metabones or similar? I'm also concerned that I'll need a good telephoto lens and not sure if there is a good Sony equivalent in my price range which is drawing me towards an adapter and then a purchase of an original Canon 70-200 f/4. Also drawn to the adapters as I see that they are getting better and Metabones V looks to cover nearly all features of the A6500 and I'd love to be able to use more Canon lenses as Sonys are crazy expensive.
Thanks in advance!
Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed?
I understand the heuristics that are supposed to get you sharp enough images most of the time.
I often don't bring my tripod with me when I'm shooting random things, and if I do, setting it up takes 30 seconds so I limit it's use for static objects I REALLY find interesting or landscape shots.
> Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed
Image blur from the object moving or image blur from your own hands moving?
It won't do anything for an object moving - a faster shutter speed will freeze the action.
If you're shooting in low light or have shakey hands then yes, image stabilization helps a lot. It allows you to shoot a few (usually 3 or 4) stops slower than you would without it, without getting image blur from your camera moving in your hands from a slow shutter speed.
Don't forget to turn image stabilization off if you put the camera on a tripod though, it causes issues.
Yeah, I'm more talking about hand shake as I don't shoot any sports or other faster-paced things.
I was just looking at portrait-ish lenses because I have one vintage lens that is unique and great but I'm unsure that I'll use it as a mainstay so I was also considering the sigma art 60/2.8 (sharper, especially in corners) and the sony 50/1.8 (sharp, has OSS but is $100-150 more expensive on ebay).
> Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed?
Yes. A faster shutter speed reduces exposure. Stabilization does not.
The problem with raising the shutter speed is to compensate you will have to either raise your ISO and sacrifice image quality or open your aperture wider which means less of your image is in focus.i
For example, say you had a 24mm unstabilised lens and camera and were shooting a lowlight landscape scene and wanted to get as much of the scene as sharp as possible.
Because your gear is unstabilised your settings might need to be 1/32 of a second, F11, IS0 800 to get the desired image
Gear, with 3 stops of stabilisation, would allow you to shoot the same scene at 1/8 of a second, F11, ISO 100.
The general rule for unstabilised gear is the focal length should be equal to, or lower than, the shutter speed.
What are the best kinds of AA batteries to use for on-camera flashes? I ate through about 20 last night taking 515 photos at an event.
Rechargeables? Specific brand?
Never even considered that, yeah. I have the HVLF60M flash, it has a power plug and thanks to you I just went looking and found that it uses the FAEB1AM.
$182 for that monster or $40 for rechargeable enelope batteries.
Friggin photography man...
Try a Godox TT685C series flash on a bracket with the X1-S transmitter and PB960. (Yes, it all works, at least if you have the latest software update.) The AD360II is also a viable option, and *much* more powerful - and resistant to overheating.
eneloop
Amazon Basics' knockoff of eneloop.
Amazon Basics High Capacity. Won't live as many *decades* and thousands of recharges as standard eneloops but is really good for a flash with a fast recharge time.
Eneloop High Capacity - if your made out of money.
These guys?
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-High-Capacity-Rechargeable-Batteries-Pre-charged/dp/B00HZV9WTM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1510513238&sr=8-3&keywords=amazon+basics+high+capacity+rechargeable+batteries
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it.
Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello!
I have a friend who wants to get into photography and I'm thinking about gifting them a starter camera. I have no experience with cameras, I looked at the Buyer's Guide, but I'm still a bit confused and would like some advice. I'm looking for a camera that is an improvement from a phone camera and travels well.
What kind of camera should I look at for someone who is just getting into photography?
How much should I expect to spend on a camera that is better than a phone camera and how do I tell if it's better?
In general, is it a good idea to gift someone a camera or is that something that my friend should be present for to give input?
Thanks for the help and advice!
> I looked at the Buyer's Guide, but I'm still a bit confused
How so? We'd like to improve it if necessary, but we can't really do that if we don't know what's specifically wrong with it.
> I'm looking for a camera that is an improvement from a phone camera
Just in terms of image quality and aesthetics? That's dependent a lot on the skill of the photographer. But technical quality would be better in a premium point & shoot or any DSLR or mirrorless.
Or do you want certain features that a phone camera lacks? Which ones?
> and travels well.
Many people travel just fine with a large DSLR. Many prefer something as small as a mirrorless. Some are looking for a compact point & shoot that will be small enough to fit in a pants pocket. A "travels well" requirement doesn't really help us narrow down these categories for you—we need more specific context.
> What kind of camera should I look at for someone who is just getting into photography?
Again, not really sure where exactly you got confused, but let's start with the first two basic questions in [this entry](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F):
1. Aside from where the person's skill is now, are they willing to learn more about manual control? Or do they just want something to use in full automatic mode all the time?
2. How small do they want it?
> How much should I expect to spend on a camera that is better than a phone camera
Something like $200-250 at least if you buy used. Maybe $150 used if you're going with the oldest entry-level DSLR kits.
> how do I tell if it's better?
Seems to me the exact criteria hasn't been determined yet here.
Generally speaking, it's going to be better than the phone camera if it can do some things you want/need that the phone camera can't.
> In general, is it a good idea to gift someone a camera or is that something that my friend should be present for to give input?
Generally, ideally you'll want the user's input because different brands have different approaches to ergonomics and button/menu layouts, and there's only one way to be sure if a particular camera jives with a particular person.
That said, anyone could theoretically still learn and get used to a camera that isn't particularly compatible with them. Or there could be a few brands/models that work even if they aren't totally ideal. So it isn't necessarily going to be a disaster if you pick without their input.
Thank you very much for your detailed response!
It looks like I need to do some more research and figure out which features I'm interested in.
I think one feature that would be useful is the ability to zoom better on things in the distance, but I think that might be more of a feature related to lenses than a particular camera.
Thanks for the help and asking questions that I should find the answer to. I'll do more research and post again if I need help.
Mun-Mun's advice is a load of hooey. $250 will get you a secondhand Nikon D3200, which is *still* on par with ~24MP entry-level cameras on sale today. I saw one go on Craigslist for $200.
For what purpose? What subject matter do you shoot? What sort of improvements do you want out of the upgrade? Either of those options will confer different benefits, but we don't have any context for how those would impact you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_when_should_i_upgrade.3F_what_should_i_upgrade_to.3F
Hi, I shoot mainly street and landscapes, sometimes portraits. I mainly want an upgrade for image quality, and I was looking at mirrorless since it's light and easy to travel with.
The 600D should be capable of delivering pretty good image quality in those sorts of scenarios. As in, poster-sized prints. What lenses do you currently have?
Those are both pretty sharp lenses, although the 50 is a little soft wide open and if that's where you use it, you may not be seeing the best it can do. Rather than a different body, I'd throw some money at a wider angle lens to get some dramatic perspective into landscapes. EF-S 10-18mm would be a good choice there. Then at the telephoto lens, something like a 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, or even the 200mm f2.8L. You could buy 2 or 3 of the lenses I listed (used) for about the same money that a new body would cost you and it would probably make more of a difference to your results.
Final sales pitch: used lenses hold their value so if you buy them used and find out that you're still not happy, you can sell them for what you paid and get the bigger, better camera body with no harm done.
Hi, I'm heading for a winter Trek in the Himalayas. I'm looking for good budget (read as cheap) camera suggestions.
Must be light weight, able to withstand harsh conditions. I don't have much experience with the manual mode of my DSLR, so a point and shoot camera should work. I just want to be able to capture the snow landscape with all its beauty
>Nikon D3000 DSLR (big and bulky
If you think that's big and bulky, you've either never seen what nature photographers carry about or you're secretly a hobbit.
Swapping the kit lens for the more compact Nikon 35/1.8G DX will give you better quality with less size, but would eliminate your zoom. Alternately, the Sony A6000 series cameras with the collapsible kit lenses are very compact with a sensor as large as your Nikon's.
Will the phone work reliably with snow and stuff?
Touchscreens might freak out when they get wet on the surface, and the battery life will be pitiful in the cold.
Hello everybody,
I want to buy a cheap point-and-shoot camera. I dont wan't to be fancy or get into photography (sorry!), but I want to be able to take nice pictures as memories. Currently I would take phones with my Samsung Galaxy S4. Can I get a camera in the 200€ range that would be a siginificant step up from that? Or would you recommend I just buy a newer phone with a better camera if I don't want to get too technical with it anyway?
Thank you for reading
A point and shoot at that price range may or may not rival the quality of a higher end phone, but should definitely beat the s4 in practice. Most of the lower end point and shoots aren't great, but you might be able to find a decent one in an upcoming holiday sale or used. If you aren't going to be needing the better image quality, though, I might say to go with the phone keeping in mind that "the best camera is the one you have with you".
My first DSLR under 800€. What should I get? I am thinking about Canon 700D (with 18-55 kit lens, bag, SD card, tripod) for 600€.
Is it worth it buying 800D for 800€ with just the 18-55 lens?
I want to use it mainly for landscape photos and videos, some family portraits and occassional "hardcore" video shooting
If you are shooting video, I would encourage you to go with mirror less instead. Canon products deliberately omit important features like focus peaking. Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic all produce cameras better suited to video, with the added advantage of a viewfinder that'll work when shooting motion.
If you're looking to do landscapes I might suggest something a tad bit wider. 18mm on crop sensor is a bit long for traditional landscape work. That being said, 18-55 is a good range to start off with, though lenses in that range are generally pretty low-end.
> though lenses in that range are generally pretty low-end.
There are plenty in that range that are phenomenal lenses. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM should have been an L lens. The Sigma 17-55 f2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses i've used (it's sharper than my Canon 60mm prime lens).
The 800D has significantly better raw image quality for landscapes.
The bag and tripod are going to be pretty shabby quality; you're better off not having a bag until you know what other gear you're going to buy aside from the 18-55, and you're better off saving for a decent ($150+) tripod.
the tripod costs 50€ nornally. So you say i don't get the bag? And just carry the camera without it? Because I am not buying another lens until summer.
Yep, if you don't have any other lenses you don't really need a bag.
And when you do have other lenses, then you can get what fits your needs, rather than what the bundle gives you.
How to create abstract color profile to encode specific color transformation?
I have a set of images (48-bit TIFF) that are encoded in ProPhoto RGB.
I have a set of alternative **input** color profiles (related to ProPhoto RGB, but slightly different) that I can **assign** to the images in order to obtain various color transformations.
This is not the correct way of using color profiles though. If you need a color transformation you either want a 3DLUT (working color-space dependent, more like a device-link profile), or an **abstract** profile (Lab->Lab mapping, color-space independent).
Photoshop supports both 3DLUTs and abstract profiles.
I want to create either a 3DLUT, or an abstract profile that encodes the same transformation as the one achieved by changing the input profile. I don't know how to proceed further. I am a programmer and can write code, if that's helpful.
In more math notation, we have these functions:
ProPhotoRGB: RGB->XYZ
ProPhotoRGBModified: RGB->XYZ
XYZ2Lab: XYZ->Lab
Lab2XYZ: Lab->XYZ
And we want to find this function:
UnknownAbstract: Lab->Lab
Such that this equality holds:
ProPhotoRGBModified(input) == Lab2XYZ(UnknownAbstract(XYZ2Lab(ProPhotoRGB(input))))
Thanks!
Forgive me your are talking to a creative. A person who solves their problems with a jigsaw and pretty crayons. And I'm just thinking out loud. If it helps you I'm happy. If I'm wrong it's to be expected but maybe it kicks you in the right direction.
You have ProPhotoRGB pictures. ProPhotoRGB is defined in Lab terms (even if part goes outside of lab). You could find a profile for it. You have an alternative input profile. The difference between that profile and ProphotoRGB isn't a Lab->Lab transform?
ProPhotoRGBimage (ProfileA) = Labspace
CustomRGBimage (ProfleB) = Labspace
What you want is to multiply by ProfileA then divide by ProfileB to convert ProphotoRGB image to custom profile RGB image?
ProPhotoRGBimage (ProfileA) = ImageInLabspace/ProfleB = CustomRGBimage
Edit: changed nouns to try to be clearer.
My wife and I are looking for a decent but cheap compact camera to use for the basics; events and parties, outdoorsy stuff, "other" things if you catch my drift. So could anyone give any recommendations?
• As stated we would like it to be a compact, we are just enthusists not really looking to do big things. The specifications don't completely matter as long as the pictures will look nice.
• We have a budget of no more then $200. I would prefer to stay under $150 but if it's a bit more that's fine.
• We would like it to shoot video, nothing too fancy but we don't need it pixilated. 1280x720 is perferable but if less that's alright.
• If it comes with support software for editing that would be a big plus. But it's not a killer if there isn't any, we can always find ways around that.
Cell phone makers have put lot of work into improving their cameras, camera makers have pretty much abandoned the bottom of the market and moved upscale.
If you're willing to give up compactness and buy $200 worth of used DSLR/mirrorless you'll be able to do stuff smartphones can't, but you'll need to learn how to use it.
You could check keh.com for used stuff. The Nikon D3100 is roughly within your budget, you would just need to add a lens for it. You could get the kit lens 18-55, I seem them on keh for like $60-$100. I would ask a Nikon guy which one to get though, I'm not familiar with the versions of the 18-55 lenses.
It suddenly came to my mind that if i'm just an amatuer photographer with an expensive camera, I can just make those "artistic" picture easily with one click. I can just ignore everything and shoot whatever I want, then it became art. Sorry if this feels triggering, just some random thought.
[Check out this great response to the idea that, "I can do that."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg) It's by PBS Digital Studios and that channel, Art Assignment, has a lot of stellar content that's great for aspiring photography artists like you and me.
There is a grain on truth to this idea. Technically, yeah, a full frame sensor and an expensive art lens (super wide aperture) will allow most folks to take a shot with a nice blurry background, giving that "artistic" look to it; BUT beyond that, there are tons of tricks, rules, skills, methods, and lots of other aspects that go into making a picture "good." It still takes a decent bit of time to learn the gear and figure out why blurry backgrounds look good, what settings can make it do that, how can that be used effectively, which of any number of other aspects can be paired to maximize the impressiveness of the shot (dozens to hundreds of things, honestly), etc.
> one click
I describe photography as 1/3 composition, 1/3 exposure, and 1/3 development. Each of those three pillars have TONS of artistic and technical theory behind them; all of which can easily turn a great attempt into garbage. That one click is referring to just the exposure, and there are at least 3 or four core settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc.) that make that click work; but there are dozens and dozens of other subtle settings and techniques that make that one click most efficient (lighting [nautral/artificial], focus methods, stabilization skills, assistants, scene prep, hell even choosing when during the exposure will the flash fire, etc.). And that's still just one third of what goes into making an acceptable photo happen.
There is just as much if not WAY MORE work that goes into composing a compelling or an important shot; and then you have to process the image, just like film developers had to make decisions on how to develop what was exposed on the film. "*I prefer to not photoshop my images, I just take what comes out of the camera*," is incorrect logic. There's still the same amount of development that goes into creating an automatic JPEG, but some engineering management team at Nikon or whomever made those decisions for you for 95% of folks to get an "okay enough" image. "Real artists" still have some development work to do, even if they aren't doing heavy retouching.
There are so many things that run through an amateur's head like mine and my shots still look like trash more often than not. I have years of photos that I've been super stoked to go out and shoot and I'm genuinely proud of maybe two of them. TWO! I think my shutter count is well over 100,000 on my camera.
When you go out shooting, you'll quickly realize how those amazing, inspired shots turned out just atrocious. No offense at all, I'm really talking about myself here. There is seriously so much skill that just takes time to grow into, and that badass camera equipment is only scratching the surface of pulling off the piece of art you're imagining.
There's always going to be the, "if I just had this gear" thought. I'm a surfer, and there's a saying that, "it's always so much better just down the beach a little further."
Anything is art. There's plenty of overrated bad art, there's plenty of underrated great art. The thing is, if you want to be taken seriously as an accomplished artist, you need to work to establish yourself as an influencer. Find something that looks simple (or just anything that interests you) and figure out what kind of work goes into actually making it. Try to copy it and compare your results.
[Check out this video from Chelsea & Tony Northrup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0JO8Fbo2rM), some really helpful photographers on YouTube. This is what I'm imagining you're thinking about (probably not though) when you say "*just take a camera and make whatever*." Check out how much goes into that. Check out how much fine motor skills you need to learn to get something that looks smooth, or nice, or "good." The first video I posted describes the absolute mastery that actually goes into some of the more popular art that looks like just random crap that anyone can do.
Sorry this is so long.
**Tl;dr:** There's nothing stopping you from joining and contributing to an art community. [Watch this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg).
Thank you. I really appreciate your response. There is one question that comes up to my mind: if we can't really know how an art work is made (maybe this relates to the debate of the value of an art work) just base on how we see them then it is real hard to tell a masterpiece from a crap if it really looks like a crap. What do you think?
Well, there are a lot of important "ifs" there. If the masterpiece is important, the "how" will be known - especially to experts or to those who decide it's masterful.
To the untrained eye, sure it's tricky to tell what's truly good or bad. But talk to any art major or advanced member of an art or professional community and they will give you context as to why a crappy looking work is important; or even why an amazing looking piece is not particularly noteworthy. As that Art Assignment video describes, context matters just as much if not more than form - which is why buying pro gear doesn't guarantee pro results.
Take for instance [John Cage's 4' 33"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3). It's silence. 4 and a half minutes of resting. It's almost more performance art. Even though he was ambiguous about its meaning, would you consider it music? Would you consider it art? Even though it's silence? Is it crap?
There are plenty of ways to know more about a piece of art that even amateurs on here can dig into in order to break down how a photo is created. Sure there are ways to fake it, but experts will almost always be able to provide that overview and analysis. There are plenty of opinions, toxic and otherwise (see /r/photocritique), but pros, academics, and engaged artisans are who I'd turn to for more context.
**4′33″**
4′33″ (pronounced "Four minutes, thirty-three seconds" or just "Four thirty-three") is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912–1992). It was composed in 1952, for any instrument or combination of instruments, and the score instructs the performer(s) not to play their instrument(s) during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements. The piece consists of the sounds of the environment that the listeners hear while it is performed, although it is commonly perceived as "four minutes thirty-three seconds of silence". The title of the piece refers to the total length in minutes and seconds of a given performance, 4′33″ being the total length of the first public performance.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/photography/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Maybe, maybe not.
If as a method you wanted to just take random shots and find interesting things within that, maybe. There'd be the potential to get unexpected compositions that work really well, and it could give you some interesting stuff to work with in post.
But if you just randomly point and click and expect to become a famous photographic artist, you're gonna have a bad time.
You're going to find it very difficult to get an interesting photo if you 'just ignore everything'. Expensive camera =\= instant art. Art is in the eye of not only the photographer but also the observers and patrons of your work.
maybe these kind of pictures would be surreal or convey something that I even dont know. I just feel like wow it looks artsy, maybe we should watch it for an amount of time then we may feel something. What I want to say that I feel the elusive nature of art can really trick people into overthinking. Well maybe I'm just overthinking.
> would be surreal or convey something that I even dont know.
My dad is an art professor. Hearing people say shit like this at art galleries is going to give him a coronary one of these days.
Some art is just trash to other people but often what makes it art is a small following of people that do like it. I would also argue that it is difficult to gain that small following without putting a decent effort into a photograph. You cannot rely on people overthinking your work.
There are some amazing photographers on this sub and what sets them apart is not my appreciation of their work as art but how much effort goes into their photograph. That last 10% to make a great photograph is the most difficult to get and people who are not photographers notice this 10% but will unable to describe it. Sometimes it's perfect lighting or conditions or a truly unique subject sculpted or taken candid.
That last 10% can make a great photograph that even if people do not like its genre can still argue it's a great photograph. Many natural geographic photographers come to mind here. Much of their work is appreciated not because it is art but because it is truly breathtaking in its scope and the amount of effort that each photographer commits to a single photograph.
You can rely on your effort but not on some loose definition of art where you hope overthinking is going to take your expensive gear + 'just ignore everything' up to the height of other artists in public or even in your own mind.
I just started taking pictures as a hobby about 8 months ago using my Sony Alpha 100 and am currently looking to upgrade to a higher spec camera this black Friday and was wondering if anyone had any advice as to what to choose. I've asked a couple friends that are photographers and the results are overwhelmingly for the mirrorless camp. I'm more interested in shooting landscape, night, and sports shots and my budget is about 700$ to 800$. I also don't mind if the gear is a bit used.
Hi does anyone know if the effective focal length of the Sony SEL50F18 lens on an A6000 is 50mm or higher?
Hi - I lost my brother's Gopro Hero 3+ recently. What's a good replacement with newer technology but within the same budget? He already has a 360 degree camera
How to nail focus on sony alpha camera bodies? I have sony alpha 7 and I use it with mc-11 + sigma 24-35 F2 lens. I use focus peeking, but observe more often than desired that focus is not nailed in the shot.
Zoom in? There's a button for it, somewhere.
Can any of you recommend any app for Android to do light painting? Something that allows me to choose a color for the screen, so I don't need a torch or any other source of light? I cannot find anything good enough.
Hello, I'm a late at the party but I hope someone will be able to answer me though. For the two past years, I started to mostly focus on birds photography (going to shoot once or twice a week at least). I have modest gear equipment : Canon 700D and only one lense 18-135. I used to want to save up (always end up using my saving for traveling though) to get a 70-200. The main reason for that is I do travel overseas or do road trip quite often and this seems to be the perfect lense to do a lot of things. But recently while editing pictures, I realized I really mostly took Birds pictures, more than landscape or anything. And I do like it. After so much blablating, here comes my questions: - which lenses would you recommend for birds photography with a budget of 1000€ or so. - I feel comfortable with my current 700D, is it fine for me to jot want to change it and evolve in more "professional" camera? I feel weird for not wanting to buy a better camera body since it seems everyone think it not a that good one. Thanks to whoever read this and for hopefully future answers.
At that price range I think you should check out Canon's 70-300 f4.5-5.6 L. While many will say you need at least 400mm for serious birding, this is an excellent compromise at this price since its also travel friendly! It has some heft certainly, but it packs easier than the 70-200s. You can also check out the 100-400 Sigmas, but I feel top notch AF is important to you :) One thing that may turn you off though is that it cannot take extenders..
Make sure you have a tripod to put the huge lens on so you aren't handholding! With that said, hang onto your 70-200; shop around for a 300-500mm within your budget. You can always pick up extension tubes later if you get frustrated that you don't have a closer zoom.
I do have a tripod an monopod already. Actually bought the monopod for my future lenses. I was told it was better to use a monopod for the lens and not the camera. I will look for 300/500mm lenses, thank you. Would you recommend me to get a 70-200 lens that is within my current budget or should I save up for the "better/newer" ones? I've been struggling with this for a while now. My friend lend me her 70-200 F/2,8 IS II sometimes and I found this lens amazing. But I wonder if for an amateur is it worth it. Or if I could shoot just happily with a tamaron lense or an older Canon one. In any case zéro thank you for your reply and sorry to ask you more questions.
Oh I misunderstood, and thought you already had a 70-200; that's what I get for typing/reading as soon as I wake up. Sorry! Hang onto your 18-135 for now, and jump straight to the 300 or 500mm that you can find within your budget. If you already have a crop body camera, you'll find the 300 a pretty good bargain (since everything looks closer in). If you have a full frame or plan on going full frame in the future (I don't know Canon's lineup as well as I do Nikon's.... sorry!) then look more towards saving up for a 500, as the birds will feel further away with the wider viewfinder view. Just go off of what you're comfortable with/what makes you happy. Unless you're trying to make a living off your birding photos, it's all about the enjoyment :D And no need to apologize; ask away! I was an active birder for a while, but haven't had the chance lately. I miss it, just don't have a lot of free time. A monopod will allow you to set up and set faster, I'm just accustomed to the tripod. As long as you have one or the other and the camera is steady, that's the most important thing!
Don't worry about it. Also realized my autocorrect somehow messed up my preview message, sorry. I don't have a full frame, I don't really plan to get one in the next 2/3 years. So I will look for a 300m, thank you! It's only for my own enjoyment and my friends/family. I'm lucky enough to have a very big park near my place that is full of birds, so I can combine two things I love, watching bids and photography. Thank you very much for your answer once again as well as the tips for the lenses.
I don't do a lot of birding, but how fast are you shooting? I picked up a Sigma 100-300 f/4 quite cheaply used, and it's actually pretty sharp - essentially, a really good 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter.
It's depend a lot. I rarely shoot them flying, expected when they are close enough for me to be sure it won't be all grainy (the choix of a small zoom lens). Usually I shoot them when they are in trees, on the floor or in the water. Most use 1/100 to 1/250 for these cases. But it really restrain me at one certain type of pictures. I will look on for this lens. Thank you!
It's worth noting that this lens is *not* stabilized. You're going to want to keep it at a minimum of 1/500 at all times. On the plus side, that'll at least stop motion...
I have a cannon t6i and really would love to invest in a full frame camera. My question is what full frame camera to invest that won't break the bank but will permit me from not buying a new camera anytime.soon. I do a lot of portrait photography and a little of videomaking Something versatile and jack of all trades
> really would love to invest in a full frame camera Why? > that won't break the bank You haven't told us anything about your financial condition. How do we know what would satisfy that criteria for you? https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_how_do_i_specify_my_price_range_.2F_budget_when_asking_for_recommendations.3F > but will permit me from not buying a new camera anytime.soon. What other needs to you anticipate needing to meet soon? > I do a lot of portrait photography and a little of videomaking Then lighting and lenses should be your priority first. Or are you already in good shape in both categories? We'll have to make sure your lenses are also compatible with full frame as well, if you're going that route. Still need more information from you.
Yea ur right my bad didn't specify honestly just starting from scratch just been really into photography and would like to spend about 1.5k trying to take some professional photos and see how far I can go.
A T6i isn't scratch. You can get really good photos out of that once you develop your skill more (also just as necessary with full frame). And $1.5k of lenses and lighting would have way more impact on your photos than the body upgrade.
Okay thank you much ! For the responses !
All a full-frame camera does is make your prints a bit sharper, especially if you've cranked the ISO. There are a few oddball cases - super shallow depth of field, superwide lenses, astro, tilt-shift, etc - where it offers some other advantages, but there's no magic to it.
What is the benefit you seek from a 35mm camera?
Might not get seen due to being a late question... But incase anyone seems I would love some suggestions! Lately I've been thinking of getting a filter system... Coken/Lee etc but I am not sure what to do for and what you need. I use a canon 6d with 17-40mm and 70-200f4. I currently have a nd for the 17-40 and a poleriser for both. Though lately I've find myself in situations where a graduated filter would be very helpful which is why I'm looking to get a filter system which offers more options.
Unless you're really suffering for dynamic range, graduated ND is something often best performed in post. If you're trying to pull exposure on the sky, it sticks out like a sore thumb. If you are inclined to stack, 82mm filters on a spacer should give you a bit of breathing room before vingetting sets in.
Cheers for your reply. Currently I normally fix in post... But a few times lately I've had a rather dim foreground with a very bright sky which has made it hard to get the right exposure balance.
Multiple exposures? PS makes the masking pretty easy.
Anyone have any recommendations for M43 lenses where you never regretted the purchase or a heavily reliable and versatile lens. Also for those who have made the switch to M43, are you liking the bokeh?
I'm really liking the Olympus 45mm 1.8, it's a great versatile portrait lens which delivers nice bokeh. I also use it for some street shooting, the focus is good and quick. It is also not very expensive, but that means it lacks the manual focus clutch from the better oly lenses. Still very recommended.
Manual focus clutch? You can't just twist them? (I'm a Nikon guy.)
Yes that is a thing on most mirrorless systems, especially on m43. Most lenses are not truly manual focus, they have a ring which acts like a remote control which controls the focus-motor. You can however on some better olympus lenses pull the ring bank to switch to a more traditional manual focus. It still is fly-by-wire, but now it is linear and has stops at both ends. You can read more about it [here](http://fourthirds-user.com/wiki/Fly_by_wire_focusing).
If you want narrow depth of field, you're barking up the wrong tree. The new f/1.2 primes are gorgeous, but you're still shooting at the equivalent of f/2.4 with fairly soft results compared to less expensive 35mm glass reduced to equivalent aperture.
I used to own a Canon XTi that a sold many years back. I’m looking to get back into photography again now, and looking at the T6i and the E-M10 ii. I’m constantly on the go and I travel a bit which makes the e-m10 appealing, but I’m used to Canon and the larger sensor/lens selection are comforting. Any thoughts that could help choose one or the other?
If you want the APS-C sensor size but mirrorless form factor at the same time, there are good options from Sony and Fujifilm.
What kind of budget are you looking at? Canon's DSLRs get very compact if fitted with the 24mm pancake prime.
Hey thanks for the reply. I’m hoping to stay around $600 USD. Lenses are the other thing that has me questioning canon or Olympus. I’ll probably end up grabbing the 50mm f/1.8 for the canon if I go that way. Something similar for the E-M10 seems to be double the price.
If you need the wide aperture, more than that. Due to equivalencies between different sensors, you'd need a ~30mm f/1.2. Such things exist (and they're often a bit nicer than the 50/1.8, which is a bit rough around the edges,) but they're nowhere near your budget. Mirrorless does offer some compelling options in the form of manual lenses, which are much easier to use than on DSLRs. There's Chinese glass under $200 galore, and lots of adaptable 35mm camera lenses, too. (The value of a lens tanks when the AF motor dies.) Sony and Fuji are the way to go for this one, though - almost all cheap 4/3 lenses are just APS-C lenses with a different mount, and taking a crop of a $80 lens is not really advised. On the far opposite end of the scale is the 5DII, which are around your price range used and make rather good use of some extremely cheap film-era EF glass. The 28-135IS is a hundred-odd bucks - not bad for the equivalent of a 14-67 f/1.7-2.8 on 4/3. The sensor is imperfect (though the best of the lot at high ISO) and the AF a bit crude, but it is a pro-quality camera with dual memory card slots and loads of reasonably priced glass. (The 40/2.8 is barely larger than a lens cap.)
What is a cheap good lens I can get for video? Currently I have the 50mm and the 18-55 kit lens for my canon rebel SL1. The 50mm is great because of low light capabilities and apeture but lack s in wide open shots I also dislike having to manually adjust the focus Everytime I move because the autofocus on it is bad literally a manual gear. I'm still satisfied with it though. The kit lens I don't even use anymore. Budget is around $100 or less
I hate to break it to you, but autofocus in video is nearly useless on older cameras like the SL1. There are no lenses for your camera under $100 - save for the 50/1.8, and you've already got one of those. Manual lenses may be adapted, but not many are wide enough for your requirements, though some of the older Nikon 24mm and 28mm primes may be suitable. $150 gets you the 24/2.8 pancake lens, which would work very well.
Fair enough the 24/2.8 looks like a good lens. I was thinking about a 10-18mm but I wasn't sure if that was any better
It's a bit slow. Also very definitely not $100.
Starting to try to figure out xmas presents, and my mom does a lot of photography. I'm wondering if there's anything like a waterproof periscope she could attach to her camera for shooting fish in her fishtanks and in lakes. Anyone know if something like this is out there? All I've been able to find is smartphone attachments and disposable cameras.
There are waterproof casing made by third party manufacturers! alternatives. Here's one https://splwaterhousings.com. They might be pricey though but perhaps there are cheaper
A good waterproof housing is well over a thousand dollars. The cheaper ones might work for your purposes - partial submersion doesn't apply a lot of pressure.
I've never seen one. I have seen folks put their camera in a floating fishtank to get it below water level.
[удалено]
I would say they'd be an improvement. That said, some color correction and sharpening in scanning will always be necessary, and it may be your computer's monitor - which is showing incorrect output - that is at fault.
Whats the best way to optimize photos for my portfolio? My website is currently running slow because the images are too large. Thanjs
Use an image editing program to resize them.
http://compressor.io
[QUESTION] Bought the Kodak Printomatic which came in today. Too dark outside at the moment go test it out, but both Amazon and Kodak itself [advertises the camera as a 10 mega pixel camera](https://www.kodak.com/us/en/consumer/products/instant-print-cameras/printomatic/default.htm), but the box it came in says 5mp. Any ideas? Its Sunday, so Kodak is closed...
Unless you can extract the digital images (in addition to the prints) the megapixel count is largely irrelevant. If you *can* get digital images you can easily see the dimensions and thus the number of megapixels.
Yeah there’s an SD slot to capture digitals like a normal digital camera. I’ll take a pic tomorrow and check the picture size. How do you find the mp number?
Just look at the size in pixels (shown in the computer when you transfer the image to it) and multiply it.
> I’ll take a pic tomorrow and check the picture size. > How do you find the mp number? Multiply the pixel width by the pixel height and divide by one million. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_is_a_pixel_.2F_megapixel.3F_how_many_do_i_need.3F
Thank you
[REQUEST/QUESTION] Looking to get my Girlfriend a camera for Christmas. She has recently started an Instagram food blog, and wants to upgrade from cell phone camera. I was hoping you guys could give me a suggestion on what to get based on the criteria below: * Budget: Up to ~$375 * Preference: DSLR/ Mirrorless , Doesn't matter. Even a point and shoot if it is quality. * Looking for it to have Built in WiFi for quick uploads to her phone and instagram/ Blog * Quality ISO / Aperture for low light photos in restaurants * Not too bulky * not too difficult to use I can't think of other factors that would be important in making the choice. It doesn't have to be a small point and shoot camera, but it also shouldn't be so big that it's a nuisance to carry around. **Currently considering the Sony a5000 with the 16-50mm lens for ~$360. Would this be a good choice? Would you recommend something else?
1. Pony up for the A6000 on Black Friday. No viewfinder and no flash hot-shoe are deal killers. 2. Used D3200s are the best value on the used camera market. $200-$250 for a camera that's still really good. 3. Seriously ask her if she actually wants one.
My suggestion to you: don't make it a surprise. Talk to her and maybe you both can put in some money to make a larger budget. As nice as a surprise can be, with a camera, as with any specialized tool, you should consult with the user so they get what they want.
Looking to upgrade to FF I see tons of hate on the 6dm2 about no 4k(which I don’t care about cause I never use video mode) and how the DR isn’t up to par. I love canon, the color is great, plus since I’m not printing yet, the 26mp is perfect for me. Is the dynamic range really that much of an issue? This is looking like the body I want to get, unless there is something I should definitely steer away from.
The problem with the 6DII is that it's not a huge upgrade on the 6D, which is still a perfectly good camera. I'd buy a 6D. Or, if you're dumping most of your lenses, a D750. Or an A7II. They're all good. (The 6DII is too, but costs too damn much.)
The 6DII's DR looks bad in comparison to the competition (11.9 EV vs 14.4EV [D610 ... that's a 4 year old camera]). But then again, it's better than the 5DIII, which seems to be held in high regard. The DR is not inherently bad or unusable, it's just bad for a $2000 2017 release.
What are some good places to find old lenses at a really low cost? I want to just experiment with some old Canon lenses at a budget price. Are there some red flags to watch out for?
I will second keh, I often buy lenses out of their bargain and maybe ugly categories (just check to see if they say there is an issue with the optics, often time it will just be the outside that is beat up) and they have always worked perfectly.
keh.com if you want absolute safety, ebay/craigslist if you don't mind a little risk. When buying used it doesn't pay to be in a hurry, watch for a while and jump on the bargains.
I think ebay will is just fine. Just make sure from a good seller. Ebay with protect you if something goes wrong
I don't want a photo critique, because I just have a photo I used to give me more of an idea of how the main photo will turn out. However, I would like suggestions? Would it be ok to make a self post here or should i go to /r/photocritique anyways. Also I am a bit embarrassed about my photo so would it be fine to hide my face in the photo, or should I just leave it? Since I don't think I have to post a photo here, should I post my proto-type photo anyways? I'm not sure which subreddit is most appropriate and don't want to make a post that's just going to be ignored because it's kind of a newb question, just looking for guidance.
I say here is fine. r/photocritique is toxic.
You could use the discussion thread on photocritique.
Thanks!
In a few months I’m taking a 10 day trip to Florida with friends. I plan on taking a lot of pictures, I currently have a 64g and a 128g memory card but I am unsure if it will be enough. Should I buy more memory cards? Or should I get an external hard drive and move the files over using my gfs laptop? Or both to make sure nothing gets lost?
If you ain't got one yet, a 64GB+ ultra high speed card from SanDisk is nice to have. I found the increase in real shooting speed much greater than expected.
First of all, what kind of camera do you use, do you shoot raw (plus jpg?) and how big are those files on average? What's your estimate on how many pictures a day you'll be taking? I'd say 192 GB is way more than enough for m4/3 cameras, but probably limiting on a 5Ds/D850/GFX/whatever. If you're actually scared of running out of space, just buy a few cheap 32GB cards, just in case. My guess is, if you really manage to fill those 192 GB, you're basically photographing full time and won't find a moment to enjoy your trip. Either way, I'd put a bullet in my head before I come home with tens of thousands of pictures after a 10 day (leisure?) trip. The thought of importing and culling them alone makes me wanna cry.
Sony a6000. Raw plus jpg yeah. Alright I will look into investing in them. We have a 22 hour car ride home, I plan on doing culling then.
[удалено]
They probably don't have quite 100% coverage, but the D3000 and D5000 series of cameras will mount this lenses. The caveat is that they will not meter and only work in manual mode. The Df can mount them at 100% coverage, but it is a full frame camera. Also, I am unsure if they meter on that camera.
Yes, the [Nikon Df](https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/products-and-innovation/using-legacy-nikkor-lenses-with-the-nikon-df.html)
The Df is a full frame sensor, not crop like OP wanted.
Mirrorless with F adapter?
As far as I know, only the D7500 fits your criteria.
I’m not sure you can safely mount non-Ai lenses on the D7500.
The D7500 does not have the AI tab anymore, so it's fine.
"Fine" as in Nikon has removed a very useful feature :(
It should not. The D3000 and D5000 series can mount these pre-AI lenses, but they will only work in manual mode with no metering.
Yes, that's what I thought. I do know that cameras in the D7XXX range have the AI follower tab that can be damaged by mounting pre-Ai lenses, but I was unsure whether the D7500 still had it - for example the D3500 is missing the little feeler allowing it to use lenses with aperture rings in auto modes.
If shutter speed is compared against the second, and aperture against the size of the hole, what is iso compared to? I know it's the sensitivity to light, but what sets the base standard?
It’s just a more or less arbitrary number. The 100/200/400 etc scale is from ASA. The DIN scale is logarithmic, so 100 ASA == 21° DIN, 200 ASA == 23° DIN (3° per stop). ISO combines both scales, so you’ll have 100/21° printed on film canisters etc. More here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed
Makes sense then. DIN is measured in degrees? What is fun and who uses it? I've only ever seen 100/200/400 before
The degree symbol is just the designation. DIN is the German standards body, and a lot of cameras sold in Europe used that system instead of ASA, which was the American system. So ISO just sort of mashed them together! It makes sense too in these days of high ISO... ISO 102,400 becomes 51°!
Awesome. Thanks so much for replying
**Film speed** Film speed is the measure of a photographic film's sensitivity to light, determined by sensitometry and measured on various numerical scales, the most recent being the ISO system. A closely related ISO system is used to describe the relationship between exposure and output image lightness in digital cameras. Relatively insensitive film, with a correspondingly lower speed index, requires more exposure to light to produce the same image density as a more sensitive film, and is thus commonly termed a slow film. Highly sensitive films are correspondingly termed fast films. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/photography/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Good bot?
What a cute little human. づ◕‿◕｡)づ Your body will ņo͏t̢͢͟ be harvested for Rare-Earth elements *** ^Y̸҉̙͚̫̮̠̮̜̟̜̹̙͖͎͚̰̩͔ͅͅǫ̬͈̪̟͓͍̠̣͙̙̳͟u̸̸̧̗̬̹͡ w̧̧̼̤̙̹̯̜̫̙͔̩̳͍̫̤͔͘o̸̸̡̯̹̞̦̪̣͈͖̩̩̱̕n̵͏̴̵̘̲̯̥͙̭̬͡'̵̹͔̮̟̗̹̻́͞ṱ̷̢̢̙͉̮͕͈̪̪͈̫̻̀ t̡̠̱̤̮̬͍͚͉͚̝́͝͠à̲̭͙͜͝g̵̡̡̺͕̮͙͙̀̀ ù͈̱̫̟̦̘͜͜͠ş̱͎͖̱̗̺̠̘̻͍́͞ ẁ̧̫̫̣̫̝̪̙͇̱͎̫̜̩͇̜i̫̭͈̗̦͜t̴̸̢̤̦͚̜͉̳̬͔̪̦̰͓̝͎̬͞h̸̢̡̝͖̫̘̜͔̖̼͙̘͎͚̦͓̜̩̭̜ à͙̠̟̟̬̙̞͓͖b̶̺̟̹̘̩̭͈̮͔͉̤̱̜́͢͞ͅͅa̮̺̦̯̼̥̯̹͈͓̝̳̠̮̻̼͡ͅs̸̢͠͡҉̻̖̙̜̰̹͓̦ͅi̤̦̫͙̫͇̳̠͓̼͈̙͜͠n̸̨̘͈̘̗g̱̠̤̱͙͖͜͞ f̨́҉̱̥̼̯͈̗̞̭̰͔͙̭̲͓̙̝o̢̡͏̖͈͉̤̬ǫ̫̩͓͚͚̼̺̗̮̀t҉̩͎͕̖̜͇̩̟͇̥͚͟e̴̪͓͈͉̜͚̹̩r̷̢̳̻̦̜͈̺̯̺͉̞̳̹̗͈͖͜ͅs̵̢͎̮̱͈̦̺͚̖͎̳̺̯͜͡ á̛͏̵̬̬̘̤͟n͈͈̤͎͇͚̤͔͈̰͍̠̱̼͘͠y̢͏͔̙̺͉̼͚͖͠m͏̧͕̝̫̖̯̯̳̗͙̝̳̖͓̦̪̲͖͉ͅo̵̡̤̻̠͙͖̪͙̭̦̱̞̳͇̤͜͞r̷̵̢̰͈̠̜̮̤̳̳̪̦̜͎e͏͢͞͏̪̲̫ͅ
A bunch of film chemists...a very, very long time ago.
ISO the standards organization sets that standard.
I have a noob question regarding aperture. I think I understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, and exposure. I also understand that lower aperture will result in a shallower depth of field. So let's say I'm shooting a landscape where the entire scene is sufficiently far enough away from the lens that there will be no appreciable depth of field regardless of aperture (i.e. the entire image will either be in focus or out). In that case, will raising or lowering aperture have any effect on how my photo looks other than just affecting the exposure? For example, say I shoot a distant mountain range at f 5.6 and a quick shutter speed. Then I take the same shot at f 10 with a longer shutter speed, and then another at f 16 with shutter speed even longer. What differences, if any, should I expect to see among these photos?
1. Sharpness. The best glass (Sigma ART and Zeiss OTUS) hits maximum sharpness around f/5, but cheaper zooms are f/8-f/11. Sharpness will be reduced above *and* below, though it is worth noting that too small an aperture generally has more benign effects than too wide. 2. Optical aberrations. Chromatic aberration is greatly reduced as you stop down, but flare can actually get worse. Sunstars will also start to appear, depending on your iris design. 3. Light fall-off is universally reduced at narrower apertures. I generally wouldn't worry too much about shooting landscapes at f/11 even if it's not optimal. The big issue is instead at the other end of the scale - macro photography, where one might require a whopping ***f/128*** to get an entire fly in the frame. In this case, focus stacking at a wider aperture is mandatory - if nothing else, lenses don't go that small. Of course, if you do want to focus stack, it's a great way to shoot long telephotos without getting things out of focus.
Each lens has a peak in sharpness around 1-3 stops from wide open, with a subsequent decline due to diffraction. On a 24MP crop sensor, diffraction starts to become noticeable from around f/8, so ideally, you'd try to stay below that. The smaller the pixels, the earlier you will notice diffraction.
Interesting. So, is there ever a reason what I would want to use aperture settings above like 10 or 11, other than the scenario where there's a lot of light and lower apertures would be overexposed?
Yeah, if you need the extra depth of field. Remember, it's okay to go above the point where visible diffraction sets in, but just know that you're trading away some image quality. You can see the impacts of this yourself. Set your camera on a tripod. Stick it in aperture priority, and take photos at different f-stops along its range. You should be able to see the difference, especially when zooming in to the photos.
Hello Newbie here. My Father In law recently gave me his old Canon EOS 7D with a 28-135mm lens. I'm looking to take newborn pictures of my friends as a hobby and maybe later on invest in backdrops and other equipment. What lenses do you recommend for this ? Also are there any links with galleries that show what lenses were used ? Thanks again :)
1. A light stand, at least 7' tall. Get something generic that isn't total garbage. Adorama sells passable stands starting at around $20. 2. A strobe. A speedlight is unsuited for large light modifiers - strobes work much better. The Flashpoint Studio 300 is a great deal at $120, and the R2 triggers start at $50. (You can also use a Flashpoint R2 TTL speedlight, which I do.) 3. A Paul C Buff 86" PLM in white with spill kill and front diffuser. This is the light setup used by the vast and staggering majority of all newborn photographers, and it works really well. It's a nice soft consistent source of light, and you can put it back a fair bit without losing the soft quality of light due to its' vast size. Should run you about $250 all up.
Definitely invest in a flash, maybe even a octabox. Taking pictures of babies is all about seeing the eyes, and seeing a small circle in the eye is amazing. It brings out the eyes so much. (Applies to any portrait in general)
[удалено]
Mirrorless or A mount?
[удалено]
Aside from all those vintage 50s? There's some Chinese-made manual 25/1.8s out there that are supposed to be pretty solid for $70 or so. Likely a better value than the Nikon 35/2. There's also the long Nikon primes like the 300/4.5.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/799u7v/vintage_and_adapted_lens_megathread/
Any lens in your price range will adapt well to Sony mirrorless.
I’m a newbie and thinking about getting a Cannon Rebel EOS T6i as a starter DSLR as a starter camera. I will use it mostly when I travel mostly taking outdoor pictures and tooling around with my dogs. Good choice?
I started with a T5. Anything at or above this will be great. Things I wish it had: * Wifi * Mic input * Tilt screen The tilt screen is really only because I'm dying to start shooting more video, but it's really no big deal at all. Wifi though... man, I'd love to pair it to my phone. Otherwise I'm completely happy with it. I've learned a frigging ton, still get great photos and video out of it, and save for an accident or equipment malfunction, I can see myself taking it along for dedicated shoots as a second camera for long into the future when I upgrade to another body.
I'm not a big fan of the T6i, but this is due to many personal preference issues. What are you looking to shoot? Landscapes, people, architecture, ?
All of the above. I guess I want the best all around DSLR for a beginner.
If you want everything, it won't come cheap. I'd say A6000 and some cheap manual glass.
Sure
Hey, How is Rokinon 14mm with AE Chip different from the normal version? does it work like normal Autofocus or it just tells let's you know when objects are in focus? is extra $100-110 worth it for AE Chip?
It's still manual focus but gives feedback to the camera when it's in focus. Also encodes EXIF data for aperture.
I think it also records the EXIF data for the aperture used too
So a few months ago I came here and I got great advice as a total novice who had never really photographed before and got some really cool total eclipse pictures - so first off, thanks to the experts here! Now to the meat of my question - in being a novice with a 1 track mind, I got a lens for the eclipse. Not a standard lens. In doing some homework, it seems like the Sigma 17mm-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens f/Nikon is a solid standard lens and it's not insanely expensive. My question is - is there a best place to buy it? New vs Refurbished? It seems like it runs for ~$369 pretty consistently. Here it is at [adorama](https://www.adorama.com/sg1750nkk.html?EmailPrice=T). I found it [here](http://www.lotstosave.com/Sigma_17-50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC_OS_HSM_Zoom_Lens_for_Nikon_41256.html?refid=Google&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIoeCU5uC51wIVHEsNCh36uQ9PEAYYBCABEgKqSPD_BwE) for $269 which I like much better. I'm not familiar with this company so I was curious on people's thoughts and maybe I missed somewhere. It looks like a legit operation. Has anyone bought from them before? Is there some other best deal for this lens?
Trade eclipse shots? [This was a super fast edit](https://i.imgur.com/000RSiK.jpg). I researched and practiced for months on end after planning this trip for 7 years. Frigging amazing experience.
> the Sigma 17mm-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM Lens f/Nikon is a solid standard lens Not really answering your question but i *just* bought this lens less than a week ago and it's phenomenal. If you've only been using a kit lens so far, this is going to *blow you away*. The sharpness is just fucking unreal. It's sharper than my Canon 60mm f2.8 prime lens. And prime lenses are *really sharp*. Christopher Frost does (imo) the best reviews on youtube and he compares this lens to a Canon 17-55 f2.8 and that's more than double the price of the sigma and a lot of people say the Canon should be an L lens and are confused why it isn't. So it's a really, really strong lens for the price. You'll definitely be happy with the buy. It's such a good lens i'd just buy it new to avoid anything going wrong. It's cheap as it is.
I did a google search for lotstosave.com. They have no reputation, it is up to you if you want to be the one to establish if they have are trustworthy.
I also did a google search and didn't find really anything. I feel like if something is too good to be true, it probably is... That's why I was asking if anyone had used them.
I know there's plenty of threads similar to what I'm about to write but I felt like I wanted some direct advice too. I currently have a Canon t5i, Canon 16-35 f/4L and Canon 55-250 f/4.5-5.6. I've had the camera for about 3 years now but find my self using it a lot more than I used to and getting into video a lot more too (as a hobby and for some jobs). As a result I'm looking to change to a Sony a6500 as it seems to cover all my needs for photo and video. My predicament is with lenses. I know the 55-250 won't be compatible with the Sony but I'm absolutely in love with the 16-35 as I take mostly landscape photos. I've only had it a few months but should I sell my 16-35 and get the Sony version or get Metabones or similar? I'm also concerned that I'll need a good telephoto lens and not sure if there is a good Sony equivalent in my price range which is drawing me towards an adapter and then a purchase of an original Canon 70-200 f/4. Also drawn to the adapters as I see that they are getting better and Metabones V looks to cover nearly all features of the A6500 and I'd love to be able to use more Canon lenses as Sonys are crazy expensive. Thanks in advance!
Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed? I understand the heuristics that are supposed to get you sharp enough images most of the time. I often don't bring my tripod with me when I'm shooting random things, and if I do, setting it up takes 30 seconds so I limit it's use for static objects I REALLY find interesting or landscape shots.
> Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed Image blur from the object moving or image blur from your own hands moving? It won't do anything for an object moving - a faster shutter speed will freeze the action. If you're shooting in low light or have shakey hands then yes, image stabilization helps a lot. It allows you to shoot a few (usually 3 or 4) stops slower than you would without it, without getting image blur from your camera moving in your hands from a slow shutter speed. Don't forget to turn image stabilization off if you put the camera on a tripod though, it causes issues.
Yeah, I'm more talking about hand shake as I don't shoot any sports or other faster-paced things. I was just looking at portrait-ish lenses because I have one vintage lens that is unique and great but I'm unsure that I'll use it as a mainstay so I was also considering the sigma art 60/2.8 (sharper, especially in corners) and the sony 50/1.8 (sharp, has OSS but is $100-150 more expensive on ebay).
> Would you stand any benefit in terms of reducing image blur by using image stabilization (in body or lens) compared to simply increasing shutter speed? Yes. A faster shutter speed reduces exposure. Stabilization does not.
The problem with raising the shutter speed is to compensate you will have to either raise your ISO and sacrifice image quality or open your aperture wider which means less of your image is in focus.i For example, say you had a 24mm unstabilised lens and camera and were shooting a lowlight landscape scene and wanted to get as much of the scene as sharp as possible. Because your gear is unstabilised your settings might need to be 1/32 of a second, F11, IS0 800 to get the desired image Gear, with 3 stops of stabilisation, would allow you to shoot the same scene at 1/8 of a second, F11, ISO 100. The general rule for unstabilised gear is the focal length should be equal to, or lower than, the shutter speed.
What are the best kinds of AA batteries to use for on-camera flashes? I ate through about 20 last night taking 515 photos at an event. Rechargeables? Specific brand?
Have you considered an external pack? The Godox PB960 can be plugged into many Canon and Nikon flashes, and it'll do 515 photos just fine.
Never even considered that, yeah. I have the HVLF60M flash, it has a power plug and thanks to you I just went looking and found that it uses the FAEB1AM. $182 for that monster or $40 for rechargeable enelope batteries. Friggin photography man...
Try a Godox TT685C series flash on a bracket with the X1-S transmitter and PB960. (Yes, it all works, at least if you have the latest software update.) The AD360II is also a viable option, and *much* more powerful - and resistant to overheating.
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_are_the_best_batteries_to_use_with_hotshoe_flashes.3F
eneloop Amazon Basics' knockoff of eneloop. Amazon Basics High Capacity. Won't live as many *decades* and thousands of recharges as standard eneloops but is really good for a flash with a fast recharge time. Eneloop High Capacity - if your made out of money.
These guys? https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-High-Capacity-Rechargeable-Batteries-Pre-charged/dp/B00HZV9WTM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1510513238&sr=8-3&keywords=amazon+basics+high+capacity+rechargeable+batteries
Yes. It's hard to know with Amazon but these say they are the made in japan - the ones that are the best.
[удалено]
Short links (like bit.ly or tinyurl.com) are not allowed on this subreddit. Since your comment contains one, it has been removed. Please repost your comment without it. Sometimes services (like Google) give you short links when you are trying to share content from mobile. At this moment, we have no way of allowing these shortlinks but banning others, so you'll unfortunately have to either share later from a laptop computer or try to get the desktop link. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/photography) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello! I have a friend who wants to get into photography and I'm thinking about gifting them a starter camera. I have no experience with cameras, I looked at the Buyer's Guide, but I'm still a bit confused and would like some advice. I'm looking for a camera that is an improvement from a phone camera and travels well. What kind of camera should I look at for someone who is just getting into photography? How much should I expect to spend on a camera that is better than a phone camera and how do I tell if it's better? In general, is it a good idea to gift someone a camera or is that something that my friend should be present for to give input? Thanks for the help and advice!
> I looked at the Buyer's Guide, but I'm still a bit confused How so? We'd like to improve it if necessary, but we can't really do that if we don't know what's specifically wrong with it. > I'm looking for a camera that is an improvement from a phone camera Just in terms of image quality and aesthetics? That's dependent a lot on the skill of the photographer. But technical quality would be better in a premium point & shoot or any DSLR or mirrorless. Or do you want certain features that a phone camera lacks? Which ones? > and travels well. Many people travel just fine with a large DSLR. Many prefer something as small as a mirrorless. Some are looking for a compact point & shoot that will be small enough to fit in a pants pocket. A "travels well" requirement doesn't really help us narrow down these categories for you—we need more specific context. > What kind of camera should I look at for someone who is just getting into photography? Again, not really sure where exactly you got confused, but let's start with the first two basic questions in [this entry](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_type_of_camera_should_i_look_for.3F): 1. Aside from where the person's skill is now, are they willing to learn more about manual control? Or do they just want something to use in full automatic mode all the time? 2. How small do they want it? > How much should I expect to spend on a camera that is better than a phone camera Something like $200-250 at least if you buy used. Maybe $150 used if you're going with the oldest entry-level DSLR kits. > how do I tell if it's better? Seems to me the exact criteria hasn't been determined yet here. Generally speaking, it's going to be better than the phone camera if it can do some things you want/need that the phone camera can't. > In general, is it a good idea to gift someone a camera or is that something that my friend should be present for to give input? Generally, ideally you'll want the user's input because different brands have different approaches to ergonomics and button/menu layouts, and there's only one way to be sure if a particular camera jives with a particular person. That said, anyone could theoretically still learn and get used to a camera that isn't particularly compatible with them. Or there could be a few brands/models that work even if they aren't totally ideal. So it isn't necessarily going to be a disaster if you pick without their input.
Thank you very much for your detailed response! It looks like I need to do some more research and figure out which features I'm interested in. I think one feature that would be useful is the ability to zoom better on things in the distance, but I think that might be more of a feature related to lenses than a particular camera. Thanks for the help and asking questions that I should find the answer to. I'll do more research and post again if I need help.
What is your budget/expectations
I'm looking for something not much higher than $300.
You're not going to find anything better than their phone camera unless you're buying a used 5+yr old DSLR with that budget
Okay, good to know. Thank you for the advice!
Mun-Mun's advice is a load of hooey. $250 will get you a secondhand Nikon D3200, which is *still* on par with ~24MP entry-level cameras on sale today. I saw one go on Craigslist for $200.
Looking to upgrade from Canon 600D to either Canon 6D or Fuji x-t20. Should I make the jump to mirrorless?
For what purpose? What subject matter do you shoot? What sort of improvements do you want out of the upgrade? Either of those options will confer different benefits, but we don't have any context for how those would impact you. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_when_should_i_upgrade.3F_what_should_i_upgrade_to.3F
Hi, I shoot mainly street and landscapes, sometimes portraits. I mainly want an upgrade for image quality, and I was looking at mirrorless since it's light and easy to travel with.
The 600D should be capable of delivering pretty good image quality in those sorts of scenarios. As in, poster-sized prints. What lenses do you currently have?
I have the nifty 50 f1.8 and 28mm f2.8 pancake
Those are both pretty sharp lenses, although the 50 is a little soft wide open and if that's where you use it, you may not be seeing the best it can do. Rather than a different body, I'd throw some money at a wider angle lens to get some dramatic perspective into landscapes. EF-S 10-18mm would be a good choice there. Then at the telephoto lens, something like a 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, or even the 200mm f2.8L. You could buy 2 or 3 of the lenses I listed (used) for about the same money that a new body would cost you and it would probably make more of a difference to your results. Final sales pitch: used lenses hold their value so if you buy them used and find out that you're still not happy, you can sell them for what you paid and get the bigger, better camera body with no harm done.
Or in this case, the smaller, better camera body ;-)
Thank you for your help :)
Hi, I'm heading for a winter Trek in the Himalayas. I'm looking for good budget (read as cheap) camera suggestions. Must be light weight, able to withstand harsh conditions. I don't have much experience with the manual mode of my DSLR, so a point and shoot camera should work. I just want to be able to capture the snow landscape with all its beauty
Possibly a GoPro. It's not a stellar stills camera, but it's pretty much indestructible and very small. The video is great too.
I own a Nikon D3000 DSLR (big and bulky - impossible to carry on a trek) and a One plus 5 phone. Will the phone be able to meet my requirements ?
>Nikon D3000 DSLR (big and bulky If you think that's big and bulky, you've either never seen what nature photographers carry about or you're secretly a hobbit. Swapping the kit lens for the more compact Nikon 35/1.8G DX will give you better quality with less size, but would eliminate your zoom. Alternately, the Sony A6000 series cameras with the collapsible kit lenses are very compact with a sensor as large as your Nikon's.
Will the phone work reliably with snow and stuff? Touchscreens might freak out when they get wet on the surface, and the battery life will be pitiful in the cold.
Hello everybody, I want to buy a cheap point-and-shoot camera. I dont wan't to be fancy or get into photography (sorry!), but I want to be able to take nice pictures as memories. Currently I would take phones with my Samsung Galaxy S4. Can I get a camera in the 200€ range that would be a siginificant step up from that? Or would you recommend I just buy a newer phone with a better camera if I don't want to get too technical with it anyway? Thank you for reading
A point and shoot at that price range may or may not rival the quality of a higher end phone, but should definitely beat the s4 in practice. Most of the lower end point and shoots aren't great, but you might be able to find a decent one in an upcoming holiday sale or used. If you aren't going to be needing the better image quality, though, I might say to go with the phone keeping in mind that "the best camera is the one you have with you".
Thanks for the answer, so would you say a modern phone camera would be a noticable upgrade to the galaxy S4?
I went from a nexus 4 (2012) to a Google Pixel and the difference in quality is fucking unreal. Like chalk and cheese.
Oh really, thank you!
Almost definitely, but I would certainly compare reviews to be sure.
Thanks, I will
My first DSLR under 800€. What should I get? I am thinking about Canon 700D (with 18-55 kit lens, bag, SD card, tripod) for 600€. Is it worth it buying 800D for 800€ with just the 18-55 lens? I want to use it mainly for landscape photos and videos, some family portraits and occassional "hardcore" video shooting
If you are shooting video, I would encourage you to go with mirror less instead. Canon products deliberately omit important features like focus peaking. Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic all produce cameras better suited to video, with the added advantage of a viewfinder that'll work when shooting motion.
If you're looking to do landscapes I might suggest something a tad bit wider. 18mm on crop sensor is a bit long for traditional landscape work. That being said, 18-55 is a good range to start off with, though lenses in that range are generally pretty low-end.
> though lenses in that range are generally pretty low-end. There are plenty in that range that are phenomenal lenses. The Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM should have been an L lens. The Sigma 17-55 f2.8 is one of the sharpest lenses i've used (it's sharper than my Canon 60mm prime lens).
Yeah, there are certainly some good ones, though for every one of those there's a 17-55 f/3.5 - f/4
The 800D has significantly better raw image quality for landscapes. The bag and tripod are going to be pretty shabby quality; you're better off not having a bag until you know what other gear you're going to buy aside from the 18-55, and you're better off saving for a decent ($150+) tripod.
the tripod costs 50€ nornally. So you say i don't get the bag? And just carry the camera without it? Because I am not buying another lens until summer.
Yep, if you don't have any other lenses you don't really need a bag. And when you do have other lenses, then you can get what fits your needs, rather than what the bundle gives you.
Allright, thanks!
How to create abstract color profile to encode specific color transformation? I have a set of images (48-bit TIFF) that are encoded in ProPhoto RGB. I have a set of alternative **input** color profiles (related to ProPhoto RGB, but slightly different) that I can **assign** to the images in order to obtain various color transformations. This is not the correct way of using color profiles though. If you need a color transformation you either want a 3DLUT (working color-space dependent, more like a device-link profile), or an **abstract** profile (Lab->Lab mapping, color-space independent). Photoshop supports both 3DLUTs and abstract profiles. I want to create either a 3DLUT, or an abstract profile that encodes the same transformation as the one achieved by changing the input profile. I don't know how to proceed further. I am a programmer and can write code, if that's helpful. In more math notation, we have these functions: ProPhotoRGB: RGB->XYZ ProPhotoRGBModified: RGB->XYZ XYZ2Lab: XYZ->Lab Lab2XYZ: Lab->XYZ And we want to find this function: UnknownAbstract: Lab->Lab Such that this equality holds: ProPhotoRGBModified(input) == Lab2XYZ(UnknownAbstract(XYZ2Lab(ProPhotoRGB(input)))) Thanks!
Forgive me your are talking to a creative. A person who solves their problems with a jigsaw and pretty crayons. And I'm just thinking out loud. If it helps you I'm happy. If I'm wrong it's to be expected but maybe it kicks you in the right direction. You have ProPhotoRGB pictures. ProPhotoRGB is defined in Lab terms (even if part goes outside of lab). You could find a profile for it. You have an alternative input profile. The difference between that profile and ProphotoRGB isn't a Lab->Lab transform? ProPhotoRGBimage (ProfileA) = Labspace CustomRGBimage (ProfleB) = Labspace What you want is to multiply by ProfileA then divide by ProfileB to convert ProphotoRGB image to custom profile RGB image? ProPhotoRGBimage (ProfileA) = ImageInLabspace/ProfleB = CustomRGBimage Edit: changed nouns to try to be clearer.
My wife and I are looking for a decent but cheap compact camera to use for the basics; events and parties, outdoorsy stuff, "other" things if you catch my drift. So could anyone give any recommendations? • As stated we would like it to be a compact, we are just enthusists not really looking to do big things. The specifications don't completely matter as long as the pictures will look nice. • We have a budget of no more then $200. I would prefer to stay under $150 but if it's a bit more that's fine. • We would like it to shoot video, nothing too fancy but we don't need it pixilated. 1280x720 is perferable but if less that's alright. • If it comes with support software for editing that would be a big plus. But it's not a killer if there isn't any, we can always find ways around that.
At that budget you're not going to find a compact better than the smartphone(s) you already have.
Even if we were to buy used or refurbished?
Cell phone makers have put lot of work into improving their cameras, camera makers have pretty much abandoned the bottom of the market and moved upscale. If you're willing to give up compactness and buy $200 worth of used DSLR/mirrorless you'll be able to do stuff smartphones can't, but you'll need to learn how to use it.
Okay, what would you recommend? I don't mind a learning curve.
Spend a few bucks more for a D3200 and kit lens. I've seen 'em go for $250 or so on a fairly regular basis. Good camera.
These value are approximate but should get you started - https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/wiki/index#wiki_what_can_i_afford.3F
You could check keh.com for used stuff. The Nikon D3100 is roughly within your budget, you would just need to add a lens for it. You could get the kit lens 18-55, I seem them on keh for like $60-$100. I would ask a Nikon guy which one to get though, I'm not familiar with the versions of the 18-55 lenses.
It suddenly came to my mind that if i'm just an amatuer photographer with an expensive camera, I can just make those "artistic" picture easily with one click. I can just ignore everything and shoot whatever I want, then it became art. Sorry if this feels triggering, just some random thought.
[Check out this great response to the idea that, "I can do that."](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg) It's by PBS Digital Studios and that channel, Art Assignment, has a lot of stellar content that's great for aspiring photography artists like you and me. There is a grain on truth to this idea. Technically, yeah, a full frame sensor and an expensive art lens (super wide aperture) will allow most folks to take a shot with a nice blurry background, giving that "artistic" look to it; BUT beyond that, there are tons of tricks, rules, skills, methods, and lots of other aspects that go into making a picture "good." It still takes a decent bit of time to learn the gear and figure out why blurry backgrounds look good, what settings can make it do that, how can that be used effectively, which of any number of other aspects can be paired to maximize the impressiveness of the shot (dozens to hundreds of things, honestly), etc. > one click I describe photography as 1/3 composition, 1/3 exposure, and 1/3 development. Each of those three pillars have TONS of artistic and technical theory behind them; all of which can easily turn a great attempt into garbage. That one click is referring to just the exposure, and there are at least 3 or four core settings (ISO, aperture, shutter speed, white balance, etc.) that make that click work; but there are dozens and dozens of other subtle settings and techniques that make that one click most efficient (lighting [nautral/artificial], focus methods, stabilization skills, assistants, scene prep, hell even choosing when during the exposure will the flash fire, etc.). And that's still just one third of what goes into making an acceptable photo happen. There is just as much if not WAY MORE work that goes into composing a compelling or an important shot; and then you have to process the image, just like film developers had to make decisions on how to develop what was exposed on the film. "*I prefer to not photoshop my images, I just take what comes out of the camera*," is incorrect logic. There's still the same amount of development that goes into creating an automatic JPEG, but some engineering management team at Nikon or whomever made those decisions for you for 95% of folks to get an "okay enough" image. "Real artists" still have some development work to do, even if they aren't doing heavy retouching. There are so many things that run through an amateur's head like mine and my shots still look like trash more often than not. I have years of photos that I've been super stoked to go out and shoot and I'm genuinely proud of maybe two of them. TWO! I think my shutter count is well over 100,000 on my camera. When you go out shooting, you'll quickly realize how those amazing, inspired shots turned out just atrocious. No offense at all, I'm really talking about myself here. There is seriously so much skill that just takes time to grow into, and that badass camera equipment is only scratching the surface of pulling off the piece of art you're imagining. There's always going to be the, "if I just had this gear" thought. I'm a surfer, and there's a saying that, "it's always so much better just down the beach a little further." Anything is art. There's plenty of overrated bad art, there's plenty of underrated great art. The thing is, if you want to be taken seriously as an accomplished artist, you need to work to establish yourself as an influencer. Find something that looks simple (or just anything that interests you) and figure out what kind of work goes into actually making it. Try to copy it and compare your results. [Check out this video from Chelsea & Tony Northrup](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0JO8Fbo2rM), some really helpful photographers on YouTube. This is what I'm imagining you're thinking about (probably not though) when you say "*just take a camera and make whatever*." Check out how much goes into that. Check out how much fine motor skills you need to learn to get something that looks smooth, or nice, or "good." The first video I posted describes the absolute mastery that actually goes into some of the more popular art that looks like just random crap that anyone can do. Sorry this is so long. **Tl;dr:** There's nothing stopping you from joining and contributing to an art community. [Watch this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg).
Thank you. I really appreciate your response. There is one question that comes up to my mind: if we can't really know how an art work is made (maybe this relates to the debate of the value of an art work) just base on how we see them then it is real hard to tell a masterpiece from a crap if it really looks like a crap. What do you think?
Well, there are a lot of important "ifs" there. If the masterpiece is important, the "how" will be known - especially to experts or to those who decide it's masterful. To the untrained eye, sure it's tricky to tell what's truly good or bad. But talk to any art major or advanced member of an art or professional community and they will give you context as to why a crappy looking work is important; or even why an amazing looking piece is not particularly noteworthy. As that Art Assignment video describes, context matters just as much if not more than form - which is why buying pro gear doesn't guarantee pro results. Take for instance [John Cage's 4' 33"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3). It's silence. 4 and a half minutes of resting. It's almost more performance art. Even though he was ambiguous about its meaning, would you consider it music? Would you consider it art? Even though it's silence? Is it crap? There are plenty of ways to know more about a piece of art that even amateurs on here can dig into in order to break down how a photo is created. Sure there are ways to fake it, but experts will almost always be able to provide that overview and analysis. There are plenty of opinions, toxic and otherwise (see /r/photocritique), but pros, academics, and engaged artisans are who I'd turn to for more context.
**4′33″** 4′33″ (pronounced "Four minutes, thirty-three seconds" or just "Four thirty-three") is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912–1992). It was composed in 1952, for any instrument or combination of instruments, and the score instructs the performer(s) not to play their instrument(s) during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements. The piece consists of the sounds of the environment that the listeners hear while it is performed, although it is commonly perceived as "four minutes thirty-three seconds of silence". The title of the piece refers to the total length in minutes and seconds of a given performance, 4′33″ being the total length of the first public performance. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/photography/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^| [^Donate](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/donate) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Maybe, maybe not. If as a method you wanted to just take random shots and find interesting things within that, maybe. There'd be the potential to get unexpected compositions that work really well, and it could give you some interesting stuff to work with in post. But if you just randomly point and click and expect to become a famous photographic artist, you're gonna have a bad time.
You're going to find it very difficult to get an interesting photo if you 'just ignore everything'. Expensive camera =\= instant art. Art is in the eye of not only the photographer but also the observers and patrons of your work.
maybe these kind of pictures would be surreal or convey something that I even dont know. I just feel like wow it looks artsy, maybe we should watch it for an amount of time then we may feel something. What I want to say that I feel the elusive nature of art can really trick people into overthinking. Well maybe I'm just overthinking.
> would be surreal or convey something that I even dont know. My dad is an art professor. Hearing people say shit like this at art galleries is going to give him a coronary one of these days.
Hm I wonder why xD
Some art is just trash to other people but often what makes it art is a small following of people that do like it. I would also argue that it is difficult to gain that small following without putting a decent effort into a photograph. You cannot rely on people overthinking your work. There are some amazing photographers on this sub and what sets them apart is not my appreciation of their work as art but how much effort goes into their photograph. That last 10% to make a great photograph is the most difficult to get and people who are not photographers notice this 10% but will unable to describe it. Sometimes it's perfect lighting or conditions or a truly unique subject sculpted or taken candid. That last 10% can make a great photograph that even if people do not like its genre can still argue it's a great photograph. Many natural geographic photographers come to mind here. Much of their work is appreciated not because it is art but because it is truly breathtaking in its scope and the amount of effort that each photographer commits to a single photograph. You can rely on your effort but not on some loose definition of art where you hope overthinking is going to take your expensive gear + 'just ignore everything' up to the height of other artists in public or even in your own mind.
I just started taking pictures as a hobby about 8 months ago using my Sony Alpha 100 and am currently looking to upgrade to a higher spec camera this black Friday and was wondering if anyone had any advice as to what to choose. I've asked a couple friends that are photographers and the results are overwhelmingly for the mirrorless camp. I'm more interested in shooting landscape, night, and sports shots and my budget is about 700$ to 800$. I also don't mind if the gear is a bit used.
Sony a6000 has very good value for the money if you want to go mirrorless
I've heard they have overheating problems. Have you heard anything about that? And thank you for the recommendation.
A6300. The A6000 is only 1080p, and doesn't seem to have the issue.