|
I've found myself teaching a yearbook class at a school for five years now. We started with no equipment and no budget, and I probably should have realized that this thread existed years ago, but alas. Through the magic of unpaid child labor plus selling stuff, we now have a bunch of Canon 7D and Rebel T6 bodies, plus a hodgepodge assortment of lenses. Our very first camera was a Rebel T2i that I bought with personal money. I just gifted that camera to a kid, and now I'm considering options for a new personal camera. My school program brings in maybe 2500 a year that I can spend on pretty much whatever. This year's profit will probably go to an F1.4 50mm and an F2.8 70-200 mm lens. But here I am trying to decide what to buy for myself. I have essentially full access to this stream of equipment that the school buys from fundraising profits. Every year should be another couple of thousand in purchasing power, so any random configuration of affordable lenses or whatever is accessible to me to play around with. If I need to borrow a newish Rebel or oldish semi-pro body, I've got those too. But then, I'm not really a professional photographer in the regular sense. I get paid a good salary to teach kids how to use this stuff, but I don't rely on any of it for my own income. I could buy myself a 7D Mark II, for example, but it wouldn't really offer much to me. A full frame 6D or 5D might provide some options that I couldn't get with the crop frame school cameras, but I don't know that it would matter. Plus the cost is high! But then again, most of our income stream is from portrait photography. A full frame camera might be useful in that sense. Maybe? I've never used one. I could buy a 6D, a 5D, a 1D. A type R or whatever. It wouldn't make much sense for me to spend 6 thousand dollars on a camera, I don't think. But honestly, even if I did, I doubt I'd regret it too much. I could fool around during the summer, use it on side gigs if I wanted, and gently caress it - I've got a pension. But could all of the same be said for a 2 or 4 thousand dollar purchase? It seems to be so. I don't know.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:The capstone to it all was the release of the Canon R5, and rather than the crowning achievement of the mirrorless era it was just something that got too hot and people loved to complain about. I wonder if this isn't going to be the next big hurdle to overcome. The R5 overheats because CFExpress type B cards overheat when transferring data at high speeds. Increasing image or video quality will demand even higher data transfer speeds. The obvious solution is built in fans and heatsinks, but... that presents a whole new set of problems.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
I just picked up an RF 800mm F/11 lens. Haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet, but I'm excited! Now I need to get one of those dork lens slings to lug it around. It isn't that heavy, but it is awkward and humongous.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Random question - anyone have good experience/thoughts on which gloves to wear while photographing in cold climate/winter? Never done photography with them, but I used to work in coolers and freezers and would often have to operate a handheld scanner/computer. I had a pair of duck hunting gloves that were warm, waterproof, and still thin enough to operate small buttons and controls. A Cabela’s or whatever would have tons of variants available to try on in person.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
If you want to spend a little more money, the Canon 70-200mm F/4 is an excellent multipurpose lens. Slightly better for lower light conditions, weather sealed, and is a bit more compact. I run a school yearbook program with a bunch of 7D’s and the 70-200’s are our workhorse lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Thank you for suggestions! Doing my own research before posting, I had also figured out that it'll likely make sense to get a Fuji APS-C camera and either a zoom lens of like 18-55 mm or a prime around 30 mm, even though I definitely don't understand about any of this to make informed comparisons between f-stops and whatnot. Lower f-stops will achieve a stronger background blur effect and a smaller depth of field. Just as importantly, they will also allow you to operate in lower lighting conditions without going to super low shutter speeds. An f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens, for example, can allow you to take pictures at night while walking around in the streets, while an f/4 lens would really struggle and an f/7 or whatever wouldn't work at all. quote:I have fairly large hands, and I'd prefer weather hardening to be an official thing for the camera for psychological comfort, if nothing else, which I'm keen to use to cut down on decision paralysis and simplify this question to X-T3 vs X-T4. Between the two, cross-referencing DPR, X-T4 internally seems to bring: IBIS is really good, as it allows you to use lower shutter speeds without getting blurry pictures. This, similarly to having access to a low f-stop number, lets you use the camera in poor lighting conditions. Better autofocuses typically mean a few different things. With a newer mirrorless camera, it could mean that the computer in the camera is better at figuring out what you want it to focus on (for example, with eye-tracking or recognizing faces, animals, etc.). It could also refer to the speed - how quickly the camera can refocus and track moving targets. When talking about better autofocus for a lens, that's always going to mean how quickly the motor in the lens moves or how much noise it makes while moving. quote:On the lenses, given that I've yet to develop a clue, it's probably for the best to start with a single 18-55 mm lens, and then just return to the matter of glass shopping when I develop a better understanding of their limitations and my preferences. Window-shopping around, I'm finding used these two: I don't use Fuji, but the 16-55 has a constant f-number, so you can use 2.8 at any focal length. The other one would be able to reach 2.8 at 18mm (zoomed out), but it would shift to 4 as you go to 55 mm (zoom in). If you buy a weather resistant camera but your lens isn't weather sealed, you also really don't functionally have a weather resistant camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:I had a pair of Wasabi Fuji batteries expand on me, to the point where one nearly got stuck inside my camera. Apparently it's not uncommon, so I wouldn't buy one again. I haven't had any issue with the Promaster batteries I bought to replace them. I bought probably a dozen or so of a couple of types of Wasabi Canon batteries and have been using them for a couple of years pretty heavily with no issues (a school setting, these things are being used constantly). Some of them aren't holding a charge very well, but no swelling. Have some Powerextra brand that definitely died faster and a couple that have swollen up. I don't know how the Fuji batteries compare price wise, but the off-brands for Canon tend to be about 20% of the price of a name brand. You get what you pay for, but I think you typically come out ahead with the cheap off brand batteries. A good battery charger is definitely worth the price, though. The Wasabi ones and every other off brand I've used are trash.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Lights posted:Looking for suggestions on replacing my old lighting kit now that I've upgraded camera bodies - I didn't have any complaints with the old kit, but for some reason the 3rd-party strobes don't work right with the Canon R6 Mk II. Old kit is: I've actually got a Canon R5, a Godox Xpro-C, and a couple of AD200's. I'm pretty sure I could answer your question, but I don't actually know how to do it. I've only ever used the manual flash settings on the equipment rather than the E-TTL. I'm also halfway through a pack of Imperial IPA's, which is probably why I'm struggling with some of the guides on this. If you could point me toward something that would instruct me on how to test this, I'll happily experiment and report back tomorrow when I'm sober.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Lights posted:I believe you just need to have all of the flashes and the trigger in TTL mode and on the same channel - basically just set up the same as if you were using manual settings, but flip all the modes to TTL instead of M. Then just take a picture where your camera's exposure settings would call for the flashes to fire at somewhere around half power or so for a good exposure - if it's blown out, the flashes probably ignored TTL and fired at full power, if it's super underexposed it probably didn't get metering info to set the power properly, and if it exposes properly, then I'm going to be spending a bunch of money soon. Thanks so much! OK, I messed around a little bit with it today. As far as I can tell, it works exactly as it should. Exposure was coming out fine when set to TTL. Those AD200's are quite powerful, and typically when using them in the room that I tested them in, the power would have to be set to very low settings to not overexpose the pictures. That's a nice feature that I was completely unaware existed, previously I'd always have to do a few test shots to dial in the right power settings.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:She has been looking into mirrorless but just learned about that recently. If I were in her position, I'd probably pick up a brand new Canon R10 and an RF 50mm lens. Should be like 1200 bucks. A bit more I guess with tax and a decent SD card. Play around with it, then use the excess money in the budget to buy a zoom lens. I'd probably just get an adaptor and a Canon EF F/4 70-200mm lens for the sports stuff, with the 50mm being fine for everything else. But I only really know the Canon ecosystem, there might be comparable or better deals on similar quality cameras for other brands.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 07:13
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:Is there a mirrorless equivalent to a Nikon D3000 or Canon Rebel whatever? The Canon R10 is basically the mirrorless equivalent to the Canon Rebel line. It’s a little more expensive, but also more capable. The Canon RP is a full frame mirrorless at the same price point, but the autofocus and sensor are older tech.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:When I sold cameras you could get an entry level DSLR kit for well under $1000 and then whatever current telephoto for $250 and have way more camera than 90% of people would ever need. I think this is just a fundamental misunderstanding of current prices, then. 1000-1200 dollars today gets you the equivalent of what maybe 700 would get you in 2016 or 2017 (a new entry level camera and a cheap lens).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:I'm not dismissing the question, I'm dismissing the typical camera nerd advice that assumes that somebody asking for babby's first camera will have the same preferences that they developed over years of touching cameras. You are studiously ignoring the fact that you have no idea what anything costs today, though. The first suggestions were the Canon R10 and the Nikon Z5, which are both new entry level mirrorless cameras. The R10 is literally the newest and cheapest modern Canon camera available on the market. The Nikon Z5 appears to be the exact same price and fill the exact same role. The Fuji guy recommended buying a used XT4, which looks like it runs about 1250 bucks, completely in line with the budget proposed and only slightly more expensive than those competing brand new entry-level models. I know that back in your day a hamburger cost a nickel or whatever, but we're living in a period of high inflation, pandemic related supply chain disruptions, and ever improving (and more expensive) cell phone cameras eating up any market for really low end stand-alone cameras. Nobody has suggested anything outlandish or bizarre, you just don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2023 00:00
|
|
|
Dog Case posted:(Just get a cheap used DSLR that she can resell at cost once she figures out what direction she wants to go) Even this advice sucks. Does any beginner want to navigate trying to figure out whether any old used DSLR is actually decent in comparison to whatever is on their iPhone, then worry about trying to resell it to recoup their costs? Plus, the OP said they already know what they want to do. If they do want a cheaper DSLR, buying some busted rear end old Rebel or whatever still hardly makes sense. Just get an Olympus Tough TG-6 for 500 bucks. It's waterproof (for real waterproof, not weathersealed), shockproof, and fits in your pocket. Lens has a decent zoom and decent aperture. 4k video, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
Crazyweasel posted:All I gotta say is I’m here for it We've all got good cameras on our phones these days, so the trick is to think about the limitations on the phone camera that you want to upgrade beyond. An iPhone can take excellent portraits. Apple is well aware that this is sort of the standard use for those cameras, and they've built to account for that fact. Nobody buys a stand-alone camera these days for Facebook pictures, your phone does it really well. So what are the weaknesses? Low light performance. Zoom distance. Resolution. A flash can counter low light conditions, but that brings a whole host of drawbacks. A camera with a 50mm prime lens can take pictures in very dim conditions without sacrificing much of anything, no flash required. Your phone can zoom a decent amount, but you'll likely notice major losses to image quality. In the background, it is making adjustments to compensate for that zoom. A decent telephoto lens can get you range without sacrificing nearly as much as a phone. Or if you are willing to make some sacrifices, you can get some extreme range at a low price. Then resolution... does a photo that looks great on your phone's screen look good on a bigger screen? Probably... decent. But if you want to print up a landscape shot and hang it on your wall? That might be a step too far for even a really good phone camera. But with the right (pretty cheap) prime lens, an entry level modern camera can get you some great high resolution shots. If you're going to buy something cheap, it'll have a lot of the same limitations as your phone camera, you'll just have more control over it. So instead of your phone calculating in the background what the appropriate aperture and shutter speed are, you'll have to decide. But your phone also has a very expensive, modern computer in it, while a cheap used camera has a more specialized, cheaper, older computer in it. If you're going to buy something cheaper, just be aware that you aren't necessarily going to get much better shots than you can get from a newer phone. So then why do it? Get something with cool features, hence the Olympus suggestion. You can take a Tough TG-6 to the beach, get those volleyball shots in the sand, take it in the water and get silly pictures in the waves, or get a selfie with that fish underwater. But I think buying something cheap that lacks genuine features that your phone cannot compete with would be a mistake. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2023 01:55
|
|
|
harperdc posted:It’s been a minute since I looked into the RF ecosystem, but a couple years back it was very expensive - not enough in the $300-500 range, at least from memory. This was also a reason I jumped over to Fujifilm and haven’t looked back. The RF ecosystem is still pretty weird. There isn't much in the way of cheaper lenses, and it isn't always clear how the cheaper RF lenses are actually better than the old EF lenses that filled the same roles. The cameras are way better, though, and they work perfectly well with the old EF lenses. If you have a bunch of EF lenses, buying a 100 dollar adaptor and a new camera body gives you access to the new autofocus systems, better sensors, etc etc without any need to replace all of your old lenses. Some of the new lenses are really interesting, too. I've got an F/11 600mm and F/11 800mm, for example, that give me an absolutely unparalleled reach and quality for the price. Edit: That F/11 800mm was 900 bucks, it's lightweight and relatively compact. I took it down to the local pond the other week and was practicing tracking small birds in flight at a distance, this is a typical unedited JPEG. 
litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Feb 6, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:A really stupid question came to me when I was half asleep last night, and I'm pretty sure I know the answer but I'm asking anyway: For what it’s worth, the f-stop number isn’t a measure of speed, but rather width of the opening in the lens. Think of it like your pupil. In low light conditions, your pupil widens to allow in more light. In the sun, it contracts to restrict light. A low f-stop number is a wider pupil. A high f-stop number is a smaller pupil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I'd be buying that R50 as a second body if the controls on the back weren't so stripped down. Yeah, it looks interesting in that it has very similar capabilities as the R10 for 200 dollars less. I wonder if the theory behind the stripped down controls is that you can regain some of the functionality through the control ring on the lens. Seems like most or all of the RF lenses have the option to toggle the focus to controlling something else of your choosing. You can get EF-RF adaptors that offer a control ring as well. So you lose a dial or wheel on the camera body, but can gain one on the lens barrel to give you a second easily accessible setting. FBS posted:I've inherited a D5200 with a couple of kit lenses that my grandpa can't use any more. It's in good shape but needs a good cleaning. I haven't had a real camera since college. What cleaning kit/supplies should I pick up? Is it just the lenses that need cleaning, or are you going to have to get inside the camera body with swabs? You want a microfiber cloth, some kind of lens cleaning solution, a few long q-tips, and some compressed air or one of those little puffer things. Kits will come with all sorts of poo poo that you may or may not find useful, like soft brushes, little lights and magnifiers, etc. Cheap Amazon batteries and chargers are fine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2023 03:10
|
|
|
Anyone ever do any concert photography? For context, I'm a public school teacher that has a photography class on the side, basically. I picked it up by random chance, and I've sort of had to learn all of it on the job. I'd say that from several years of experience, I have a very solid grasp on sports and studio portrait photography. Our modern band program wants to do a staged photoshoot of their varsity kids, like rock star glamor shots. We've got fog machines, colored lighting, kids have a variety of costumes, etc. I've got a Canon R5 with a 50mm lens. All sorts of other things too, but I think that one makes the most sense. I can position myself anywhere, even up close on the stage, as this is a photoshoot rather than a real performance. I can use a flash, too, for the same reasons. I think I'm going to want a sort of mid-range F/stop, because I want the instruments and more than just a narrow slice of the musician in focus. I want a relatively high shutter speed, because I don't want to blur out the headbanging longhair. But that'll clash with the ambient darkness and spot lighting of a stage. And then the fog machines will be a wildcard, because they'll diffuse the light. I should probably set the camera to spot metering rather evaluative or whatever, because will it even know what the gently caress is going on? I've got some powerful flashes, should I use those to provide lighting that gives me the ability to set the F/stop and shutter speed to the higher settings that I think I'll need? Will that wash out the color? Is there something I'm missing here?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:I've shot a couple of bands, these days I mostly shoot dance parties but it's basically the same principles. You're pretty much right on the money about gear and settings. Absolutely use the flash, you won't be able to get good action shots in the low light of a concert venue. You probably don't need as fast a shutter speed as you think, which is good because you also don't want to crank up your flash too high. Aperture, too, I wouldn't put any higher than 4, even lower probably. use spot metering. We ended up doing the photoshoot yesterday. Extremely successful in the sense that everyone involved had a lot of fun, the kids in the band were super happy with their photos, and the kids I had taking pictures got some great experience working in challenging conditions. I forgot to bring my flash, but it was fine. We did a bunch of photos in various lighting conditions, including with white house lights on shining toward the stage and colored lights behind, with mild fog throughout the air to make the colored light beams visible. I'm really pleased with the results, but you've got me thinking about where this could go next. Once we're doing with the yearbook project, we've always got deadtime that we use to just screw around, make gossip podcasts, whatever. I might schedule another photoshoot and see what I can do with low shutter speeds and the flashes. I had the kids using 50mm lenses with some Canon 7D's. Those things are good learning tools, because if your settings are jacked up your photos are going to be poo poo. They're solid workhorses, but the autofocus and ISO noise definitely shows the age of the camera. Setting up complex shots in settings where you can control every variable, but you have to know what you're trying to achieve... well, should be great training for next year. Thanks for the comment about rear sync flash, too. I wasn't even aware of this technique, but it looks super cool. I'm pretty sure at least my R5 is capable of it, I'm going to have to do some experimentation. I think I've been underutilizing flash in favor of managing light through the shutter speed and aperture controls, but it seems like there's a lot more to flash techniques than I realized.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
One of my colleagues at work today randomly approached me and was like, "I was going to give this to Goodwill, but I thought maybe you and your students could use it!" She hands me a couple of bags. What's inside? A Canon 30D (cool, but my workhorse tools are 7D's), a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens (cool, always useful), an elderly Canon Speedlite (cool, the newer mirrorless tech doesn't come with built in flash, I wonder if it works with that stuff), and... a 24-105mm f/4 IS L USM lens. That's a legit loving piece of glass. We mostly use a variety of 50mm primes, 18-55mm kit lenses, 24-105mm RF F/4-7.1 on our newer tech, 70-200mm F/4 IS L USM for sports. This is a real addition to the collection, might even become one of the most used lenses in the collection.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
Back when I was first starting up, I bought almost the same kit, although it was a Rebel T6. Today, if I had 800 bucks, I’d try to get a used 7D, a 70-200mm F/4 lens (the cheap non stabilized one), and a 50mm prime lens. Or a new R50 when they’re available. A Rebel is kind of the worst of all worlds, it’s a newer camera using old tech. With the kit, you’re spending a lot on random stuff that you won’t really use, like all of the filters and doodads. Concerns with Rebels would primarily be that they’re fragile and plastic, plus they aren’t really weather sealed. They’re a bit clunky for changing settings too, with just the one wheel, but that isn’t necessarily bad for students (forcing them to engage with the settings menus). Concerns with a 7D is that it’s old as gently caress. Concerns with an R50 would be that you wouldn’t have any money for any lenses beyond the kit lens.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
What kind of lens do you have for the 60D? What’s your biggest area of need? Just another camera to get into student hands for general use, or are you looking at equipment suited for certain tasks (sports, portraits, etc)? Also not sure where you’re located, but if having a brick and mortar store to purchase used equipment from would make for an easier sell, the local camera shop near me has a few used bodies (plus free shipping and the ability to take purchase orders from the school): https://competitivecameras.com/used-gear litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Mar 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Unrelated to the camera equipment, but a Journalism Education Association membership is like 40 bucks for a year and they’ve got hundreds of premade lesson plans with handouts and presentations available on their website. If you need a curriculum, that’s probably the most complete one available. They’ve got materials for both yearbook programs and photojournalism classes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
I haven't used the R10 specifically, but I think it would probably meet your needs. I have a yearbook class that uses a variety of Canon cameras, and I'm thinking about picking up an R10 for my kids next year as something more modern that would be suitable for sports photography. The M6 MKII uses different lenses than the other Canon mirrorless cameras, and it looks like they're more expensive. I'd avoid it for that reason alone. The R10 has pretty much all of the modern features except in-body image stabilization. There's a cheaper Canon mirrorless out now, the R50, but it only has one dial which means it would be annoying to use in anything but automatic mode. If you're trying to teach kids what the functions on the camera do, you don't necessarily want a device that encourages them to only use automatic mode. Which kind of lens would you be getting with it? There are several different lenses that it tends to be packaged with, if you aren't just buying the body.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:all these mf with wide rear end lenses This guy said it best last page! Just seconding that the camera should be fine but the lens won’t be. My class uses 70-200mm F/4 lenses for general purpose sports stuff and they’re good enough. Canon’s EF USM lens can be had for between 350-600 dollars, and it can be used with an R10 with a 100ish dollar adapter. The F/2.8 versions cost a whole lot more than your camera, as do any of the newer RF lenses. But that’s really the big issue, any lens that’s good for sports is going to be expensive. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jul 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
There’s an 800mm RF lens that’s 1000 bucks. F/11, so you’ll need full sun, but if you want bird and airplane pics that’s probably a better bet than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with stabilizers for video recording? I’ve got some students that want to start making films, so I want to get them a decent stabilizer that won’t break the bank. What’s the best budget bang for your buck kind of deal?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:What are they filming with? Assuming a camera with no built-in stabilization, putting anything on the camera and creating more contact points with your body and moving slowly and deliberately is going to do a lot. You can do this pretty well with just a camera strap around your neck and both hands holding the camera out to tighten the strap. You can add a tripod with two of the legs angled back against your hips for more stability. From there, they can look up YouTubes about how to do the "ninja walk" where you bend your knees and roll your feet to make the motion smoother. Any of the brackets or grips they make with universal tripod screws can be good too (link below). Basically anything that adds weight and contact points will go a long way to get rid of hand shake. I still shoot body only when I am traveling and don't have a full rig setup and can get 90% there. Stay away from any type of gimbal, powered or not. They will teach them bad habits and create terrible footage that looks worse than handheld with shake. They'd mostly be filming with a Canon RP. We've got a bunch of lenses of various types, I honestly don't know poo poo about film so I guess we'll just mess around and see what works best. I've got a 24-105mm F/4 that's got image stabilization, I'd figure that would be versatile enough for most anything they'd want to do. Thanks for the advice, though! I actually already have a grip almost identical to the linked one. I'll point them toward the ninja walk tutorials and have them practice if they want to jump into moving stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I got a flash and trigger because, well, I felt like I am taking photography seriously and its a core piece of gear. But after setting it up and trying it out, I absolutely hate it. Yes, part of this is due to not knowing how to use it, but also: There are certain things that you can't really do without a flash or that a flash really makes much, much easier. But for wildlife and street photography, exploring the metering function on your camera is probably a lot more valuable and also free. Your instinct to return it is completely legitimate, but you might also look into specifically what you can do with it rather than just carrying it around for general use. For example, they are useful for when you've got plenty of light, but the light is coming from the wrong direction and it fucks up the metering on your camera. On the street, this might be a situation where you're trying to have a sunset in the background, but everything in the foreground is black because your camera is flipping out and doesn't know what the hell you're trying to do. A strong flash from the front could light up faces or whatever enough to get the picture you want rather than black silhouettes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2023 00:39
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Has anyone purchased from MBP? Thinking about picking by up a used Oly EM1 Mkiii to play with The local brick and mortar camera shop that I use looks like they have one of those, FWIW. Don't know how their price compares, but they're legit and knowledgeable. https://competitive-cameras.shoplightspeed.com/used-olympus-om-d-e-m1-mark-iii-mirrorless-camera.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
The Olympus TG-6 seems like it would fit your needs, too. Also a point and shoot. It’s about the size of a cell phone, just thicker. Waterproof and drop resistant, for the hiking/outdoors stuff. I’ve got one and it’s a lot of fun to walk around with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I want to be able to bring my flash anywhere for helping light my scenes properly, but also for going into manual mode/off camera at times to create more artistic effect. I also really want to be able to take pictures of my friends indoors without having terrible overhead lighting, and I am hoping TTL can let me just use the flash on top of my camera without getting that "bright flash" look I'm not a flash expert or anything, but in my experience you really need two flashes to do an indoor scene properly (or even a portrait with backdrop). If you just have one on your camera, the background is almost always going to be too dark and the subject too bright. A single front facing flash works great if the background is lit up too brightly, like a subject standing in front of a sunlit sky and you need to flash their face to even things out. Edit: TTL isn't going to create any effect that you can't create yourself with manual control of the camera, it just will quickly give you adequate results in situations where you might not have time to fiddle with settings to dial things in properly. But fundamentally a single flash from straight on is tough, especially if the background isn't really close to the subject. You can do some cool stuff with a strong frontal flash and manual ISO control where you can basically delete the background into blackness and isolate your subject, but I don't figure that's the kind of thing you're trying to do. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Definitely don't need 2. You simply learn to expose for ambient correctly then add flash as fill on your subject. That can be hard if the ambient light is bad or multi-colored from various sources, but you can still make it work instead of drowning the scene with fill. He ends up with a completely blacked out background from dropping his ISO way low and uses an elaborate set of bulky man sized reflectors on both sides of the subjects. It seems a little reductive to say that you simply expose for ambient correctly. blue squares posted:I watched a video (https://youtu.be/8ayloPxXBQs?si=xvj_sSkk1mD4Y4dJ) and the guy took really well lit photos of his dog using TTL and a single on-camera flash. Or here, what would this photo look like if he didn't have a lamp right up on the back wall brightly illuminating the entire thing? I suspect it would look weird, anything you did to get the dog's face properly exposed would underexpose the wall. It's not the ETTL setting that's making the composition work. Am I completely off-base here?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I couldn’t tell you that, but in my scenario I am also in a brightly-lit area and just need a fill flash balanced against ambient, so it shouldn’t be darkening the background. I would expose for the room and the flash would just add a little bit Brightly-lit is a tricky concept when speaking about indoor spaces, isn't it? I have a pair of AD200's, and even on their very lowest settings they completely overwhelm the kind of lighting you will find indoors when bounced off an umbrella. You can see in the dog video that he has the flash backwards and is bouncing it off the back and corner walls to get the lighting right, but there's no real context of how far behind him the rear wall actually is. But again, the result has nothing to do with the ETTL feature.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Properly lighting a scene with multiple lights is significantly harder than a single light source, and not just because of exposure. Shaping the light naturally is really hard, which is why it's an entire huge part of movie production. I'm sure that's a fair and valid statement. Again, I'm no expert. I usually only use my flashes for assembly line graduation portraits or weird poo poo like dances in terrible lighting conditions. But think about the original question from that other poster. He's got one flash and his indoor casual photos are coming out with the faces overexposed. Is a flash that does ETTL going to solve his problems? Is "simply get good" sound advice? Your examples are pretty clearly staged and carefully composed, so what actual advice would you offer for someone with a single flash trying to get good candid photos on the fly indoors? I'm genuinely curious myself. Crank the power down as low as it goes in 90% of situations? Use a certain metering mode? How do you know where to point the damned thing? I've watched a bunch of portrait photography videos and half the time the advice for one light portraits is to stick it on a 9 foot pole directly behind you with the umbrella angled down at the subject. I mean, OK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah I took that as "how do I make the light better using a flash" not "my flash is way too strong and blasting faces". When someone talks about "bright flash faces" they're talking about "flash blasting faces." Overexposure. That's pretty much the number one problem with using a flash for 99.9 percent of people in the world who have ever touched a camera.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:lmao this mf said blasting faces Every time I flash my friends indoors I blast their faces, help! I try to expose to the ambient, but
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2023 04:30
|
|
|
god please help me posted:Could I receive recommendations for a cheapish camera that I can keep plugged into AC power as I use it as a webcam for a long time without worrying about draining the battery? My basic use cases for this camera are as a webcam that I could also use for content creation, and taking better photos than what my cellphone can. After the nth time of trying to take a nice moon pic and getting a tiny little blurry dot, I think I could really use a dedicated camera. The thing here is that these are two very different tasks. An old Canon Rebel with a cheap rear end 50mm prime lens and an AC adapter will absolutely blow any phone out of the water for a webcam, but will not be able to take a decent photo of the moon. Anything taking a good picture of the moon for cheap won't work as a webcam.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2023 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Brace yourself. https://competitive-cameras.shoplightspeed.com/ Here's another! I've done a bunch of business with these guys over the last few years. Pretty sizeable used collection. They have a brick and mortar storefront in Dallas. One time a shipment got delayed a week or so because they couldn't source some filters or something as quickly as they expected, so they comped them and upgraded a memory card I had ordered to a larger size for free. Edit: But I don't guess they stock a lot of older/esoteric stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 04:16
|
|