A few days ago, I got myself a Canon EOS 700D DSLR camera along with a Canon EFS 18-55mm lens for about $160. Until now, I've only ever used point-and-shoots, like my smartphone or my "Kodak" Pixpro AZ401....
First, nice photo! Even "old" gear can take great photos. Throw motion and/or low light (with a fast lens) into the mix and you'll beat a modern smartphone.
The quick lead into the exposure triangle is:
ISO is basically "gain" applied to the photons that hit the sensor. Some gain = fine. More gain = you start to run into signal to noise ratio challenges
shutter speed helps you freeze the action, or can also let the action blur on purpose. Examples of intentional blur include panning photos (think auto racing) and long exposures (at night or during the day with the aid of a ND filter)
aperture. This is the ratio of focal length to lens aperture. Keep in mind it's 1/x, so as x grows the actual aperture is getting "stopped down" (aka closed/smaller). Wider aperture (aka small denominator) = less depth of field and more light will hit the sensor. Stopping down = more depth of field and generally more sharpness/less vignetting, but if you take this too far you'll hit diffraction and lose sharpness
You wind up trading values against each other in various scenarios, which is why it's called the exposure triangle. It's very much a "you pick two and deal with the third" situation. Which two you prioritize really comes down to what you're trying to accomplish.
For your barn photo's exposures, let's talk tradeoffs. It sounds like you know that your ISO value was too high, especially for a static subject and good light. So how to get it to go down? You could do a mix of:
using a slower shutter speed. Unless you have a tremor, the rule of thumb is minimum shutter speed should be more than 1/focal length. You could have easily shot this at 1/100, if not lower. That would cut ISO down to around 1600
open your aperture. f/14 is very closed and likely isn't needed unless you really want to see something deep in the background/foreground. You're also likely losing some sharpness due to diffraction
It is all about trade-offs, but the tradeoffs have to be situational.
Considering only shutter speed and a "static" subject, you have to consider whether or not your subject is actually static. For example, are there flexible things present (plants, etc) and is it windy? For something like a desert landscape with zero motion your shutter speed can be as low as you want it to be (note that you might need to block some light from reaching the sensor using a ND filter). For "still" people you probably don't want to go too low because we're constantly in motion. That said, ever rule was made to be broken. Want to photo stars? Don't use a super long shutter speed - you'll get star trails. What's that, you want star trails? Bump shutter speed even more so they look intentionally vs somewhat smeared balls of light. Sports and wildlife are basically the only scenario where you need a fast shutter speed... until you want some motion blur. Granted, motion blue and sports will still probably be a fairly fast shutter speed.
Aperture follows a similar arc - do you want shallow depth of field, do you want to see more of the foreground/background, maybe you forgot your ND filter and want a slow shutter so you have to stop down, maybe it's really dark so you have to use a fast (wide aperture) lens wide open.
The only thing you universally want to take one way is ISO and that way is low. Unless you want some grain. Or you're shooting something with motion indoors and you can't compromise any more on shutter speed or depth of field. Or your lens aperture is already wide open and you still need more light.
When staring off you might want to try shutter or aperture priority, based on the situation, and let the camera handle the other two values. Heck, I still do this 95% of the time 15 years later.
Most of my photography has been of relatively stationary subjects, where I just use single-servo AF and either focus & recompose or move the single focus point to where in the frame I want the subject, or largely-individual sports like triathlon. But I've struggled getting sharp shots in team sports photography with a large...
With sports, capturing the action takes front seat to composition. That said, you're going to generally want to be up or downfield from the action so people are facing you when the action inevitably comes your way.
First, keep your camera in AF-C and shoot in bursts. Bursts do two things: increase the odds of getting a sharp photo and maximize the chances of capturing just-the-right moment (for example, a catch). Do not use AF-S. I suggest not attempting manual focus, but you do you if that's what you're into.
3D is what Nikon called "tracking" on their DSLR bodies. It tracks your subject as it moves around somewhat decently. I'm not sure how well it works on a D7500 with lots of potential subjects, but the idea is that you put the focus box over your intended subject, engage tracking, and the camera will follow the subject around as it moves. You can learn how this works easily in your house. Put a cup on a counter, engage tracking, and pan the camera around while keeping the cup in frame. Your camera should keep a focus box over the cup. If it doesn't, odds are you didn't engage tracking so try again until you get a feel for it.
I would use either 3D tracking or single point AF. For single point AF, simply keep the focus box over your subject and you can basically guarantee it will be in focus. Assuming your lens can focus fast enough, you can't miss. This is how I shot 95% of auto racing, along with youth sports before I got a long lens for my new (to me) FF body. You really can't miss if the focus box is over your intended subject and there's nothing obscuring your line of sight.
Do not use auto area, 9 point, etc because you're going to want to control where the camera is focusing when there are lots of people on the field. Most cameras will generally go for the closest subject, but the action point could be behind them.
The minimum required shutter speed depends on the pace of action, as well as whether or not you're trying to introduce some blur intentionally (eg motorsports). 1/1000 is probably a good starting point. Evaluate your photos and go from there. I can't imagine that the 1/1600 you were shooting at was the cause of soft photos, unless you have fairly pronounced hand tremors.
What lens are you using? You're going to want a decent amount of reach. I'm a big fan of the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR on a crop body and used it for many years on my D5300. It is a FX lens, but the focus is fast and accurate, the VR is good, it's pretty light for what it is, and since you're using the center of a full frame image circle on your DX body you're going to have zero vignetting. I shot it 100% hand held and never had any issues doing so.
I've recently started taking photos at youth sports and I can tell you that you'll want the reach if you're at any distance from your subject. I often wound up 100-115 feet from home plate and spent quite a bit of time at the 500mm end of my 150-500 lens on my current FF body.
Assuming your lens is sharp wide open, set your camera to S and let the camera manage ISO and aperture as needed. Don't step down unless you have to. Unless you have a fast prime, odds are you'll need all the light you can get.
Finally, know the sport you're shooting, anticipate the action, and if you can move around try to position yourself so you'll have good line of sight on that action. Players looking in your direction is ideal, but you'll at least want to be able to see their eyes looking at whatever they're focusing on. Bonus points if that thing is also in frame.
It sounds like you have the right lens for your situation. With sports I feel like you're always going to be compromising on focal length (too tight for close action, too wide for far action). It sounds like you're reviewing your EXIF info, so you can certainly use past data to help inform what focal length you're using the most.
I would personally lean on shutter priority unless you can guarantee that you'll never over-expose. Clipped highlights obviously aren't recoverable. I don't know that I trust myself enough to watch the histogram and we've had many games that were partly sunny - oscillating between direct and indirect sun. It would be nice to be able to say "increase shutter speed if necessary otherwise bump ISO" but that's sadly not a real shooting mode.
My 150-500 is a fairly slow lens, but since it's on a FF body it's amazing what it can see through. Chain link fences don't completely disappear, but they're a lot less visible than they were on my somewhat faster 70-300 on a crop body.
That's cool! I also wasn't trying to say whether or not it was or wasn't you, I really just wanted more context on the photo. I'm assuming that it's actually two skulls?
Nice photo and good work on the edit to make the water pop. Cellphone cameras are pretty good, but I still prefer a dedicated camera for most situations.
Most instances will prevent you from uploading "large" files. For lemmy.world, I think the cap is around 2 MB. It's actually somewhat frustrating because my (most/all?) client apps allows you to upload photos, but the upload will fail 90% of the time. There doesn't appear to be an API to check for this size limit and/or the client(s) aren't using it and resizing a temp copy of the photo before upload. I often wonder if this is contributing to a somewhat low post level... I make the vast majority of my posts from my PC for this reason if they're going to have more than one photo.
I'm growing more and more impressed with its capabilities the more I use it! Wrapping my head around its approach to masking, and its "scene referred pipeline" took some time, but now that I'm getting the hang of it, I think I can say I genuinely prefer it to Lightroom....
As an OM-1 MK1 dabbler, I find my hit rate much higher if not using one of the SH modes. Not sure if procap is available with 'regular' ES. But you're right, metric tons of photos to cull. I'll have to give digiKam a go. All I use PM for us culling. There's a ton more it can do, but I'm def not using it to it's fullest.
Are there pancake lenses for the A7C? While in Japan I saw a lot of older japanese guys with some camera which I couldn't identify, it looked like some digital remake of some older camera, but what struck me was that they all had this pancake lens which made the whole package very thin and small....
As others have hit on already, sensor size is the thing holding you back. Bigger image circles require more glass to resolve. The most compact FF e-mount option I'm aware of is Zony 35mm f2.8
Here's a quick size rundown. The zFc is very classic looking, so I included it. Had a n APS-C and is wearing a FF lens though. Next up is your A7c with the previously mentioned lens, followed by a fairly compact micro four thirds body and then the Nikon J5.
I'm a fellow FF Sony shooter and have found myself very fond of the 35mm focal length for a walk-around lens with my kids. My 35mm is Sigma's F1.4 DG HSM, which comes in at 775 grams and is fairly large at 77mm x 120mm. I've found myself grabbing my Sony FE 50mm f1.8 due to its much more compact size and weight, so I'm strongly considering a slower, but more compact 35mm to grab when I'll be outdoors.
I don't know if this is the case for you, but I am actively choosing my gear around gear I'll be more likely to use - even if this comes comes with some trade-offs in terms of IQ or aperture speed. My gear blows a cellphone out of the water for my hyperactive kids, but as they say the best camera in the world is the one you're carrying.
Not really a beach this time, just volcanic rocks that form natural pools. I tried to work in the feedback I got on the last post and took a lot of time with trying out compositions on this one. Still didn't figure out the topic of a good subject though
Agree on using a speedlight, but if flash is in the picture stabilization won’t be as necessary. I wrote up a fairly similar reply on the .world version of this post.
I’ve been body shopping for the past year and a half after taking a hiatus from photography due to having children enter my life. Currently, my 2-3 time a week shooter is a Sony A7III. I rented an X-H2s for a week from lens rentals to try to give the two cameras a shakedown. I’m treating typing this out is my own form of...
Thanks! As I said in the intro, typing this out really helped me organize my thoughts for why I keep sticking with the Sony body even though I don’t know that I feel a strong attachment to the body itself. If it turned on a bit faster and consistently, the EVF were a bit more glasses friendly, and the shutter were quieter I think I would be completely happy. An A9 will take care of at least one of those things, so it seems like a good next body to try.
And agree. I didn’t spend a ton of time with film, but my D40’s max level was 1600. It has HI1 at 3200, but that could get pretty noisy. My D5300 did go to 12800, but it also got pretty noisy fast.
It really depends on the shot, but ISO 12800 is completely usable on a modern sensor.
Your D800 remains a very capable body. The three advances since them are quieter mechanical shutters (not all brands embrace them equally), pretty solid electronic shutters (so you can pass on the loud mechanical shutter when needed), and face/eye/subject recognition (makes getting the shot a lot easier). There have been some advances on the ISO noise front too, but these have been slow and steady IMO.
If you frequent dimly lit places and your kids are constantly on the move, it’s hard to beat a MLIC with a fast prime. I do occasionally miss my speedlight, diffusers, and umbrella for the effects it could create but I get by in dim light pretty well without them.
Coming from a D40, D5300, and getting back into kids with a J5 it’s kind of funny to find myself standing by a A7III, but it’s a great value these days and delivers more consistently eye/face in focus photos than a Z6II.
Our oldest was around four and the younger one was around 18 months before I picked up a J5. That camera really was a gateway drug back into photography. It’s small enough to fit into a somewhat larger pocket (gym shorts, cargo pants, most coats) with the 10mm (27mm FF EQ) prime on it. I carried the body, with a lens attached, two additional lenses, and its charger in a truly tiny 3l bag - basically the size of a fanny pack. Before the J5 I would break out my D5300 occasional. The J5 got me back into the habit of carrying a dedicated camera again. It was extremely unobtrusive, both from a blending in perspective and a size/weigh perspective. It took me about 6 months to move onto a larger mirrorless body for better low light performance and I haven’t really looked back. The only other thing I can offer up is getting a peak design camera strap. Carrying your camera cross body at your hip, with the lens pointing down, is way more natural than walking around with it sticking straight out in front of you. It also will help the camera not move around as much with you or when you bend over.
It’s true that we don’t do a ton of travel, and that our trips are now in-state, but we’re still doing something most every weekend even if that’s just going to a park. There are plenty of opportunities to take interesting photos of the scenery around us, as well as the kids interacting with the world and getting to experience something new for the first time.
M43 cameras can be a lot more compact but once you start really sweating equivalence it does get a bit messy. Modern FF mirrorless cameras, and their lenses, will also offer size/weight savings over a DSLR. Here's a very quick size comparison. Note that there is a newer version of that Sony 24-70 that reduces weight to 659 grams (vs the 1,070 of your Nikon DSLR lens). I find that my Pixel 3a is pretty good for bright light with moving subjects, but as soon as my subjects start moving and lighting drops my dedicated cameras make a world of difference.
The plus DLSRs, especially before the D40/D800 was that they were extremely repeatable. As soon as additional features, like face/eye AF got added to the mix, it all got... very hairy. "Will my camera find a face? What if it looses that face?" Aside from Canon and Sony, most modern mirrorless still struggle with front or back focusing some when using face/eye detect. Electronic View Finders can be very cool with all the information they display (level information, histograms, even flashing blown highlights/shadows in the case of Olympus, etc), but unless you're looking at a pretty modern (or $$ used) body, they tend to not be very high resolution. My A7II is serviceable, but it's not that great - especially when manually focusing. But speaking of manual focusing, one of the cool things an EVF can do is focus magnification for the thing you're focusing on as you adjust focus. Blackout free shooting with an electronic shutter on an A9 makes panning photos a lot easier for me since you can see the thing you're tracking continue to move.
/many random thoughts
All that said, used F-mount lenses are getting cheap - especially if you have a built in AF motor which you do...
You already have the things you said you like, so be happy I guess. Newer sensor generations are always incrementally decreasing noise, but it's not that dramatic. Newer lenses are constantly improving sharpness, increasing AF speed, decreasing vignetting, decreasing loca, etc but they're pricey. The only thing that really stands out to me is sensor based image stabilization offered on mirrorless bodies. You can get some fairly long, and thus low noise, exposures with surprising sharpness hand held these days. M43 cameras are the clear winners here, but even on APS-C and FF sensors, the stabilization offered by sensor based stabilization is better than that offered by lens based stabilization.
So I’m planning out a bathroom remodel and part of that is replacing the vent fan because currently mine is just venting into my attic (no bueno). I know normally bathrooms are vented out through the roof but my bathroom is on an exterior wall so I was wondering if I could just vent it out the side of the house. I’m going to...
For fairly stationary things, especially if you don’t have to zoom, a cellphone will get you most of the way there - unless you’re going to be in a very dark environment. I say this as someone whose carried around a dedicated camera for a while, but the best camera in the world is the one you currently have with you. You can absolutely get in the habit of carrying a dedicated camera with you though.
80-90% SOOC (can’t give much time to editing). I am ready to give time to learning and practicing manual controls though
Most camera brands and bodies will give you solid SOOTC JPEGs, but each offers some level of twist. This is where people start taking “color science”. All the RAWs are basically the same, but the algorithms to make pleasing looking JPEGs vary by brand. Nearly all are customizable, so you can tweak one brands twists to be more or less pronounced. Based on my personal experiences I would say:
Fuji (X-H2s) = a bit stylized, but pleasant to look at. Reliable white balance and subject meeting, after changing the default metering mode.
Nikon (D40, D5300, Z6II) = warm and pleasing. The Z6II I owned for a little while would struggle with white balance indoors, especially with warmer interior lights. It also tended to meter the frame, not the subject, but you can customize this some. I have more than a few photos of someone underexposed in front of a sunny window
Sony (A7 III) = probably the most true to life, but true to life can be kind of boring/flat. The most reliable auto white balance and meters for the subject out of the box.
That’s not to say that other cameras don’t do a good job, I just don’t have personal experience with them
Ergonomic, light.
Here I would say:
Micro four thirds. Smaller sensor = smaller glass. One of this system’s selling points is it’s size/weight, so they tend to not pull a Fuji
Fuji mirrorless. All they make are crop sensor bodies, so their glass is usually optimized for that sensor size. Meanwhile over im Sony/Nikon/Canon world, they make a mix of FF and crop sensor glass. Sometimes there’s a FF lens that stands out and you wind up using it on a crop sensor body, resulting in a bigger-than-necessary lens. My D5300 nearly always has a FF 70-300 on it because the lens is really very good and when it came out there wasn’t a crop body equivalent
Sony and Nikon mirrorless crop sensor bodies. You could also throw Canon in this mix. See above for reasoning
Mirrorless FF. See the A7III with the somewhat pancake lens on it in the link brlow
DSLR. Generally speaking the largest glass for a given focal length and aperture, but as people move to mirrorless it is getting cheap to buy this glass used…
travel photos, capturing scenes like I see them with my eye
Most cameras should do just fine here IMO. Procedural photography has made strides in smartphones, but it’s hard to beat a dedicated camera
Low light photos
Fast glass will make this way better. If you’re serious about low light, stop thinking about a f2.8 lens and start thinking about really fast primes. If you haven’t read about f-stops yet, the quick primer is f/4 to f/2.8 is one stop, f/2.8 to f/2 is another, f/2 to f/1.4 is yet another.
IMO you should buy a f/2.8 lens for any gain in image quality it offers over its f/4 counterpart - not because it’s faster/lets in more light. If you want to really let in more light, a prime lens is the way to go.
Note that fast glass = shallower depth of field if shot wide open. This is potentially one of the advantages of something like micro four thirds. I took pictures of my kids with Santa this winter and stepped down to f/5.6 to try to get all their faces fairly sharp on my 50mm and A7III (full frame). I had about 0.4 meters of “in focus” plane. On a micro four thirds body, I could have used a 25mm lens, at f/2, and wound up with a very similar looking photo. Although the FF sensor is about a stop lower noise, the micro four third photo would have probably had lower noise due to the two stop faster aperture. Not that this particular photo is noisy, but you hopefully get the point.
Long-lasting gear. Okay with getting prime and telephoto lens later if needed.
Most gear will last quite a while, especially if you keep it dry. If it’s going to get wet, make sure to get weather sealed. That’s going to drive up cost.
Videography is not a priority as of now, may explore later.
No worries. Don’t overthink and try not to overbuy! It’s very hard to go wrong, but it’s very easy to get caught up in pixel peeping and specifications wars. If you’re not going to be making big prints or doing heavy crops, most any body from the past 10 years paired with a fast lens will serve you well.
My D5300 is certainly nothing fancy these days, but it holds up just fine on 20"x30" canvas prints.
I love Digikam, but fixing photos is a lot of work. So I use Luminar NEO to get looks that would take hours I don’t want to spend. Is there an open source alternative to Neo? Something that supports LUTs, presets, etc? Thx.
Darktable is pretty straightforward to use. Once you find something you like it can certainly be one click, but you’re probably going to want to tweak some per photo depending on things like shadows/highlights, etc.
The community around buying and selling gear and just watching awesome stuff pop up for sale regularly is one of the reasons I’ve stuck with the site for so long....
I’ve used MPB to sell a few things last year. Get a quote, ship your stuff in, they verify condition and pay you. It’s easy enough to do.
That said, I have a Nikon J5 and a collection of lenses that I would prefer to sell at a discount as a set where I know, as best one can know, it will go to a good home and see some use.
Why are you only looking at full frame Sony bodies? Note that I’m not saying that’s a bad choice necessary, but what is your use case? You’re also going to want a quality lens or lenses and those will add more cost - especially for full frame.
If you’re coming at this from a purely budget perspective, an APS-C DSLR body probably makes the most sense.
I’ve been very surprised what I can do hand held in fairly low light with simply a fast lens. Yeah, for super dim lighting you’re still going to need high ISO or a really long shutter speed, but for even moderate lighting that you’re likely to get in an urban environment I’ve taken many a photo with sub 4k ISO and a 1/125 shutter.
When you say tone it’s worth mentioning that you’re probably talking about straight out of the camera JPEGs. I’ve used Nikon, Sony, and Fuji bodies over the years and their RAWs all look very comparable. I share your opinion on Sony’s straight out of the camera JPEGs, even if you and I might be outliers here. I find them to be fairly accurate/representative of the real world. My D40/D5300 were pretty accurate, but the Z6II was a bit warm (not that that’s unpleasant). Fuji is a bit too stylized, but was a bit more real world IME.
Do you care about AF performance? If yes, the A7III and A7III are where I would start. If not, walk back to the A7II/A7RII. I would personally skip the A7R as it lacks IBIS.
As you’ve already heard in this thread, one of the bigger adages in photograph is “the best camera is the one you have with you”.
I’ll also add one more, but it doesn’t sound quite as catchy: the better the shot looks “in camera” the better the outcome.
What do I mean? Try your best to nail framing, composition, and exposure as you’re taking the photo. You can always adjust after the fact via cropping, bumping exposure, etc if you need to but if you can avoid, or minimize the amount of, this you’ll usually get a better end result. Modifying the photo after you take it is called post processing.
You recognized a good opportunity for a photo, which is a great first step. I personally like the aspect ratio (eg lots of sky, some foreground) but I find the cars in both corners distracting. That’s probably why you’re hearing so many suggestions to crop. I suspect if you walked a little bit closer you could have gotten both cars out of frame. This would also frame the pizza place a little tighter and you probably wouldn’t lose much sky.
Possible standing locations:
standing on the same side of the car on the right thay you’re already on, but closer to it. You could probably aim over its trunk to put it out of frame
standing behind the car to the right, assuming the driver wasn’t ready to back up
standing on the far side of the car on the right, putting you closer to the building and the car behind you
The second building to the left is also a little distracting, but that might be harder to avoid. Move around! See if you can better isolate your subject unless you think something in the foreground or background is adding to the photo.
I’m trying to understand why rolling shutter is a problem with electronic shutters, but not with electronic first curtain shutter modes. I’ve done lots of digging trying to get to the underlying reason for the difference, but I haven’t had any luck, just various people talking about the fact it is a problem....
Totally agree. That said, some cameras have way quieter mechanical shutters than others. For example, my A7III is pretty loud and sharp sounding. I used a Z6II for a bit and it was quieter and… less obtrusive? Fuji’s X-H2s (can’t speak for any of their other cameras) is very quiet.
I have no idea what this scene looks like IRL, but I find the colors pleasing and nothing is jumping out as out of place.
It’s a good photo. It just goes to show that you don’t need the latest body or a super high $$ lens to take good photographs. I know I’ve been waffling on upgrading lenses, but for the things I shoot it’s not going to make a massive difference.
Yes, it can be done with dark table! Do any edits you want, apply those edits across as many images as you want (you can do this on the light table UI) and then bulk export via the light table UI. I can provide more detailed instructions tomorrow if you need them. Screen shots will be from windows though.
First time trying a reply with multiple imgur hosted files. Let’s see how this goes. Note that this is… very abridged and assumes you know your way around Dark Table editing otherwise. If not, there are tons of posts and videos on that.
Note that if you don’t edit the raws and export them as is, they will probably look… very flat and boring.
Step 2: navigate to the directory containing your images and hit add to library Image
Step 3: after you’re done with your edits, you can copy the “history stack” across images. Note that this only really works well for groups of images taken with very similar exposure settings, lighting, scenery, etc Image
Step 4: select the image(s) you want to export, configure your export settings, and click export Image
No worries! Hopefully you’ve processed RAWs before. It can be a bit of a learning curve to get them looking “right”, but some of the out of the box things dark table does help with that.
I have a Fujifilm camera and decent lens that can do 600mm FF equiv is not cheap. I’m wondering what is the best option for bird photography at that range? There are some tiny 1/2.3 compact cameras like the Sony hx99 that doesn’t seem too good. There also seem to be an option of picking up a m43 camera with a 300mm (600mm...
There’s no replacement for reach, but if you really want to fill your sensor you’re probably going to always be wanting for more unless you go after larger birds. One of my bodies is a Nikon J5 (1" sensor/2.7x crop factor). I have the FT-1 adapter and with my 70-300 get a FF EQ 189 - 810 and I find myself wanting way more. I don’t have the time to camp out and wait for birds to me due to having younger kids. At 30 feet my sensor is fairly well filled if I’m aiming at a finch, but the only way I’m getting that close is if I’m using my bird feed as bait.
Aperature is 1/number, so larger numbers = smaller aperature opening = less light coming through a lens. I agree with the others, you probably have something on your sensor. You might have something on one of the rear elements that’s causing this, but it’s less likely IMO.
Take a look at this pair of informative, and very amusing, posts over on lens rentals talking about dust in lenses.
I got the new Sony 70-200 mm F4 Macro G OSS II and it’s amazing, even though very expensive. Anyway while looking at all those YouTube videos about it people were very often mention that it’s compatible with tele converters and you’d get basically double the size lens (with half the light) + 1.0 macro instead of 0.5....
It’s not so much about the age of the camera, it’s about the age of the mount. Sony’s E-mount has been around about 13 years. Based on your camera’s age, I’m betting that it’s a DSLR EF mount, which has been around for 35 or so years. Having a deeper back catalog of options results in the ability to choose an older option for a discounted price on the used market. People have also been moving from DSLRs to mirrorless, which has been pushing prices down on used equipment some.
For DSLRs, Nikon’s F-mount will give you a lens catalog dating back to the 60s if that’s your criteria for choosing Canon. Unmotorized F-mount glass does require buying either a D7xxx or FF body if you want autofocus though.
In the mirrorless world, if you’re on a budget E-mount is probably the way to go. Other than M43, it’s one of the oldest mirrorless mounts and is also completely open, which gives you plenty of third party lens options.
Noctilucent clouds ( lemmy.world )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud...
[OC] Just getting into photography
A few days ago, I got myself a Canon EOS 700D DSLR camera along with a Canon EFS 18-55mm lens for about $160. Until now, I've only ever used point-and-shoots, like my smartphone or my "Kodak" Pixpro AZ401....
Any suggestions for how to get good sports photos?
Most of my photography has been of relatively stationary subjects, where I just use single-servo AF and either focus & recompose or move the single focus point to where in the frame I want the subject, or largely-individual sports like triathlon. But I've struggled getting sharp shots in team sports photography with a large...
Comfortable to Die
Had to take my old DSLR out for this downpour ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
Shot on an old Nikon d5100, edited on photoshop....
I'm a recent darktable convert
I'm growing more and more impressed with its capabilities the more I use it! Wrapping my head around its approach to masking, and its "scene referred pipeline" took some time, but now that I'm getting the hang of it, I think I can say I genuinely prefer it to Lightroom....
Some recent shots I enjoy ( lemmy.world )
What do you think about the tri-photo format? I think it looks cool, but not sure what others think.
Pancake lens for Sony A7C?
Are there pancake lenses for the A7C? While in Japan I saw a lot of older japanese guys with some camera which I couldn't identify, it looked like some digital remake of some older camera, but what struck me was that they all had this pancake lens which made the whole package very thin and small....
Getting Buzzy ( lemmy.world )
Joining the bees in the garden....
Shorelines [OC] ( lemmy.world )
Not really a beach this time, just volcanic rocks that form natural pools. I tried to work in the feedback I got on the last post and took a lot of time with trying out compositions on this one. Still didn't figure out the topic of a good subject though
Which lens for low light event + portraits?
Hi everyone, although I like to study the photography topic, I’m really a noob when it comes to practical terms....
Since we're doing gear now: a Dad's take on an A7III vs X-H2s
I’ve been body shopping for the past year and a half after taking a hiatus from photography due to having children enter my life. Currently, my 2-3 time a week shooter is a Sony A7III. I rented an X-H2s for a week from lens rentals to try to give the two cameras a shakedown. I’m treating typing this out is my own form of...
Bathroom vent out the side of the house?
So I’m planning out a bathroom remodel and part of that is replacing the vent fan because currently mine is just venting into my attic (no bueno). I know normally bathrooms are vented out through the roof but my bathroom is on an exterior wall so I was wondering if I could just vent it out the side of the house. I’m going to...
Is Sony a6400 + sigma 18-50 f2.8 good for casual photography (as a beginner)
Priorities in order:...
Open source auto-correct apps?
I love Digikam, but fixing photos is a lot of work. So I use Luminar NEO to get looks that would take hours I don’t want to spend. Is there an open source alternative to Neo? Something that supports LUTs, presets, etc? Thx.
One thing I'm going to miss is r/photomarket
The community around buying and selling gear and just watching awesome stuff pop up for sale regularly is one of the reasons I’ve stuck with the site for so long....
Opinions on used camera options
Might have as much as $1600, but the more saved the better. Also need a lens....
Are Pixel photos allowed here? This phone is getting me into the fun of photography right now. [Critique Wanted] ( sopuli.xyz )
Rolling shutter on Electronic vs First Curtain
I’m trying to understand why rolling shutter is a problem with electronic shutters, but not with electronic first curtain shutter modes. I’ve done lots of digging trying to get to the underlying reason for the difference, but I haven’t had any luck, just various people talking about the fact it is a problem....
Sun-tinged Vancouver Skyline [OC] ( lemmy.ca )
Gear: Nikon D3300 with 18-55mm AF-P lens at 55mm....
How to I batch convert .CR2 (raw) photos to JPEG?
cross-posted from: monero.town/post/640742...
Helix ( feddit.nu )
Affordable and decent bird photography setup? (600mm equiv)
I have a Fujifilm camera and decent lens that can do 600mm FF equiv is not cheap. I’m wondering what is the best option for bird photography at that range? There are some tiny 1/2.3 compact cameras like the Sony hx99 that doesn’t seem too good. There also seem to be an option of picking up a m43 camera with a 300mm (600mm...
I've got some dust/dirt in my lens - Is there something I can do about it?
As the title says, I found a recurring smudge in my photos when I was editing this one. You can see the smudge in the middle of the photo....
Why are tele converters so extremely expensive? ( www.bhphotovideo.com )
I got the new Sony 70-200 mm F4 Macro G OSS II and it’s amazing, even though very expensive. Anyway while looking at all those YouTube videos about it people were very often mention that it’s compatible with tele converters and you’d get basically double the size lens (with half the light) + 1.0 macro instead of 0.5....
My latest astrophotography shot above Mt Adams in Washington ( files.catbox.moe )
I’m not the best at astrophotography, but I really dig it and I’m working on getting better....