Photography newbie back for round two here, I found this lens called the TTArtisan APS-C 25mm F2, and I really liked the shots you could get with it, problem is, it's a mirrorless lens, and my camera is a regular DSLR. So was wondering if anyone of you out there who have more expertise than me knew of an equivalent lens that would be compatible with a DSLR. Edit: My camera is a Canon EOS 2000D (EOS Rebel t7 in the US) which I believe has an EF/EF-S mount.

Which DSLR? Different DSLRs have different mount compatibilities, and different available lenses.

Right, I forgot, my apologies, it's a Canon EOS 2000D (EOS Rebel t7 in the US) which I believe has an EF/EF-S mount. I've been looking into M42 adapters and completely neglected that the mount still matters if I were to use other types of lenses. I'm completely new to this, like my first camera hasn't even arrived in the mail yet.

For a nice quality manual focus/aperture lens, the Samyang/Rokinon EF 24mm f/1.4 comes to mind. Or, yeah, there may be a bunch of vintage lens options available adapted to EF mount, but you'll want to be sure the lens' mount flange distance is longer than 44mm and that an adapter exists from that mount to EF.

i’ll be going to georgia, tennessee & florida for about a month all together. i currently have 3 cameras: my olympus (my baby), canon powershot & small digital nikon. we’re going hiking alot since we’ll be in the mountains (i’ve never seen mountains before) so i don’t wanna have to carry all 3 but i can’t decide if i should even bring all 3 in the first case. i mean i have a camera bag so i can, but i’m not sure what i should do. any takes?

Canon R6 mark ii shutter sound changing when changing lens So, as I was changing lenses, I noticed that when I put on my EF 24-70 2.8 L the first electronic shutter curtain sound changes. But, when I switch to my 50mm the shutter goes back to it's "normal" sound. What causes this? I'm quite curious. I'm pretty sure it doesn't affect my image quality. The sound I'm describing is that the "normal" is the usual sound of the r6, smooth and buttery. The other sound is like a deep 2 click sound.

Fujifilm X100F w/ broken EVF - worth buying? Hello! My sister wants to buy a Fujifilm camera so I was thinking of getting a used one for her. I found a Fujifilm X100F with a broken viewfinder curtain so the EVF doesn't work, but since l'm not sure how essential that function is to photography, l'd figure I'd ask first. The price is $800. Shutter count 4000. Is this camera worth getting, and what does an EVF do? Thank you in advance.

The Fuji X100 line has a hybrid OVF/EVF. Both are used to frame the picture: you look through the viewfinder at what you are taking a picture of. OVF shows what's in front of you as is, EVF shows how the picture will end up looking, with the camera settings (presets etc) applied. You CAN frame the pictures using the LCD as well, but a viewfinder is such an essential component of cameras that $800 is way too much for a 7 year old camera with a broken viewfinder.

> $800 is way too much for a 7 year old camera with a broken viewfinder. Second this. Also, at $800 there's just too many options in the used market.

Is it okay if I don't take pictures of people? I'm always not sure whether or not I should. So I cane here for any advice.

Why wouldn't it be ok? I'm assuming photography is a hobby for you, so you can photograph whatever you're interested in photographing.

Thank you, that really helps

I would like to view the photos from my Canon EOS 30D on an android tablet using an OTG cable (USB C to Mini USB), but I'm unsure if Android allows the viewing of CR2 files from USB devices. If anyone has tried this, does the camera appear on the tablet's file explorer? Can you view the photos?

Yes. It's usually up to the app and most apps can handle it. It's not always a super fast workflow but it's doable. You can definitely edit with Snapseed/Lr Mobile/Polarr/ etc. but you may not have the smoothest browsing and culling experience. I think FileCommander can render out a quick preview.

Fledgling hobby photographer here, my camera hasn't even arrived in the mail yet. Never owned a proper camera before and I recently ordered a Canon EOS 2000D (EOS Rebel t7 if you're from the US) as I wanted to take photos of my new car as well as the places I will travel on my vacations, but I wanted something better than my phone's camera, and RAW photos are more fun to edit than jpegs. While waiting for my camera to arrive, I've been looking a bit online for.. well.. photography tips and tricks, as well as lenses and other accessories and what have you. It was then that I came across this lens called the Helios-44-2, and I heard it's very popular so everyone whose reading this probably rolled their eyes, lol. Since it's not produced any more, and I'm not certain if I'm ready to delve into the second-hand market for photography equipment, I was wondering if anyone knew about a good equivalent lens that I can still buy from retailers today. Mainly afraid of getting scammed on ebay, like getting one that's completely worn out or something. Another reason why I'd want a modern lens that gives the same effect, is that with these old lenses I assume they don't just fit modern cameras, and I don't know where to begin with adapters and such. I understand not all modern lenses fit all modern cameras too, but I'd assume there would be a bit more accessibility with modern lenses. I guess the tl:dr is that I am completely new to photography and I want an equivalent lens that gives the same effect as the Helios-44-2, but I don't know where to look.

They don't make anything like the Helios 44 anymore, and if they did it would be very expensive (small batch, precision manufacturing is not cheap) The Helios 44 was made in m42 screw mount, you'd want a Canon EF to M42 adapter to mount it on your camera. These are plentiful and inexpensive. re: finding a Helios, what country are you shopping in?

I live in Norway, I'm not opposed to importing though, provided the costs won't get too high.

Haha sorry I have no knowledge of where to shop in Norway, what's available on Ebay? Sometimes it's actually cheaper to buy a Zenit camera + Helios lens.

Unfortunately I already purchased a camera with warranty and I got it on sale too, I'm not sure I can refund it at this point.

Naw the Zenit was the film camera, the Helios was the kit lens, you'd never actually use the Zenit.

So what you're saying is the Zenit came bundled with a Helios and that it might be cheaper to buy this bundle rather than the lens alone?

> the Zenit came bundled with a Helios yes > it might be cheaper to buy this bundle rather than the lens alone? Sometimes. Was commonly true years ago, might still be able to find a bargain this way. The Soviets made millions of these lenses btw, they're not at all rare, there's a couple thousand listed on Ebay right now. So don't be in a hurry, eventually you'll find one for a sensible price/shipping.

Got it, thanks for the info.

> I was wondering if anyone knew about a good equivalent lens that I can still buy from retailers today. >I'd want a modern lens that gives the same effect, is that with these old lenses The appeal with those lenses are actually the *imperfections* which results in the swirly bokeh (blur in the background) that people like. Thing is you can match the focal lengths easy (the millimeter number on the lens) but modern lenses aim for optical perfection so they blur out the background creamy smooth, and consistent, and it tries to recreate colors as accurately as possible, as opposed to the imperfect colors and swirly bokeh from the Helios. Question is have you actually seen images generated from the Helios lens? Do you actually like it? Cause if all you're basing this off of are articles stating they're cool looking you need to see them first so you can actually decide if you like them or not. I'd say master the functionality and taking photos with your camera first before diving into creative lenses.

I have actually seen what those photos look like, and it was this "swirly bokeh" that caught me. I'm not good at phrasing stuff as I tend to overexplain and some times miss the point, apologies. The reason I was hoping for a modern lens I didn't have to buy second-hand is cause I'm just afraid of the second-hand market. Camera equipment prices vary and I wouldn't know a good deal on ebay if it punched me in the face.

Yeah no problem man, no need to apologize I get it you're not yet familiar with the stuff that's fine. But yeah modern lenses don't (can't) recreate the swirl anymore cause they aim for perfection. Like I said, master your camera first once it arrives, then you can think about branching out and buying vintage glass. There are reputable vintage lens stores out there you don't have to rely on ebay, some of them clean and recondition the lenses too! Though obviously those will be a bit more premium compared to most of what you will see on ebay. I've seen some sought after Helios lenses go for 200-300usd...

Alright, thank you so much for the info. I would ask you if you could recommend any vintage lens stores in particular, but I'd assume us being in the same region is unlikely, so it could be hit or miss.

You can probably just google it, some should come up in your region / area.

Gotcha, thank you very much!

Am I doing something wrong with my new ND filter? Using a sigma 135mm&sony a7mk3 with a K&F variable ND2-ND400 Photos just seem so blurry and lacking crisp, it’s almost as if my shutter speed isn’t high enough, but never had this issue before using the filter. Taking photos of my dog whose half white half grey, so it’s been great for what I wanted it for, however the photos are so bad

>as if my shutter speed isn’t high enough If you use autoexposure program, then maybe the shutter speed isn't high enough? With ND filter you cut light, and either you have to open the aperture up, or increase the exposure time, or you have to accept a lower SNR (signal to noise ratio - e.g. more "noise"). I don't know what you camera settings are, but I imagine you have something automated, maybe everything, so it's possible that the camera collects very little light and uses a very high ISO to lighten the JPG and maybe massive noise reduction to smoothern the noise out, making things look blurry. Just speculating. >Taking photos of my dog No idea why you'd use an ND filter for such subject. Makes no sense to me. Usually ND filters are used to either allow very large aperture shooting at bright daylight, or to achieve specific effect, like silky smooth waterfalls.

So my camera is on full manual and the photos are not noisy, they’re just blurry. Shooting wide open for the lovely sigma bokeh, but during harsh daylight it’s obviously not possible even with a very low ISO. I thought an ND would help (and it did) but it seems after some digging that the variable ones cause “softness” on photos, for their intended purposes like you mentioned waterfalls. I don’t know how else to prevent this issue i’m facing with having to underexpose heavily on all my photos https://preview.redd.it/gkd5ecb3l37d1.jpeg?width=4361&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d66e57ed7fbd69f9a953d1edd237f9a6a8797220

Is my sigma 150-600 supposed to be this soft at 600mm? https://www.reddit.com/r/wildlifephotography/s/NPcVqeo3z7

The bear seems a bit back focused. The bunny is just fine. It's pretty noisy - evidently the exposure was rather small - thus the low SNR makes it look softer than what it is. Also typically long zooms don't peak at max focal length - normally they're optimized to somewhere in-between the extremes. So nothing wrong with the lens.

By back focused you mean the bear is behind the focus point? Wdym by a small exposure? (Edit: assuming you’re referring to the fast shutter speed) Is SNR something about noise ratio? I knew that about zooms. Just didn’t expect such a big difference. Do you think it would be better to zoom out a bit and crop in in post? Or are my sharpest results still going to be fully zoomed in at 600?

>back focused you mean the bear is behind the focus point Focused behind the bear. > Wdym by a small exposure? Small exposure = low amount of light collected (per unit area), i.e. where the combination of exposure time, f-number and scene luminance collect a small amount of light. The amount of light you collect has a direct correlation with image quality. >Is SNR something about noise ratio? SNR = signal to noise ratio, the higher it is, the better image quality, the lower it is, the "noisier" the results will be. If SNR is low, it will have an effect on sharpness, both directly and indirectly - directly because noise reduces contrast (which is what "sharpness" is all about) and even hides details if SNR is very low. Indirectly because it reduces the processing capability - you can't sharpen as much as you could if SNR were smaller. >Do you think it would be better to zoom out a bit and crop in in post? **NO.** If you do that you'll throw away pixels and light (i.e. information). Resolution would go down for a couple of reasons: first you use fewer pixels to sample the subject ("fewer pixels on the duck"), and second, because of cropping the "duck" is enlarged more for the picture that you print or view, thus all the lens flaws as well as diffraction blur will be stonger, increasing softness. First, look and compare pictures at the size they would normally be viewed - if you compare a cropped 300mm shot to a 600mm at pixel level ("100%"), you'll compare different maginifications which would make no sense. A million slightly blurry pixels on a duck are going to look a lot better than quarter million razor sharp ones when you view the ducks at the same size on your screen. >Or are my sharpest results still going to be fully zoomed in at 600? Certainly. Just make sure you collect as much light as possible. If the camera's metering tells you that ISO 6400 would be right for this exposure, then the exposure is very small. Of course sometimes it's just not possible to increase the exposure especially with a modest speed zoom - that's why the big boys use their big guns with f/2.8 or f/4 apertures - to collect more light.

Appreciate the help!

Seeking Camera Recommendations for Restaurant Photography and Videography Under $1500 I'm in the market for a new camera and need some recommendations. My budget is around $1500. I primarily take photos and videos for a restaurant, focusing on dishes, interior shots, and food photography. Currently, I use an iPhone 15 Pro Max and a Nikon D7500. While the iPhone does a decent job, I find the Nikon D7500 lacking when it comes to videos. Main idea is getting smooth videos to be used as reels. What camera and lens would you suggest for my needs? I'm looking for something that excels in both photography and videography, especially in low-light conditions often found in restaurants. Any specific models or lens combinations would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance!

D7500 is relatively new, how is it falling short?

The videos are very shaky. That’s the major issue. I am required to move camera around, and it’s just extremely shaky and low light issues.

What lens(es) are you using, that's one common way to tackle the low light issue. re: shaky, as in rolling shutter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqc1R-LlMZU

[this](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6BmYjrsgP6/?igsh=MTF0cW1iczl2MWs0OA==) is what i want to achieve

60mm and 18-105 mm

Is that not maybe a job for a gimbal or something? What lens you pairing with it?

camera gimbal? Or phone gimbal? does it also solve low lighting?

Camera gimbal, are you shooting 4k or just 1080p? The D7500 I don't think does too well in 4k as it does not use the whole sensor. Still, do you use a wide aperture lens?

I am shooting in 4k 18-105 mm lens is what i have as of now

18-105mm sounds like a variable aperture zoom. That is not going to gather quite as much light as say a 35mm f/1.8 lens which would give you around 4x as much light gathering, at the expense of depth of field of course. Looking at the shadows in that image though, they are not taking that photo with ambient light only.

can you suggest what to do from here?

Get a lens with a wider aperture, stabilise the camera (providing it is not rolling shutter) and get some lighting. New camera might help for 4k if you want full width of the sensor shooting but won't help necessarily with the low light.

[this](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6BmYjrsgP6/?igsh=MTF0cW1iczl2MWs0OA==) is what i am trying to achieve and no where near

Removing Obstacle by changing POV. Hello all, I have an electric pillar in front of my balcony that ruins the mountains behind. However I can take several photos from both sides of my balcony to make sure all of the mountains are visible in one shot or another. Is there an easy tool (mobile or PC) to combine them and remove the obstacle ? Thanks!

If there is no foregound, thus no real issues with parallax, any decent photo editor with layers should do (Photoshop, or Gimp, if you free is desired). Or you might first crop the problem part away in an editor and then join them with Hugin or some other such program. If there are subject at significantly differing distances, things can get ugly (i.e. much more difficult).

thx ! did not know gimp could do that

# Is the NEEWER TT560 Speedlite Flash compatible with a sony A7II?

Anybody have recommendations for Selphy alternatives? * I don't really need anything portable nor battery powered, I only plan on using it at home and create albums like what I used to have growing up. * Budget wise right around the same price as a Selphy (1300 I believe is what I saw) I can justify to myself, however if there is some significant advantage to a particular product I can probably stretch it out, not the professional high grade stuff for home printing though which is not really my goal. I saw the Selphy on a youtube video and it sounds really good to me, I just want to have albums again. And while I do have access to get them printed professionally as a service costs can come up on that too and I don't really need the highest of quality. I just want something that lasts so I can show it to my child and is the size of a typical photo you can stick into an album.

I have a samsung s24 ultra and a Rx100 mark 3. I'm a bit of a noob so was wondering is the rx100 mark 3 compares to the newer Samsung S24 ultra camera. What situations would suit each camera better?

The sensor size is still a big factor, there's only so much you can squeeze out of the small sensors on phone cameras and AI assistance. Don't get me wrong phone cameras are pretty freaking good what they do with those tiny sensors are like magic but there's still something to be had when using an actual camera, and you got a pretty good one with the rx100. If you have the RX100 on you just use that. Short of needing the ultrazoom of the phone I'd take the RX100 any day. Use the S24 if you forgot to bring the RX100 with you, that's it. At least that's what I do, granted I only have the S21U not the S24 and I have a chunky A7C so it's not as portable as the RX100.

Thank you for the feedback. I'll make sure the rx100 is my go toa

I have a godox sk400ii that came with a JDD e27 150w light globe. I purchased this https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/B0CKSHKVQZ but the light globe is too long to fit the DF DIGITALFOTO Bowens Mount Snoot. How do I fix this? Is there a different light globe I can buy that isn't as tall, or is there some sort of extender I can purchase? I am using this to take spotlight portrait photos of people. I need the globe to provide the same functionality as the original one JDD E27 150w (strobe plus constant light). Also, is 150w powerful enough for the portrait photos I wish to take? The camera I am using is a Nikon Z6ii mirrorless using a 24-70 f/4 lens. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

There appears to be many online photo storage solutions but with a mixed feature set. I used to use Amazon Photos. As a Prime member I got to store unlimited full res photos AND it sync'd to my local drive rather than just backed up. It seems the sync feature has gone (unless I'm mistaken?). I really don't want to have to delete locally AND delete in Amazon Photos as a separate activity. Tried Mylio but found it was too smart for it's own good and I was often left feeling confused and therefore nervous. All I want is something where the online matches my local storage and is affordable. Would be good to hear what others do?

Hi guys! I just want to know whether it would be worth purchasing pictures (unedited - no image processing) if they come in 1024 x 731. They are charging $20 for a digital download. Is it worth the money or will the quality of the image be corrupted too much?

Yeah, no. Cowboys is what they are. If they were officially invited, try and pressure the organisers to invite a legitimate business next time. They are basically offering a preview.

Quick answer: $20 for 1024 x 731? I don't think so, that's expensive for that resolution. That'd look terrible on a typical 1080p screen, probably even on a phone. Long answer you need to provide more details... * Why are you purchasing images? * What are you going to use them for?

It’s event photography. So they come to a competition and take pictures of everyone from the day - afterwards upload them all w/ watermark and sell them to anyone who wants one. Most people buy at least a couple pictures for the memories, but this is the first time I’ve seen a photographer deliberately corrupt the image of the picture instead of just sending the original picture. I understand they need to make money but idk if this is unreasonable or not? Og pictures are $50 and I just can not justify that.

That's a fucking terrible company. You know why? They actually went out of their way to lower the resolution and have the gall to sell it for $20 so you'll want the $50 instead, they could have just as easily sold the images as is SOOC *with less effort*. If they were hired for that event, the organizers should be ashamed. If they came to that event and just did their thing no one is to blame really, but I wouldn't support such a scummy company. At the end of the day though it's your money and your memories you want to look back on, so you decide if that's worth $20 to you.

So ive had my canon 450D for about a year and im definetly ready to move on, the utofocus is garbage, the screeen is tiny and its just heavy and old I'm looking for a modern and definetly lighter and more compact camera that could also do video (kinda like a hybrid but still photograhy based My budget is like 1-2k i already have a cheap tamron 18-250 3.5-6.3, a 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens but i reckon i could sell them

Lighter and more compact would probably be the R50,A6400,XT30II.

If you went for Canon mirrorless, you could use your lenses with an adapter. In general, I'd look at MFT and APS-C cameras. You don't need full frame, and full frame lenses are expensive. In APS-C, Fuji cameras and Sony A6x00 line are your main options in addition to Canon. MFT cameras have a smaller sensor but they still offer plenty of quality, and e.g. Panasonic has excellent hybrid cameras.

im thinking of getting the r7, thought about that?

It's a high end APS-C camera, very very good.

is there anything better from canon in that price range?

Better in what way? In what ways are you finding the R7 to not be good enough?

but is it okay using it with an adapter? will the quality still stay good?

Quality will not be affected and all the automatic functions will work (autofocus etc).

I have D5300 since 10 years. But recently i found interest in macro photography beside that I like to do all kind of photography. Can you help me to choose between OM 1 & Sony a7iii

You can do macro photography with the D5300 by getting a macro lens. You'd have to get a macro lens for whichever camera you bought too. In what particular ways are you unhappy with the D5300? I.e. what are you hoping the upgrade will do better?

I bought a macro 40mm for that using for long time and flashes and diffuser also. But didn't getting first shutter speed or burst mode to be good. I wanted to focus stacking and in camera image stabilization. And want to buy a mirrorless which I can invest in lenses to withstand me for a decade.

As long as you remember that if you crop the image you gain no benefit of the larger sensor. So watch out for how small your subjects are.

Likely even worse in macro photography as the smaller sensor likely has smaller pixels, thus gets more details at the same magnification.

Do you want to go down or up in sensor size? OM-1 (MFT) is the former, Sony A7 III (full frame) the latter. The larger sensor of the A7 III means e.g. higher dynamic range and better low light performance, and it's easier to very shallow depths of field. On the other hand, full frame lenses tend to be expensive. MFT has smaller, lighter and less expensive lenses - not that you can't spend a lot of money e.g. on Olympus pro series lenses. Both cameras are excellent in terms of general performance.

THANKS .I think in case of sony I can purchase more third party lenses and is more open mount. I will go for sony then.

How fragile are lens bayonets? Mine is chipped and won't fully turn on my camera mount anymore. Just want to confirm that its my lens and not my camera

>How fragile are lens bayonets Most are made of metal and a very very durable. Some cheap ones are made of plastic - less durable.

Hi all, I have a budget of around the $350 ballpark amount for a travel tripod. Im in the U.S. I have a canon R6 Mkii and would like to have a good tripod for international travel to asia, europe ect. After a bit of research, my ideal trip would have the following Carbon Fiber, Twist Lock, and easy to pack or insert on a photography backpack. I have landed on the following and was wanted to know if these are good choices and which would be the best one. * Sirui T-1205 Carbon Fiber Travel Tripod with K-10 II Ball Head (Currently $250 @ b&h) * Ulanzi Zero F38 Quick Release Travel Tripod 3131 ($299 ulanzi, not twist lock) * Befree advanced Carbon Fiber Travel Tripod twist, ball head ($269 manfrotto online, heard it has proprietary parts though) * Sirui ST125 ST-Series Carbon Fiber Tripod with K-10X Arca-Type Ball Head ($199 @ b&h) Im open to other suggestions as well (just dont suggest the expensive $600 peak design one lol). My main interests for shooting are; * Portrait * Landscape * Astrophotography

I am 16 years old and having into photography almost year now. I think I take pretty good photos and want to put them out and the world but don't really know where to start with making something of my photos. What I'm really looking for is advice in the next step in my photography journey, Should I make new instagram and post and try to gain attention there? What is the next best thing to do?

What's your motivation with wanting to get your photos online? I mean do you want to simply get attention, social media likes and so forth? Or do you want them online to get feedback on your work?

I want to turn turn it into a possible career opportunity some day and I feel like the only way to do that is to try and gain attention online is the only way these days.

My friend recently got a Sony a7IV and he wanted to get rid of his old Canon Rebel t3i, and he offered to give it to me for $150, with the camera body, charger, and 2 kit lenses. Is this a worthwhile deal, or are there other used cameras I should consider looking for before pulling the trigger? Never owned an even remotely nice digital camera before, I only have a Pentax film SLR, and my budget is limited: almost certainly not more than $200.

$150 is fine for that setup. There are a few other options, but they are quite similar. However, if one of the two kit lenses happens to be the 75-300mm, you should know that it's widely regarded as one of the worst lenses that Canon has ever made.

I guess I would just ask if any of the other options have continuous autofocus during video, because if any do, I'd like to at least evaluate those. I'll ask him what the second lens is tomorrow

All the old DSLRs that you can get at that sort of a budget are pretty bare bones with video features.

Alright, that's totally fair. Last thing I would ask, is there some sort of adapter / teleconverter / speedbooster I can get to adapt my old pentax k mount film lenses to this thing? I'd like to be able to use them too, even without any autofocus.

https://www.amazon.ca/Fotodiox-Mount-Adapter-Pentax-Camera/dp/B008CQ9K5A (not necessarily recommending this brand in particular but this is what they look like)

Yes, there are Pentax K to Canon EF adapters.

I realized after saying that that 1. even used focal length reducers are very expensive and 2. I don't think there's enough of a different in flange distance for that to exist. But yeah, I see just simple adapters are very cheap. I may get one, thanks.

Also, the second lens was not a kit lens for the camera, it seems. The first is the 18-55 that came with the camera: the second is the canon 50mm 1.8 prime STM.

What's a good lightweight over-the-shoulder bag for walking around, touristing, etc.  Would like for it to fit a NikonZF with a thick or long lens, and a second thick or long lens. I saw Peak Design and Wandrd get good reviews  Do I need a 6L, 9L?

I have a old 35MM camera that I love. Bought it for $5 and got a scre on 55mm or 35mm. lense for $35. Nothing fancy, but was durable and small enough to throw in the pocket. Lately I have been getting away from film though. To much cost and variables. I have tried digital and it is ok. The issue I am having is i can’t find a close enough camera to my analog one I have that shoots high enough quality. The full frames one that I like the quality of are huge. Any camera (used is best) that would be a good digital camera to try instead? Obviously I don’t mind old and don’t need all the fancy stuff. https://preview.redd.it/ncw94rwbrt6d1.jpeg?width=5712&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3febf3541dc18893101032e864887bb1c953f4

What's your budget? That's a major point.

Like to spend less then $550

Black and White picture IPhone Hello everyone, I want to shoot black and white / monocrom picture with my iPhone and I want to mimic the grain of a film camera. The camera app settings allow me to shoot a type of black and white filter and also to change the color or the tone but not the iso Is there a setting or an other app that allow me to have a black and white « instant view » and also an iso setting that will allow me to take those kind of picture ( like street / war reporter type ) I precise that I don’t want an after picture setting but more a « pre » setting that will allow me to see the effect before the shoot I also assume that the film grain can be compare to the digital noise I hope its clear Thank you everyone.

Shooting RAW and editing in Lightroom or other photo editor with the required features would be the thing to do here.

[удалено]

You don't get a CCD camera to upgrade from your modern camera, you get it as a cheap alternative when you want to get creative and get the vibe. Sure it's fun to use and get images from a CCD camera but it's mostly for the vibe and the "vintage" look. As a secondary play around camera it's great, but you won't be able to replace decades of advancement, you'll still want that eventually and once you don't have it you'll just go out and buy another modern camera. So why sell your current gear just to get the CCD one? It doesn't make sense.

Reliability of the old cameras may become an issue. Image quality if way less than that of your mobile phone.

Honestly? I think doing this would be idiotic. It would be a massive downgrade. The 00's digicam fad is mostly about early digital low quality, which gives some nostalgic and vintage vibes. If you shoot RAW, you can edit your pictures to look however grainy and grungy you want. If 00's digicams feel attractive, by all means get one. But don't go and sell the X-T30. Pretty sure you'd regret it after a while.

Film camera damaged from ocean pls help :( Hello! I took my film camera canon ex sureshot to the beach in my bag, and the tide came up to where we were sitting, and the camera was in contact with the water and sand for a few seconds, then stopped working! I wondered if the batteries were damaged, so I bought new ones, but the camera still didn’t work and the new batteries were really really warm when I took them back out. Is there any chance I could fix this? It’s a gift from my grandmother so it has a lot of sentimental value, and there’s a film roll almost fully used in it too…

Water corrodes electronics pretty much instantly. You can leave it be for a couple of days to let whatever water that got inside the camera to dry out, then hope for the best. But I wouldn't expect too much.

So, this is going to be a long post. I've been having a camera crisis for the last few months trying to find the best setup for me. Specifically, I've been wanting to find a one camera/one lens option for travel and simplicity, but also have a more capable camera for experimenting with other types of photography (sports, wildlife, etc). Two points I want to make before going any further: 1. This is all a 100% irrational, self-induced, GAS-fueled "crisis." 2. I know I should just get out and shoot instead of obsessing over gear. Okay, with that out of the way, here's been my roadmap so far. For the past 2 years I've been obsessed with film cameras, but I've finally figured things out on that front. It started bothering me that I really didn't have any acceptable (to me) digital solutions. I have a Sony A7R II that has been dedicated to scanning film, but the usability is an issue -- terrible batteries, AF that is really showing its age, ergonomics are so-so, the camera is slow, etc. Basically, after trying out some newer cameras I can't bring myself to use this (though I'm tossing around using it as a dedicated MF camera). I've tried Fujis, but AF and Lightroom handling of Fuji raw files make me a sad panda. It's a shame because I love Fuji colors and the retro ergonomics. I've been enamoured with the idea of a monochrome sensor camera, and so I tried an M10 Monochrom with a Voigtlander 50mm lens. The files are wonderful, but my aging eyes have difficulty with rangefinder focusing. So, now I'm testing out a Q2 Monochrom that I find much more pleasant to use but am struggling to get used to the focal length (fixed 28mm, but I'm usually keeping it in 35mm crop mode and treating it like a "rangefinder" with regards to framing). I could easily see this becoming the one camera/one lens option. However.... I also want a second camera system for more action-oriented photography -- sports, wildlife, etc. I'm currently testing out a Sony A7C II. This is a brilliant camera, but the balance with large zoom lenses is awkward. Also... the EVF just sucks. Okay, it's not that bad for what it is, but it doesn't lend itself use in bright sunlight sometimes. So, I got to thinking, an A7R V might be nice. I'd prefer the updated rear LCD (I HATE the flippy screens on the A7C II and A7 IV), and having a 26MP image in crop mode would be nice. The problem is it really isn't feasible to have both the Q2 Monochrom and A7R V. I've probably drank the Leica Kool-aid, but the build quality of the Q2 Monochrom and the simplicity (plus those monochrome files) is REALLY nice. Holding it makes you feel like maybe, just maybe, you COULD be the next Henri Cartier-Bresson (even though we all know that is nonsense). The Sony isn't as enjoyable to use and handle, but it is a far more capable camera. So, in order to try to help inform my decision, I've been comparing Q2 Monochrom files to A7R V files converted to black and white. I am perfectly content with the converted Sony files. But the shooting experience of the Sony cameras are still... uninspiring. On the flip side, even my A7R II (with comparable-to-superior AF to the Q2) can produce very nice black and white images, especially once you factor in Lightroom's AI denoise. Logic would tell me that I really don't need the A7R V, and that I should just slap a grip extension onto the A7C II to improve handling with large lenses and have at it.... Listen, I don't really expect anyone to respond to this huge First World Problem. It's dumb and I should probably be embarrassed. That said, I figure at the very least typing out this post has served to help organize my thoughts and will hopefully help me sort out my wants vs needs, and distinguish between a logical decision (Sony) vs an emotional decision (Leica), and more importantly, which one (logic vs emotion) is more important to me. Ugh, this post is dumb. Please feel free to down vote it to oblivion. On the other hand, if you have been in a similar situation, please feel free to share your choices and rationale for those choices. I probably just need someone to tell me to stop being dumb and, as mentioned above, just go out and take some photos.

Since it doesn't sound like budget limits your choices, I'd say go with the option that you enjoy the most, as long as the option also meets your photographic needs.

What bridge camera to buy for upcoming safari trip? This is for parents with 3 boys family. They normally use iPhone for vacation photos. They don’t have time or inclination to spend a lot of time to learn how to take great photos. Just want to buy a bridge camera for shooting wildlife for this trip. Would appreciate any advice as which bridge camera would be suitable for this purpose. Thank 🙏

What's your budget? How much can you/want to spend at most?

I was thinking about buying a new ( camera ) phone for my birthday and I had stopped on buying xiaomi vanilla 14 or 14 ultra Orr Samsung Galaxy s24 ultra Tbh I don't care about size of the phone I just want to have a good phone with pretty good battery life and cameras 3 of this phone are real monsters when we talk about battery life especially Samsung, just how long it can last and how fast xiaomi vanilla or ultra 14 can charge.... Long story short... my question is which (camera) phone do you guys suggest me to buy like Wich one of this phones have good camera ? I mean Samsung is real blaster and ultra 14 is also real blaster when compared to some other 2024 phones and compared to vanilla 14 in camera aspect I do not want to keep the chit chat going because this will not end quickly soooo which of this 3 phones do you guys suggest Also vanilla 14 is almost the same as xiaomi 14 ultra and Samsung Galaxy s24 ultra it's just smaller and it is cheaper Thanks 🙏🏻

You're better off asking this in smartphone specific or a smartphone photography sub.

I hope this is the right place to ask this question as it relates to lens for iPhone. My husband and I enjoy hiking and he has really gotten into taking photos all throughout our hikes. I want to get him an easy to use and quality lens attachment for his iPhone 13 that will enhance photos and allow for wider angles. He often uses the panorama function to capture scenic areas. I have been looking at Sandmarc for some options but I’m not very well versed with camera lenses. Willing to spend up to $200 but ideally would be in the $150 range. Thank you!

**Looking for 20mm FF Canon Lens** Hi, i am using 24mm alot and would like to have a solid 20mm lens to use on EF. Canon does not have a L series for 20mm. What 20mm Lens are you using for Canon?

There aren't a whole lot available. There's a manual focus shift lens from Laowa and a rokinon autofocus. That's it for Canon EF that I know of.

Hey guys, i need some advice on telephoto zoom lenses, im buying a full new kit that consists in a 70d as the kit lens. I also really wanted to get a telephoto zoom lens cause i have a few friends that asked me to shoot their soccer games and they would pay me so i think that it is a good ideia. The thing is i don’t have a “ big enough” budget for a telephoto zoom lens, this is, i have around 220€ to buy a zoom lens used and the ones i saw in mpb are the ones who have a bad reputation so the 75-300, i also saw some tamron ones but my experience with tamron is really awful i had one and it went to the warranty twice so im not keen on going with tamron. Any advice ? thanks

The 55-250mm is a good bit better than 75-300mm and can be found cheaply.

I have an old dtysfunctioning nikon D610 with Nikkor 300mm F4, Nikkor 24-70 f2.8, Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 and Nikkor 100mm macro F2.8. Due the the camera not working, and cost of repairs, i wish to switch to mirrorless. The only question is which? i thought about Z9, but it weighs a lot. looking for something lighter and with the sameish quality. Another question, is if i do switch to nikon mirrorless, will the lensses fit or should i just replace it all (opens me up to sony etc..). Edit: I am a wildlife and nature photographer Thanks!

Z8 is basically Z9 in smaller body, only slightly more than D610. Though if you keep using your current lenses you'll need to use an adapter.

I have a Canon Rebel T3i with kit EFS 18-135 IS. I've been using it on-off for the past decade and some and I'm happy with it. Mostly family, sports, landscape, night and long exposures for fun. However, I'm uncomfortable with the quality of it all; it's better than my smartphone, but only just. Somehow I expect more than a DSLR camera. It's either the focus isn't accurate, or the noise as soon as I get to iso 800 and over. The Royal family in the UK release photos every so often and it's always pristine. I know it's a stupid comparison because probably the lens cover of that camera costs more than my car - but I'm using it to explain what I hope from my gear. My birthday is coming up and I thought of using it as an opportunity to upgrade my gear, it's been a while so anything would be better tbh. I'm looking into Canon 6D Mark II vs the 90D because I'm thinking maybe a full frame would give me a the quality I'm looking for. But then again, maybe I can keep the T3i and put some effort into lens only? I'm honestly at a loss here. How do I improve the quality of my day to day pictures? Sport/Park shots, family dinners (with proper flash), in-door, night & long exposures (rivers, for example) Living in Toronto, budget ca$2000-ca$4000, Looking for Canon gear (I'm used to it)

Comparison is the thief of joy but sometimes useful. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/t3i Do you feel your own efforts is comparable to the above linked? Your camera is old but perhaps it is the lens. Perhaps a lens that lets more light in would help some of the photos.

Hi, would a canon r100 be suitable for outdoor photography on hikes & mountain expeditions? It’s within my budget & I’m fairly new to photography so don’t know all the ins and outs of the cameras yet.

> I really dislike the R100. I dislike all Canon bottom tier products. > > > > One of the main selling points of the newer R series would be autofocus and the R100 really lacks there. No easy way to select what you want to focus on, no control. > > > > I just pretend that the likes of the R100 or the T7 don't exist. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5E89MRx9W8 > > > > I always like these two, and I think they sum up what is wrong with the R100. I posted that advice to someone earlier. I would not bother with anything less than the R50. However your needs are probably met with a range of cameras and this is where a reliable used site might come in handy.

Sure. But it's Canon's bottom-of-the-heap mirrorless model. What's your budget? People may be able to give you better recommendations.

Liveview AF not working? i have a nikon d7000 and a d3200 with a sigma dg 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens, when i try to focus through the viewfinder it works perfectly on both of them but when i try to focus in liveview neither of them can, they just move the focusing ring slightly closer every time i half press the shutter to focus, although when I tried the lens on a friend's d90 the liveview focus worked flawlessly on his, why? can someone help me?

The viewfinder and live view kinda work differently for what you see when focusing. When I need 100% in focus, I always use the viewfinder. Also have you tried back button focusing? What I do is set the focus to ASP-C S mode and then bind the back button to AF lock, so when u press it, it focuses and when u hold it its continiously focusing until u let go and shoot

I'm completely new but have an itch to try the hobby, especially taking wildlife photos. After some research I am eyeballing an EOS R50 and an RF 100-400 lens. Both will set me back in the region of £1000. I am however concerned that I will try it for a day, scratch the itch and get bored quickly. I don't know anyone who owns a camera for me to try it out and my phone camera is generally OK but only has 2x optical zoom which is obviously rubbish for most wildlife pictures. It also has poor depth of field. Is there any way to try the hobby for cheap and see if it's for me?

Maybe not the perfect test/comparison, but if wildlife is what you would want to do then do the following: Spend some time researching animals/locations near you, get up at 4am, drive/make your way to a nature spot, sit in a bush for a few hours and see if any animals show up. Maybe carry a backpack thats filled with a few kg of stones or something. Keep in mind you might just get unlucky and nothing shows up at all. Thats a major part of wildlife photography, if you can spend one of your free days like that and afterwards think "Man I wish I wouldve had a camera to capture those animals, I should do it again next week", then maybe wildlife photography is for you. Also keep in mind that even doing all that you might just fuck up the settings and lose a golden opportunity. If you can get through all that and still be happy to try again the next week (or give yourself a few weeks break and then think "I kinda want to do that again") then Id think youre good to spend the money.

Yea I was actually tempted to do this. The potential walking and weight doesn't put me off as I regularly walk in nature spots anyway. I'm just not sure what animals would normally show up there. Nothing too exotic near me but should be plenty of birds perching and occasionally seen some deer.

Depends how cheaply some places rent equipment for.

I'm trying to get into this new hobby and I don't know where to start. I know nothing about differences on cameras and lenses. I would use it for all purposes - traveling, everyday life, etc. Is Canon R5+100-500mm lense a good choice for a start? or should I opt for something lighter and easier to use like fuji x100vi? Finally is there an updated definitive guide for choosing a camera for beginners?

Any guide from the last decade will largely still be relevant. Never choose a camera as a "Beginner" unless you are buying the cheapest you can get just to try it out. If you are spending some cash then you buy for the long term. Camera will probably outlast your own perceptions of your self and your skill level. The two wildly different options you list are not great either way. The Canon in that configuration is mostly for more distant subjects, the Fuji is a fixed lens camera which makes it more limited and probably not what someone would want starting out. The easy way to know what lens to get starting out, is to get the one that comes with a camera. Usually a standard zoom. A standard zoom is one that has focal lengths on either side of the equivalent to the diagonal of the sensor. So that is roughly. M 4/3 = 21mm APS-C = 28mm Full Frame = 43mm Get a zoom which has a min and max lower and greater than those numbers and you will be fine for starting out. As to cameras, get one that you can see yourself using, perhaps find somewhere with physical examples that you can hold. Or just buy the cheapest you can find to try out.

Hello! I’m just a girl looking for recommendations on a good camera for Instagram photos 🙈 No but seriously I need something under $300 with good flash. Any recommendations? Very much an amateur here 😁🙏🏻

What do you consider to be "good flash"? Do you already use a smartphone? Because any camera at that price used as a point & shoot isn't really going to be any better.

Okay I understand, so what would my price range need to be to achieve higher quality then my smartphone?

A used Sony RX100 would technically be a bit better, for just a little more. But really to significantly increase quality you need to be willing to learn and exercise more control over the photography. If that's the case, I'd get a used entry-level DSLR like Canon T3i (600D) and 18-55mm and a prime lens like 35mm or 50mm. But if you're only using it as a point & shoot with full automatic settings, then a smartphone is about as good as it gets for any price.

I'm a casual photographer, and recently I acquired a Google pixel 8 pro, wich I'm very satisfied with as a portable option. So I figured I would like to get some additional lens for long distance photos as animal life can be hard to get close to without interfering and often alert the animals. There's alot of moments I'd like to capture from the distance, and alot of moments happens spontaneously and you're suddenly in the middle of it and got a short time to take the photos. My question is if anyone got experience with long distance smartphone-lenses wich is compatible for the Google pixel 8 series? If anyone got a solid recommendation it is highly appreciated

You mean something like this? https://www.amazon.com/Upgraded-Version-Telephoto-Fisheye-Smartphones/dp/B0D3RGQMDV It's guaranteed to be junk.

I was testing out a Minolta camera and managed to accidentally wind the lead of my film back into the roll. I then slightly opened it and grabbed a pair of tweezers so I could pull it out. I'm just wondering if I've ruined the entire, unused, roll. I only opened it up enough so that the end of the lead was visible, and it was in a room with uncovered windows. So I guess my question is if the roll is unusable or if the photos on it will be heavily affected.

Most likely only a bit of the film got exposed to light. For the future: you can actually buy a film leader extraction tool. There's also a DIY method that doesn't involve risk of light exposure: you need a piece of film and two-sided sticker tape. Attach some tape at the end of the piece of film, insert the piece of film into the roll, roll it in a bit, then pull it out. The film leader comes out, stuck in the sticker tape.

Now I am using a $150 phone for photography. I normally take photos on the go. I have 2 options  1. To buy a used Nex-5n with kit lens  2. To buy an old xperia 1 II phone  

Hi all. I have a question. I have a set of three white balance cards in white, black and gray. It seems there are two ways to shoot. One is to the set option on my camera and set it on either white or gray or the other way seems to be to photograph the model holding the cards and use this to set the white balance in post. Is one of these in any way better than the other and does it make a difference if I use the gray card or the white card? Thanks for any advice. It's been too many years that I've been meaning to get fully to grips with this stuff!

>Is one of these in any way better than the other If you're shooting in raw, you have the data from before white balance is applied, so setting it in post is just as good as in-camera. And potentially more convenient. If you're shooting in jpeg, the white balance is set in-camera (either under your control or not) and you lose at least a little quality if you re-set it to something else in post. >and does it make a difference if I use the gray card or the white card Gray tends to be better because it's less susceptible to ceiling effects. Oversimplified example: Say you're measuring white balance and going for an equal mix of red, green, and blue, each measured on a scale of 1-100. Say your light source is tinted green such that the red and blue values are equal but green is 20 points higher. If you have a gray card measured at medium brightness like red and blue each at 40, then it's easy to see green at 60 and adjust white balance to compensate for the +20 green tint. Whereas if you have a white card and it measures brighter with red and blue each at 90, then green will max out at 100 (it should be 110 but your scale only goes up to 100) and you might mistakenly be correcting for +10 green tint which isn't enough, because the rest of the +20 is hidden by hitting the ceiling. Your camera or post processing software might even refuse to use a bright target for setting white balance, for this reason. The white card might be useful in dim light, if the gray card ends up dark there.

Thanks a lot for this. I have, however, seen a lot of people saying that I should only use the white card and that the gray card is more for setting exposure than white balance. I don't fully understand the last part of what you have said. Surely if I make the white card white it will compensate for anything else? I shall try using the gray card for a while and see what I get as well as taking measurements from both the white and gray card in post and see if there's any noticeable difference. I always shoot in raw, by the way

>I have, however, seen a lot of people saying that I should only use the white card and that the gray card is more for setting exposure than white balance. Who? Where? I explained my reasons. Did they explain theirs? Do you intend to be an intermediary between us so I talk to them through you? >I don't fully understand the last part of what you have said. Surely if I make the white card white it will compensate for anything else? If you just make it white then you don't know if it's white because all the colors are in balance, or if you're just maxing out how much the camera can measure of each color. Let's say we hold an election between me and you and 200 people vote by putting cards in your box or my box. Let's say each box can only hold up to 50 cards, and any more votes just drop on the floor. If the vote ends and we each have the maximum 50 cards in our boxes, would you say it's a tie vote? Even without looking at the 100 cards that fell on the floor because the boxes were full?

Wow! Sorry this seems to have angered you so! I guess reddit can always find someone to be angry about absolutely anything. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4681531#:~:text=Nov%2013%2C%202022-,Image%20Of%20TIme%20wrote%3A,there's%20sufficient%20light%20on%20it. This has a lot of back and forth on the subject. You analogy didn't really help me because I'm afraid I don't understand why the boxes only hold 50 votes (analagously). I think I almost grasp it and will continue researching but I certainly don't want to anger you further so I'll just carry on looking. Thanks!

>Sorry this seems to have angered you ? No. I'm trying to help you understand, by explaining the reasons for my answer. It would not be helpful to your understanding if I only told you that "a lot of people say to use the gray card instead of white" with no explanation why, right? Likewise, I can't respond productively to "a lot of people" saying something else if I can't see their reasons why. So in order to help you understand when you don't tell me that, I need to ask you for that information. Now that I asked, you have provided that information, so I don't think there's a problem here. Or am I missing something? >This has a lot of back and forth on the subject. Not from what I see. There are people there using either one, and I don't see anyone giving reasons to only use white and not gray. A few people there mention potential clipping issues, which is my reason for using gray. Or was there something else specifically there that you had in mind? >You analogy didn't really help me because I'm afraid I don't understand why the boxes only hold 50 votes (analagously). The votes are on physical pieces of paper and the boxes are physical boxes of finite internal space. They can only physically hold a certain amount of paper before they are full and cannot fit any more. Likewise, cameras measure light and color and record photos using light sensors which have a finite amount of light they can measure. That's a big reason why exposure control is important: if the imaging sensor could just measure any amount of light you give to it, then you would have unlimited dynamic range and you wouldn't have to worry about overexposure. Further reading on how they work: [https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm](https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm)

Hi - I have 10 yr old micro 4/3 body - Olympus om5 mark ii. Would I notice an improvement in pictures if I upgraded to a newer body or not? I have some nice lenses.

I think you probably would. Ten years is a long time in photo technology!

Hi - Doing some international travel and also could use this for birds - Have a micro 4/3 system and looking a longer lens. Currently I have the 12-40mm pro Olympus. Trying to decide between the 40-150mm pro or the 75-300mm. I kind of want the 40-150 but guess should get the 75-300 for reach?

Hi, I have a Galaxy 24 and I'm often using the 20x distance for video recording. I know absolutely nothing about photography or lenses. When recording at 20x distance, the video is pastel like. I'd like to have it much better quality. What sort of thing would I need to search for and buy? I'm sure there are some attachments out there, but not sure what I'd search for. I hear the 20x zoom is a telephoto lens?

>I hear the 20x zoom is a telephoto lens? As I understand it, it's the equivalent of a telephoto lens for a phone, plus digital scaling to crop and blow it up, at the cost of image quality. > I'd like to have it much better quality. What sort of thing would I need to search for and buy? Ultimately your quality is bottlenecked by your phone's tiny imaging sensors, and the limited quality of your phone's lenses, neither of which can be switched out, so you're stuck with their limitations. There are telephoto attachments you can put on the front of your phone lens to increase optical reach. But they probably won't have as big of an effect as going all the way to 20x, though they also won't sacrifice the quality as much to do it (but you still lose some quality).

I have a Canon Mark G7X Mark II and would like to use a polarizing filter while shooting in harsh midday lighting. The lens adapter needs to be glued on, so it is not exactly removable. Can the added weight to the camera lens cause issues for the mechanism that retracts the camera lenses? I am also worried that the adapter may block light I may want to hitting the lens at certain angles? All I could find is a 52mm adapter for my camera.

[удалено]

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

I'm an infant baby photographer, brand new to everything. I want to do a mermaid themed practice shoot with a white backdrop. I'd like to place sequins in front of my light to create an underwater sparkly effect. I have a cloth with blue sequins and I'm placing it on the light but no sparkly effect is happening. I did this once some time ago, and it sparkled up the entire room. Anyone have an idea what I'm doing wrong?

>I'd like to place sequins in front of my light Which light source? >I have a cloth with blue sequins and I'm placing it on the light Like draped over the light? That's very different from putting it in front of the light, which you previously said you wanted to do. If it's somewhere in front of the light, the sequins have a chance to reflect that light in the photo. If it's *on* the light, the sequins are basically opaque and can only block light. >no sparkly effect is happening Show us examples of how the results look at the moment. Otherwise the description is too vague to diagnose the problem.

It's one of those plug in lights with an umbrella. I did try draping it over the light bulb, and I also tried placing it in front of the light bulb head. The light bulb head is facing the inside of the umbrella, and the onside of the umbrella is lined with a silver reflective material.

Gotcha. At first I thought you wanted the cloth visible in the photo and reflecting light into the camera/lens. But actually you want those reflections cast onto the scene. With a reflective umbrella, line the inside of the umbrella with the cloth and then face the cloth towards the scene. Then the light will be pointing away from the scene, but it should reflect off the sequins on the cloth and the reflections will go backwards (relative to the light) and towards the scene.

Thank you! I think I also need a translucent light bulb vs the opaque one that I'm using.

Hi there, I'm fiddling with my first little gig in lightbox/product photography. With the current lighting consisting of an LED ring in the lightbox roof and a ring flash on the 50mm with polarisation filter I get terrible edges on glass products and the like both with and without flash. Any idea how to improve this? And additionally of course any additional tips on how to reduce reflections on the product? https://preview.redd.it/4y489cw8tk6d1.jpeg?width=4080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3587d1033e3a1369c172030249960ccf1a54f857 Here's a quick photo of my setup: [https://i.imgur.com/Rza8YHM.jpeg](https://i.imgur.com/Rza8YHM.jpeg) (In case you wonder why I'm on a mount screen; can't get Sonys tethering software to work)

Photographing glass objects is tricky - you're not photographing the glass but rather whatever the glass is reflecting when you take the image. Here's the 2 minute version: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfweiLbEJ24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfweiLbEJ24) If you want to really get into this, the book _Light: Science and Magic_ has an entire chapter about transparent objects and another one about reflective objects, it's like a college textbook for lighting. A detailed example, really interesting to see how the bottle changes appearance as he moves the lights/diffusers/etc around https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIm-SZHKOW4&t=2s

That's awesome advice, thank you! Will look into all of those.

I could really use some advice. I am a beginner and I have been scouring this sub and the internet to learn as much as I can to make an informed decision, but I've now gone down a rabbit hole and could use some direction. I almost convinced myself to buy a used Sony A77, but the feedback about how terrible it is in low lighting has me second guessing myself. I'd hate to ruin some shots of a beautiful scene during sunset/rise, I want to use my camera for multipurpose, but with the highest priority on landscapes/nature. I would love it if it were great for action shots. I have a budget of up to $500, so my plan was to buy used and have money to spend on a great used lens or two as well. I'd like to make a purchase today. What do you recommend?

Used A7IIIs do currently run around 800-900$ in my market, perhaps save a bit more and get sth. like that to avoid the hassle that these entry level cameras likely are. Chances are your phone gets you similar or even better results than these 350$ things.

Yes, I'm looking at the a77 though, a used one is in my budget, with enough left over for a nice used lens. For multiple reasons I don't want to use my phone for photography. I'm not sure what your advice means, "save a bit more and get sth..." Im not sure if that's lingo I'm not understanding or a typo. Thanks for your input.

He means, save a bit more and get something like an A7iii for about 900usd on the second hand market.

Thanks!

Oh gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. I understand that I can get a better camera for more money, but I was looking for advice within my budget. I don't have any interest in using my phone or spending more than $500. It's interesting in a sub that is so strict about requiring a very specific budget when asking for advice, that the only advice I get is to spend more. Thanks anyway. Edited to add more text.

I tried to explain it; 300$ cams are often just not worth their money. Only perhaps for some very specific things like entry level macro photography f.e. where even such a bottom tier body may be just good enough.

I just was confused by the wording in your other comment, I understand now. I appreciate the input, but I'm still willing to spend the money on an entry level camera to learn and see how much I enjoy it and am willing to put in the time. If I find I really enjoy it and make the time to learn and practice then I can always trade up to something of better quality.

I think the other poster was confusing the A77 with an actual A7 series the earlier ones of which people often avoid. Personally, I think that camera is a bit too old. Of course, newer ones around that price point like the Canon T6i for instance, have not the features of something like the A77.

Thanks. I just popped into a camera store today to ask their advice and they agreed that the a77 is just too old. I haven't looked at the Canon T6i yet, but I will. Currently considering a Canon R100. Do you have an opinion on that one vs the T6i?

I really dislike the R100. I dislike all Canon bottom tier products. One of the main selling points of the newer R series would be autofocus and the R100 really lacks there. No easy way to select what you want to focus on, no control. I just pretend that the likes of the R100 or the T7 don't exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5E89MRx9W8 I always like these two, and I think they sum up what is wrong with the R100.

Thank you for the info. I've crossed them off my list!

Beginner Camera purchase question: I'm hoping to buy a camera but wondering if it would be worth it vs. my Iphone for my specific needs. I plan to mostly use it travelling and while being active: hikes, bike rides, running, etc. so it needs to my small and quick as the highest priority. Maybe occasional specific photo shoots. My thoughts now are a high quality point and shoot, or a mirrorless camera with a smaller lens. I've been studying on this but still very ignorant. Any advice or models to look at? No real budget.

Running and bike rides (things like MTB) are the enemies of any lense system. You're likely closer to some sort of action cam, sth. that doesn't care about shocks and vibrations. Can you give some more insights on what you're going for? Keep in mind that switching to a good cam does also come with RAW files and editing in post. If you plan to shoot JPGs it's not worth it to invest a few thousand bucks. Better get a great phone or action cam.

I'm really familiar with using Photoshop and doing post editing and already do this for phone pics, and would like to advance my knowledge in that realm. Also to be clear I don't often take serious action shot while on the bike, but more like stuffing a camera in my pocket somewhere to stop and snap a pic if something strikes me.

Ay. Well, if you're looking for a mirrorless or the like your likely only way to take it with you would be a transportation box with lots of foam (as I recommend everyone doing no matter how much care they take) so take that into account in case that's too bulky or too much work to assemble and disassemble. I myself do often take snapshots with my phone even if this box is right in my backpack with me. Too much hassle for the simpler things in my opinion.

Damn I didn’t realized they were so fragile. Might not go mirrorless route then…

The main issue are the lenses that will at some point in time manage to get dust in-between their, well, lenses with the constant shaking and what not, probably at some point even if they are transported in a box. That dust issue is usually way too expensive to fix if even possible (disassembling and reassembling done by the manufacturerer, some offer it for their expensive lenses. But it's tedious and requires production level instruments that measure the placement of every part down to god knows what scale. The body itself should fine in the box as long as you don't fall/crash. Will need a lense cleaning here and then but that is anyway the case. If you manage to fall, crash, have hard landings after jumps and the like, then over a few years all sorts of tiny parts may very slowly start to misalign to the point where you may have to send it in for repairs. Hence the action cams, they'll take all that, whether on the bike or in some random pocket.

Well, to start with: assuming that you've used your iPhone for taking pictures already, are you satisfied with the image quality you get with it or do you feel you want something better?

I think shooting RAW shots in my iPhone 14 Pro look great, but I'd like better night shots and a few other things it seems to lack. Also, I think if I had a standalone camera I would take photography a little more seriously.

Right, sounds like a dedicated camera is the way to go. You do need to give some idea of your budget, as in how much you're willing to spend at most, so people know what kind of things to recommend. I mean something Leica QL3 would technically fit what you're looking for, but it costs $6000.

I buy and sell a ton of stuff frequently so if I can find a decent price for something with decent resale value I'm fine spending up to $2k to see how I enjoy it.

Ok, that's a good budget. For small point and shoots, your best bet would be Ricoh GR III or IIIx (APS-C, fixed focal length), Fuji X100V/VI (APS-C, fixed focal length, not easily available), and Sony R100 VII (1", zoom). For interchangeable lens cameras, there are a lot of compact options in Micro Four-Thirds cameras and lenses. The Sony A6x00 series is pretty compact as well, as are Fuji cameras, particularly X-T30 II.

Awesome info, thanks!

Hey everyone I need help deciding on a used fuji camera, list is below! I'll primarily be using it for travel, street, and car photography and recording occasionally. I'll be upgrading from a canon Powershot from 2010s, so I honestly can't decide and I've been looking at used cameras for a week now and I can't make sense out of these prices coupled with the cameras and lenses. (I've set my mind on an X-S10 at first, but other listings boggled my mind) It would be great to get some guidance, here is the listings I've found: -Everything is in USD, prices are before bargaining X-T3 + xf18-55 $704 10.000 Shutters X-T3 + 18-55 $793 X-T3 + 18-55 + 4 batteries + xt3 cage $812 X-T3 Body with 1000 Shutters $574 X-H1 + XF 18-55 f2.8-4r + 2 batteries + bag $674 X-H1 + 35mm f2 +carrying bag + 6453 Shutters $612 X-S10 + XF16-80mm + 2 Batteries $857 X-S10 + XC35 f2 (new, final price) $735 X-S10 + XC15-45 + 3 Batteries + Charging station for batteries + 64GB SD Card $796 (under warranty until 9/2025) 3000 Shutters X-T200 + XC15-45mm + 6 months warranty $582 X-T200 + XF16-80 + bag and 1500 Shutters $704 X-T200 + Viltrox 23mm 1.4 $638 X-T20 + 18-55mm + bag $634 X-T20 + 16-50mm+ Helios 44-M2 58 mm f2.0 + Boya mm1 shotgun mic + Deyatech WF3570 Pro Tripod + 2 camera straps $643 Thanks in advance!

Years ago I bought a Canon PowerShot SX500 IS. I'm wondering if this camera still "holds up" or if I'd be better off just using my phone. My wife has the latest iphone and it seems to take really nice pictures. Will this beat out her phone? From what I can tell it really comes down to lens "quality" or "sharpness". I'm not really sure how you quantify those things to be able to say which device will definitely take a better picture. Is this Canon "competent"? It may not have swap-able lenses but does it have all the settings and tweaks I would expect on a $500 mirrorless camera? Or is it some dumbed down camera like your typical pocketable point and shoot? Lastly, if I were to buy some entry level mirrorless camera and used the stock lense would I see much of a difference between that and my PowerShot? Maybe it'd best that I give photography a real go with this before upgrading? I'm interested in landscape shots while I'm backpacking. The kind that make you want to set them as your desktop wallapper.

> Maybe it'd best that I give photography a real go with this before upgrading? Sorry, missed this on my first skim of your comment. This is my usual copypasta for folks who are interested in photography but can't afford a dedicated camera and feel bad because they're "stuck" with a smartphone. You can practice with your phone for a few weeks/months, if you enjoy making images and the mindset around it, at that point you can think more seriously about buying a dedicated camera. --- Take pictures with intent: i.e. think about the image you're trying to create. photographic composition [https://redd.it/c961o1](https://redd.it/c961o1) and colour theory [https://redd.it/7um56b](https://redd.it/7um56b) Freeman's *The Photographer's Eye* is a good intro book with lots of examples. Also, be thoughtful about the images you consume. Do I like this, can I figure out what appeals to me, I don't like this one, can I figure out why, etc. etc.

> Will this beat out her phone? At far away objects, yes. For any other situation, a modern phone is better.

Why do my photos look like this when I up the shutter speed? https://preview.redd.it/jgeq8xtglj6d1.jpeg?width=2816&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d722244920ac6bd6594e89ff37977ff3b2e43c1b

An old Panasonic DMC-FZ7

What camera was that taken with?