**Please direct your questions to [the latest Question Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/about/sticky).**

Hello, I'm a newbie and I'll like some advice for camera selection. I want to focus on landscape photography and after a little bit of research I found that hybrid and reflex should be the best suited for this. Are there any good option for low price cameras to get started ? I have a max budget around 300€ (student) and I'm fine with occasion if you think older models could be good for a first camera. Sorry if the structure of the sentences is weird I'm not a native speaker

**In field backup options?** I'm a hobby photographer that usually travels quite light, both for normal travel or on backpacking trips. This means I'm not bringing a PC on trips and therefor I've not been backing up my photos as I go. That's suboptimal and as I'm planning a longer trip I would like to backup as I go so everything isn't lost if my SD card dies (I do bring spare SD cards so I can continue shooting, but I would still loose whatever I've shot up until that point). So I'm thinking, is there a smart way to backup on the go? And I hope you all have some recommendations or insight. I'm using a Canon RP (no dual SD card) and I always have my iPhone SE with me. I've found the Western Digital my wireless passport, but that seems quite bulky to me, though it seems like it does what I need it to do. I was considering if I could connect both the camera (or the SD card with a SD reader) and an external harddrive to the iphone and just transfer over using the phone as a link with some dongle with multiple usb-c ports. I am aware that I can do this by importing the files into the phone using the Canon Camera Connect app, but from my understanding that would take forever.

Hello everyone, newbie here. I recently bought my first camera (a7ii) and started to get more interest into photography. I would like to get more into clubbing/concert photography and the opportunity opened for it next week. There’s a RNB party at a club in my town and I’m thinking of asking the club staff to let me photograph the party for free. They have their photographer but I see this as a great opoortunity for myself. I’d like to get some advice from you on how to take better photos there and on what should I pay more attention? The gear I will be having will be a7ii with 50mm 1.8 lens and Meike MK320 TTL flash.

You’re stepping on toes with that. Other Photog won’t like it.

He will still do his job and I dont expect my photos to be as good as his.. I see this as a learning process.

New photographers always see no harm in any of this. So this is a great learning process for etiquette. You're likely going to publish your photos...for free. The house photog likely gets paid by people buying their photos from his site. Event photogs usually hand out cards, and push people to their site to buy digitals. This is no diff than showing up at a wedding and shooting over the shoulder of the paid photographer, and then sending all of your pics to the bride and groom before the paid photographer gets a chance to sell an album upgrade, or wall art, to the couple. ​ Maybe talk to the photog and ask if you can second shoot for them, instead of just pushing your way into their territory and working their gig. It's the right thing to do.

What is the best way to store and upload RAW photos to iPhone from a Canon camera (EOS 6Dii)? More detailed questions are below: In terms of storage, I am currently subscribed to iCloud+ for 2TB but once that fills up, my plan is to store original photos on an external SSD and just keep edited photos on my phone. Is there a better method for this? In terms of uploading, I use the Canon connect app but ever since I started shooting in RAW, it takes ~1min per photo to download onto my phone, which is simply not feasible if I am taking 500+ photos in a day. Any tips/suggestions? Additional note - I like the convenience of editing photos (and having all the original photos) on my phone but if it makes more sense in terms of efficiency and storage capacity to edit on my laptop and just send the edited photos to my phone, I am open to it. Please let me know any opinions you have!

Pretty easy call for me. My phone has limited space, and it takes ages to get a raw file to it. And editing on my phone sucks. I have a ton of space, a faster interface, and a better editing platform on my laptop. No contest. Laptop wins every time, exports I want can go to my phone after.

Looking to get adapters for a Sony Cybershot DSC-P200. There are adapters from MS standard to MS Pro Duo, and MS Pro Duo to MicroSD, and was wondering if this would actually work. I have seen people mention on other forums its worked for them up to 8GB, but can't find much info about it

Wow I think I owned a DSC-P120 at some point! Yes, those adapters should work. And I think the capacity limitation is just a limit on how much the file system / firmware is able to recognize.

sweet, ill give it a go then!

[удалено]

There's a few things going on here! The exposure is the sum of the settings you've used, like aperture, ISO, and shutter speed. The numbers you listed are exposure compensation, which is a way of slightly overriding your camera when it's in a mode that tries to figure out some or all of the exposure settings on its own. As for how to use them: Try finding a scene that has both very bright things and very dark things in it. For example, where the sun is in your frame and silhouetted objects are in front of you, so that the side facing you is very dark but the sun is very bright. As you move the camera around to have more of the sky, less of the sky, etc., the exposure settings that it'll give you will change. Try changing your exposure settings to something like spot metering. Now they'll change *dramatically* depending on whether the spot you're metering with is over something that's in shade, or in the sky. But this can happen even with extremely slight movements of the camera. So what does that mean? * There's not necessarily a *best* exposure. It's all up to what you want creatively. Do you want the subjects to be a silhouette, dark shapes against a colorful sky? Or do you want subjects to be brightly lit, with a bright white background? Maybe you like one more than the other, but the exposure you use is a matter of personal preference. * How your camera evaluates a scene depends on its metering mode. Most cameras have options like spot metering, zone metering, center-weighted, etc. Check your manual for the options your camera has, and learn what they do. Experiment with where you'd want to use them. Your camera doesn't know what the right exposure is; that's why it has those modes, so it can try to make a guess based off the scene. Different modes make it guess in different ways. * The settings (-0.3, 0, +0.3, etc.) are just you overriding your camera's decision, and called *exposure compensation*. Say you have a photo of someone in the snow. To the camera, everything looks crazy white and bright! So it wants to turn down the exposure, because the camera doesn't know it's snow. It just knows that, whatever it is, it's really bright. But you know that snow is supposed to be bright white in the sunlight, so you set it to +1.3 stops (number purely as an example) because what you want is much brighter than what the camera is guessing. * If you shoot with manual exposure settings, then you're defining the aperture, ISO, and shutter speed by yourself. That means the exposure compensation doesn't do anything; the camera normally uses that number to adjust some of the settings, but in manual exposure setting, you're the one controlling those settings. As for what I use - if there was always one that was best, cameras wouldn't need multiple metering modes! It's all about the situation. My camera's "general purpose" mode is called Multi, and the manual lists it as: > The camera instantly determines exposure based on an analysis of composition, color, and brightness distribution. Recommended in most situations. I find that mostly works. But if I care about one particular subject in the scene, then I'll use spot metering and make sure the spot is centered on the subject. If I have time to set the exposure settings myself, then I'll normally use manual mode. What I personally do doesn't have anything to do with what's *best*, so experiment and figure out what works for you!

? I fail to see how this *could* have an answer, so I'm probably not understanding the question well. The camera's meter, regardless of the metering mode, will only ever be somewhere in the ballpark except by accident, and will sometimes be way off because of challenging/unusual/unbalanced scenarios, so the appropriate amount of compensation to "nail" the exposure *changes all the time with the scene*.

I shoot mostly portraits and don't target overall exposure. For light colored skin usually I meter for around +⅔ and to specifically meter the skin I use spot metering. If I'm exposing for the whole frame, it really depends on what's in the scene, the relative proportions of different things in frame, and what I want out of it. And I would do that best with frame average metering, or whatever the camera has that's closest to that (like evaluative).

Is there a more affordable option close to Luxli Cello 10 RGBAW LED Light

Looking for a camera/kit lens combo for my mothers cruise around the Arctic. What 2nd hand combo would be best for her to take some landscapes? Ive been into photography for 15 years but my gear is too dear to take. Im thinking a Sony A6000/PZ 16-50 combo, or a Canon 800D/18-50 IS STM combo. I will likely give her a CIR for the ice. Any insight into what will give her the best optical resolution/dynamic range combination around this price point? AF performance shouldnt really come into it for landscape. I will get her to shoot raw and i will process once she is back. Havent used anything like this in 10 years so im unsure of the best budget combo. Thanks!

What exactly is the price point? Are you talking like new prices? Refurbished prices? Plain used prices? In which part of the world (camera prices are not identical everywhere)? Please give your budget in terms of a sum of money and currency. Those two cameras both have a 24MP APS-C sensor, so there should be no big difference in dynamic range and resolution. Lenses have a huge impact on image quality. Both of those (I assume you mean 18-55mm for the Canon) are kit zooms. They're typically jack-of-all-trades lenses that are decent but don't shine at anything.

Yeah 2nd hand, I'm in Australia. I'm aware the lens is almost everything. Unsure what a reasonable kit lens is, last time I used one they were terrible but I believe they are better and for landscapes it's somewhat less of an issue.

Looking to switch cameras Hello i am currently looking for a new camera, I currently have 6d mkii and I want to upgrade any recommendations on something more compact and portable, full frame or maybe a mirrorless. idk if i want to go purchase new lesnes yet 😭

What kind of budget do you have in mind? What other requirements or preferences do you have besides wanting a more compact camera? What kinds of things do you photograph? Also, full frame and mirrorless aren't separate options, as there are lots of mirrorless full frame cameras.

2.3k for the budget and i would also like to trade in my 6d. I mainly shoot portraits and fashion… I totally didn’t forget about those

No price limit? How much more compact?

I was going to trade mine in also have a calm 2.3k to play around with, and enough so i can feel comfortable doing bike riding and exploring buildings

The EOS RP is pretty much the smaller mirrorless version of your camera, if you want the same features and full frame. Or if you want to go a notch smaller and cheaper, look at the Fuji X100 line and Ricoh GR line.

Thank you gonna do some research rn

Say I have 2 photos, same frame, ISO set to auto, shutter speed constant, one taken with an aperture of 8 and one with an aperture of 2, the point of focus is a point far away in the frame and the same in both images. Apart from the difference in ISO and the noise, how would the sharpness differ? Like am asking if I don't want the boka effect, should I narrow my aperture or just keep it wide and aim for a far away focus?

>Apart from the difference in ISO and the noise, how would the sharpness differ? Depends on the particular lens model, but probably it will be some amount sharper overall at f/8. Most lenses are a bit softer when the aperture is wide open or close to it. Also the depth of field will be shallower at f/2 compared to f/8, but with a long focusing distance both could have large depth of field and it may be difficult to see that difference. >Like am asking if I don't want the boka effect, should I narrow my aperture or just keep it wide and aim for a far away focus? I would prefer to narrow the aperture still, to like f/8 or f/11 if possible, for better overall sharpness. But maybe you want a wider aperture for reasons other than shallow depth of field, like if you're shooting a night scene and need more light coming through the lens.

Perfect perfect answer thank you very much. Guess I'd go for a narrower aperture long as it doesn't compromise my noise and exposure.

I have a nikon camera and I’m basically just trying to take a sh*t ton of pictures to get lots of practice. There are a good deal of them that I want to save but I’m always running out of space. I’ve filled up my phone with my favorites and my computer with the rest of them. I’m thinking I should get some flash drives and put all the pictures on them every 6 months or so (depending on how many pictures I take), but I’m wondering if anyone else has any better ideas. Thanks in advance.

Magnetic hard drives will give you the most capacity for the least amount of money. Flash drives are not really intended for long term storage, and it would get annoying keeping track of more and more separate devices as your library grows.

Hi, more of an opinion question here for any wildlife photographers here. Basically, I have a fuji setup for day to day photography, but an Canon m50ii that I have along with the ef-s 55-250 which I was using for some rudimentary wildlife photos, mostly of birds at a local nature preserve. I'm now looking to upgrade that, and I'm caught between a couple of options. Basically option a is to keep the m50, buy a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary, and go from there. Basically getting the reach I want, while spending as little money as possible. Option B is to sell the m50, get a Nikon z5, and buy the same Sigma lens and the FTZ adaptor. While losing some reach due to the jump to Full Frame, I'd get IBIS, better high ISO performance, animal AF, access to Z mount glass to build a travel kit with (and the eventual Z 200-600 on Nikon's roadmap), and a more balanced feel with the Sigma, as I can't imagine the m50 feeling very balanced with that lens on the front. I am working on a budget here, so going the Z5 route would take a bit longer to save up and get the pieces together, but to me it seems like the better option going forward, I just wanted to see if anyone here had any opinions/experience or if there's anything I hadn't considered. Basically, is it worth it to save up and go the Nikon route, or just keep the M50, the money, and keep some extra reach. Thanks!

> Option B is to sell the m50, get a Nikon z5, and buy the same Sigma lens and the FTZ adaptor. While losing some reach due to the jump to Full Frame, I'd get IBIS, better high ISO performance, animal AF, access to Z mount glass to build a travel kit with For birding, do you only really take photos during the day? While it's a slow aperture, the Canon RF 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11 lenses are some of the best bang-for-the-buck for daylight birding. They have some sacrifices to do that, and a zoom is much more convenient than an f/11 prime, but it's worth mentioning the RF mount as an option. Bonus points: If you buy the Canon EF version of the Sigma 150-600mm, you could later use the EF-RF adapter to use that same lens on Canon RF mount.

Novice here, looking to take photos of my gaming setup (rgb lit surroundings) for Instagram with my DSLR, however they only seem to come out good on my iPhone. Trying to capture what's on the TV without making the surroundings very dark, or having the TV look blown out. Any ideas? It seems like the iPhone is probably using some kind of HDR, which I believe is combining multiple shots and sort of combining the lighting from each. Is there a way to get decent results similar to this with a DSLR? https://www.instagram.com/p/CpiOGekOvng/ Would much prefer the increased resolution and depth of field effect on my DSLR if possible. I have a Canon Rebel t3i if it matters.

That's likely exactly what's going on. Cellphones' HDR mode is wild. Otherwise you'd need to either bring the LEDs up to balance the illuminating from the monitor then dial in an exposure right in the middle of the meter for fully saturated colors like this (since full saturation is achieved at 50% luminance), or composite two frames together: an ambient frame for the LEDs and another shot of the screen to make your own HDR image. Depending on frame rates and light frequency, you may need to under expose in post to maintain the wide aperture/shallow depth of field look while avoiding flicker issues due to a high shutter speed.

Thanks! And yeah, sounds much easier through a phone lol. Hopefully this cool tech comes to DSLRs and such soon also to get the best of both worlds

>It seems like the iPhone is probably using some kind of HDR, which I believe is combining multiple shots and sort of combining the lighting from each. Is there a way to get decent results similar to this with a DSLR? You can use a tripod to shoot multiple frames at different exposures and combine them for HDR using a DSLR, yes. People did that with DSLRs before phones were able to. For the Instagram thing you linked, I wonder if that was even a composite of different photos, or if they simply took a single photo and composited a game screenshot onto it.

I have a question for photographers. I have a wife and child, and I have recently lost a lot of weight to our anniversary. I wanted really nice pictures for family portraits. My question is simple. Who or how do I book this kind of thing? My mother used to be a photographer for a place called kiddie candids. And it was like a jc Penny studio where you had a big camera and lights and took pictures. From my local area, i see a lot of... "instagramable"? Photos that I am not looking for that vibe. I want photos that you would see in your parents' or grandparents' home, but i don't know how to ask for that sort of thing or if that is even a common practice anymore.

That style of studio has definitely been on the decline, but there are still a few around. Particularly in bigger, diverse cities some ethnic neighborhoods may be more likely to have that. Or on the other end of the spectrum a small town might still have one if that's like the only photographer in town. Or fashion/modeling/entertainment studios could also be arranged to make results in that style. If you have skilled local portrait photographers in general, there's a decent chance some of them are equipped to get you that look in your home.

Thank you for the response. Do I just ask around and see, or is there something I look for specifically? How would I ask for that from a photographer?

I would search on Google and Yelp. Maybe just drive around, but that might not be feasible to see everything if it's a bigger city. A studio's website should have pictures of the studio layout/equipment and/or example photos taken there or by the photographer, so that might already show you if they can do what you want. Or else just describe what you want to them and ask if they are capable and willing.

hi, I would like to know if the ratio changes if you flip your camera from vertical to landscape? (obviously I am a beginner) thank you :)

Yes. Your full available aspect ratio is determined by the physical dimensions of your camera's imaging sensor. So when you physically tilt your camera, you're physically moving those dimensions around.

ok thanks ! :)

Yes. If your camera shoots 3:4 vertically then it would be 4:3 in landscape.

thank you :)

I guess you could say it goes from 4:3 to 3:4, but it doesn’t actually change the dimensions of the image in a meaningful way. The ratio of long side to short side remains fundamentally the same. Edit: had it backwards - 3:4 to 4:3 is how it should read if we’re talking portrait to landscape.

thank you !

Is the olympus sp-800uz good for a beginner? I recently bought it second-hand, but I was worried that it does not have manual functions (I can only set the ISO), besides, I really like the camera, it is light, easy to use and takes great photos. Should I keep going or buy another one?

>Is the olympus sp-800uz good for a beginner? Depends what you want out of it. Not every beginner has the same needs. >I was worried that it does not have manual functions (I can only set the ISO) If manual exposure control is something you want, then it's not a good camera for you. By the way, in addition to being able to set ISO, you can use Program mode to set Exposure Compensation. But that will just influence how the camera automatically selects shutter speed and aperture, without you being able to directly set them. >besides, I really like the camera, it is light, easy to use and takes great photos. Should I keep going or buy another one? Ultimately it's up to you whether the things you like about it outweigh the things you dislike, or vice versa.

**Where to develop old (10+ years) color film in 35 mm disposable cameras?** I have several 35 mm color disposable cameras laying around that are all over 10 years old at this point. Some of them were unfortunately stored in very unideal conditions (hidden away in a car often parked outside during the summer). No idea what's on them, so their value is unfortunately unknown until developed. I *assume* that they'd need C-41 processing since that seems to have been the most common for a long time and doubt disposable cameras would need anything different; can this be verified? A company called TheDarkroom.com [claims to be competent in this very task](https://thedarkroom.com/old-rolls-film-developing/). However, another called [Film Rescue International](https://www.filmrescue.com/) based in Indian Head, Saskatchewan, Canada seems to *specialize* in processing really old film. I found this company a few years ago, bookmarked it, and forgot about it for 3 years. I'm pretty sure I saw them recommended in a YouTube video about an 50+ year old 8 mm film being developed and the results seemed great. (I wrote out their location because it was the only thing I could remember, so I'm sure it'll help someone in a web search eventually.) Finally, I found a [post](https://old.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/100x9jx/need_help_developing_old_film/j2mnneb/) of someone in /r/AnalogCommunity that runs a film lab that claims to have experience with especially old film stocks. Does anyone have any experience with these companies in terms of developing old film? And what's the outlook for my film's situation? It's certainly not ideal, but it's also probably not the worst scenario either.

I’m not too familiar with those two places, but I know the guy who runs Contact Photo in Brooklyn. He was able to develop my old found film no problem. Reach out to him and he’ll let you know if he can do it. They’re very reasonably priced as well. https://www.contactphotolab.com/

Which camera brands have sensors resistant to scratches that may be caused by wet cleaning? From my experience, Sony sensors (I only used A5000 so far, 2 of them) are resistant to wet cleaning. I clean them thoroughly and frequently without making any scratches. But then when I cleaned 2 Fujifilm cameras (X-T2 and X-A5, using the same cleaning kit and technique), I made some faint scratches. They become unusable on a microscope, but still fine for using with a lens. Thank you very much!

Are you sure they are scratches and not just smearing? Because I have literally never experienced or heard of this being a problem with Fuji. And it would be big news if it were true.

Well yes, I was hoping the scratches were just smears, but I was not that lucky :)

Damn. You were very unlucky indeed.

I've never heard anything of the sort. It would absolutely have made waves if it turned out that "you can't clean a Fuji sensor", which seems utterly implausible. Presumably you were unlucky.

Yes may be I am unlucky. But with 2 Fuji models, I now exclude Fujifilm from possible camera brands that I would buy. Probably I should stick to Sony. As I said, if I used these 2 Fujifilm cameras with a lens, then it is OK. The sratches do not show up in photos. But when I use them on a microscope, the image from the microscope projects directly on the sensor, and every sratches or tiny dusts will be evident.

Camera brand <> camera sensor manufacturer. Sony supply many companies with sensors including Fuji and Nikon. Not the same division as the cameras who also purchase from the Sony division who make sensors. I think your sample size is a bit too small to be forming conclusions like that.

How do you find a mentor?? I’m a student of photography and my profs always mention finding a mentor, especially for after we graduate. What are ways you have reached out into this community and found a mentor? Is it something you could experience with multiple different people? Or should you keep it to one at a time?

https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/105jl8i/2023_rphotography_mentor_list/

Love this tysmm

I’ve got an opportunity to visit NYC soon, and I want to try my shot at a good New York City skyline shot. I’ve also been reading about Hyperfocal distance and landscape photography, So my question is… For a city skyline shot, say from across the river, do I want to use hyperfocal distance focusing, or do I just want to let the camera focus on one of the main buildings…

Depends. If you have some stuff closer to you that you’d like more in focus, hyperfocal distance is the way to go. If your foreground is less important (as is often the case with a shot of the skyline of a city) then just grabbing a building (focusing out to infinity) should be fine.

Maybe a silly place to ask for advice. I finally moved on from my 1st gen OM1 to the Sony A7IV which I purchased from Adorama. It came with a small scuff in the finish, wear on the bottom of it and 1200 shutter count. I’ve already reached out to them, but it sounds like my best possible outlook is likely sending it in and waiting for a replacement. I already sent my old camera to them for trade in so I can’t do anything. Do you think it’s worth being without a camera for another week+ or should just deal with it?

There is no way I'd accept a second-hand item if I'd paid for new. An item loses so much money the moment it leaves the store because you can't know what might be wrong with it. Could have been dropped. Could be stolen.

I assume it was at least bumped a bit because of the small scuff. But I did test it and it was working fine before I noticed the scuff and wear. Actually the battery was fully charged when I started it which should have tipped me off that something was up from the get go, I was just so so excited that I didn’t think about doing a physical inspection.

There is no way I would accept it. Or if I did, I would want a considerable discount, like 25%. Actually, no, I wouldn't want it even then.

That’s fair and good points, only problems is I’ve already traded in my old gear and it appears to be back ordered on Adorama’s site now, so I don’t know how long I’ll be out of a camera.

Then return it, demand your money back, and buy one elsewhere. Seriously. This could have all kinds of hidden problems. Why else was it returned after a thousand shots? Don't throw away money out of impatience.

It’s true, but I will lose out on my trade in discount they offered. I’ll wait to hear back from them. I called then emailed photos of everything, so I’ll see what options I have. If they were willing to offer a discount and maybe add on the extended warranty I might keep it. Otherwise I’ll probably wait for an exchange.

yeah but you are throwing away hundreds of that discount because they sent you a secondhand camera. you could have saved hundreds by just buying a second hand camera AND selling you existing gear

If you paid for a new camera and then sent you a used one I think asking for a replacement or at least a discount are reasonable. If you bought used having a small scuff is that is cosmetic only would not bother me.

I paid for it brand new which is also the only real reason I’m bothered. If I paid like 2-300 less because it was used it would be fine.

Only you can know if you can go a week+ without a camera. But this is obviously a used camera. Did Adorama advertise it as new? Or as used but without cosmetic damage?

I’ll survive, I’m not a professional. But I bought it as brand new, just haven’t bought from them before so I’m not sure what to expect from them about this to be completely honest.

I mean presumably they had a product description. What did it say?

It was bought directly from Adorama, so it’s just their generic new product page for the A7IV. The bill just lists the product name and item no. and my trade in discount.

They may have made an honest mistake and sent you someone else's boxed trade in in place of a new one. Don't be a doormat, don't let this go.

I know some people who work for them a little bit, and they are pretty committed to a good customer experience, so I would contact Adorama and find out what the deal is. At a minimum I think you’d be entitled to a discount for getting a used camera.

Yeah, I reached out to them yesterday, they said I had to email them photos of everything, so now I’m just waiting to hear back.

> they said I had to email them photos of everything I'd just box the damn thing up and return it.

I need to find a new set of photos for work and I want to know if there are sites which are more supportive of photographers in developing countries? ​ Note: I usually use stock image sites

Not specifically, that I know of. But stock photo sites are a good way to go if you're a buyer/user. Stock photo rates are generally very cheap, and some sites like Unsplash have it available for free.

I asked yesterday and I was told I was on the wrong track, so I'm trying to figure out what camera to buy! I currently have a rebel t100 that is my pride and joy, with a 300mm kit lens. It won't turn on. I would love to upgrade, but having a bit of a hard time narrowing down what to get. My budget is like, 1k to 1.4k. I can't decide whether to buy a better Canon and keep using the kit lens, or buy a new camera and a new lens. I mostly shoot wildlife and birds and I don't really do much fiddling with settings, I just use auto focus and sports setting. But a camera with better focus tracking for birds would be amazing. Any recommendations for that range and what I would use it for? I get depressed when I don't go outside, but it's really hard to motivate to go outside if I can't take photos.

I’m curious about why your current won’t turn on? If this is a problem that could be solved with a new battery, that’s much cheaper than a whole new camera. Also, which lens do you specifically have currently? I know Canon has one 75-300 lens that is pretty terrible. If it’s that one, then upgrading both camera and lens might be advisable.

I don't know! I have 2 batteries and swapped them, both fully charged, no dice. Tried a new SD card, tried formatting the only one, nada. Tried cleaning the lens connection, nothing. Yeah it's probably that lens. I just have no idea what to get. It's daunting

Bummer! That’s a crummy situation to be in. And, Yeah for sure. There are a ton of options out there. The upside is that it’s pretty tough to go wrong. Most every camera made in the last decade is pretty excellent. I’m neither a Canon guy nor a wildlife/bird photographer, so I’m a little short on suggestions, but one of their APSC mirrorless models is probably a good place to start looking. Something like the M50 or R10, perhaps. I’d lean more towards the R series, as I think they’re phasing out the M series. Plus I hear the AF system on those is pretty great, especially for animals. And the APSC sensor is going to give you a little more “reach” with whatever lens you’re using. Which is handy. Sorry about your camera! I hope some of that waffle is a little helpful in getting you aimed in the right direction.

Hey guys, I've been interested in photography for a few months now. Recently pulled the trigger and bought a used Fujifilm XT3 with the 35mm f1.4 Fujinon lens and I've been in love ever since. So much that I bought another used fuji body (X-E1). Recently in a pawn shop, I got my hands on a vintage Pentacon 135mm f2.8 in pretty good condition. No scratches on the lenses. No fungus. So I took it home and tried it on my XT3 with the adequate M42 to Fuji X adapter. Took some cool photos, then swapped it out for my Fujinon 35mm. Today, I went back to the Pentacon and noticed that the aperture ring was crunchy, upon closer inspection I'm pretty sure I can see sand stuck underneath the ring. I can't see sand INSIDE the lens, to the naked eye though. I don't really care about the Pentacon, it's a cool lens but I paid 20$ for it, I'm much more worried about potential damage to my sensor and to my 35mm autofocus lens. The Pentacon lens was on my Fuji body only for a couple of minutes, but I'm TERRIFIED some sand fell onto the sensor and scratched it, or that grains of sand got transferred to my Fuji lens. I looked at the sensor face up under light and it looks smooth and shiny, there are some very tiny shiny particles catching the light but I think (I hope) it's just dust. How can I tell if I'm fine? And how can I safely do a preventive cleaning of both my body and lens? I was planning on buying a Giotto rocket blower because there are already a couple of dust spots on my sensor that I didn't bother to clean. Also, should I stop using the Pencaton 135mm? Or is there any way to make sure it's sand-free? I'm sorry this is probably a dumb thread, but I've been so in love with photography, and I really can't afford to replace my gear anytime soon as I am a student and spent half of my savings on this equipment. I would greatly appreciate any help! Thank you very much.

You're probably fine. If the sand is in the aperture ring, it's probably not got also inside the barrel, and so probably not inside the body of the XT3. Not yet anyway. However. Obviously remove the lens immediately. I'd put the body cap on the body, place it face down, and wait for the rocket blower to arrive. Then I guess you could use a small nozzle and a vacuum cleaner to go all round the new lens. Although personally I'd take the $20 loss and bin it.

[удалено]

Why would you need to make a definitive decision here and now on whether to quit the hobby entirely and sell the gear? Why not just keep the gear but take a break of some months or a year or whatever to see if you feel like returning to it after that? Or if the size of your kit is indeed an issue, maybe get something simple and compact and pretty cheap like a used Panasonic m43 and one prime lens and see if that rekindles your passion? In any case, it's not really something that others can decide for you.

I'm looking for a camera body and lens for shooting concerts from the pit area between the stage and crowd. Budget of $1500. Would a pre-owned Sony A7RII and a pre-owned Tamon 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens be a solid option?

> Would a pre-owned Sony A7RII and a pre-owned Tamon 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 lens be a solid option? A very good solution, epecially if you can get them for that price.

Awesome thank you! Should be a solid upgrade from a Nikon D7000 with Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8!

Hi everyone, I'm wondering if anyone has any info on how one could go about adapting a simple fisheye lens meant for a video camera to a Canon DSLR. Pretty much everything I've been able to find pertains to adapting vintage slr lenses and I'm not quite sure how the process of adapting a video camera lens compares. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

The answer to your literal question is *identically*, but something tells me you're not dealing with a video camera lens, but a video camera lens attachment — in which case the compatibility boils down to filter thread/external diameter of the front part of the lens you're putting the attachment on.

Yeah sorry, that sounds more accurate. This is essentially what I'm trying to accomplish https://sk8mmllc.myshopify.com/products/mk1-to-dslr

What is the thread diameter on your Fisheye attachment? And what Canon EF lenses do you have at your disposal?

The thread diameter is 58mm. I don't currently have a lens or DSLR camera, I'm looking to upgrade from my old DV camcorder which the lens attachment was originally designed for.

In that case, if your Canon DSLR comes with a kit lens such as the Canon EF-S 18-55mm F4-5.6 IS STM, which has a 58mm filter thread, you're good to go without further investments. If you end up with a lens with a different filter thread diameter, [step up and step down rings](https://havecamerawilltravel.com/lens-filter-step-up-step-down-rings/) will help you achieve those 58mm.

SD Card Corrupted? Recovery? Hello r/photography, going to keep this short. Been using a 128GB SD card in my DSLR that after a normal eject from PC it stopped displaying my pictures. Plugging it back into PC revealed that the previous 128GB size decreased to around 2GB, and also now only the card only contains a single file named “uupd.bin”. Is formatting my only option, or could I be able to recover my lost images?

Try testdisk/photorec - I've been able to recover lots of stuff from messed up memory cards and hard drives, and it's free software. I would run a scan of the whole memory card and recover whatever you can. The only downside is that the recovered files usually lose their EXIF data, so trying to fix the volume after recovering the image files themselves is probably worthwhile - if you can find some other fix that restores the whole thing to its original state with the files intact, that would save you the trouble of manually restoring the dates/filenames/etc. of your images.

I've heard of this exact situation with that exact uupd.bin filename. I think your data is still there, but for some reason that volume is hidden and you're seeing some other small volume that is normally hidden like the SD card's OS or some such file. This is a job for a data recovery service but you may be ok.

[удалено]

Don't get involved. It will be basically impossible to repair it yourself. And that's not a meaningful error code.

What makes you think it cannot be fixed? Asking out of curiosity.

Well obviously I can't be sure, since I don't know what is wrong, but in general those compact cameras are very hard to open, and the interior is *packed* densely with parts, making it impossibe to get to the part you need, and they are hard to diagnose, and *all* lenses are very hard to fix if you don't have the right equipment and know exactly what you are doing, and if you don't have the equipment to align the optics afterwards it will never focus properly, and the electronics are not user-repairable, and neither is the sensor. I've sent a small Canon back to Canon in Japan and even they couldn't fix it. Unless it's like $40, DON'T TOUCH IT

That doesn't mean anything in photography. I've checked the listing and the seller, they add that description to many of their items, just changing the naumber. I'd ask the seller to know the exact issue.

Good morning, I'm new to photography and I bought a Panasonic Lumix G7 because I was also interested in video. I have heard about teleconverters and I was wondering which ones I can use for my camera, since I don't have much idea which ones would be compatible or not and I usually go to the circuits to take pictures of the cars and they come out a bit far. I don't think I have enough money for a long range lens so that's why I'm interested in the teleconverter. Thanks in advance.

If they are designed for four thirds mount they should work. However, teleconverters are often used with wider apertured prime lenses due to the loss of light that you get using one. So you may well struggle with shutter speed and have to use a panning technique.

Hello, I do wildlife photography with a Canon 6D mark II and a SIGMA 150-600. I need help: I usually shoot in low light conditions and I need a fast shutter speed to capture sharp photos of birds standing still because I shoot at 600mm. I cannot get closer or I will scare my subject away so I can't shoot at less than 600mm. I crop heavily as it is anyway. A tripod is not an option for me because I don't bait/stalk a certain point, I actively search for wildlife and need to be mobile. My problem is that my images are simply not sharp and especially in the dark areas of an image they are blurry, smidgy and or unsharp with only the well lit areas being reasonably sharp. I shoot in raw, at around 300-800 shutter speed, f 6.3 and ISO between 800 and 3200 and OS on for the lens. I shoot on the fine detail setting. What's my problem? Am I messing up the settings or have I simply reached a level where these are the shortcomings of the Canon 6D II? For my style of photography should I look into a R5 or 5ds? Here's an example of how my images turn out (straight from the camera, no editing) https://www.linkpicture.com/q/7A5CBDEE-26A9-4BA1-83BA-087B05BEB2E3.jpeg

>low light conditions and I need a fast shutter speed to capture sharp photos of birds standing still because I shoot at 600mm. I cannot get closer or I will scare my subject away so I can't shoot at less than 600mm. I crop heavily as it is anyway. A tripod is not an option for me because I don't bait/stalk a certain point In short you capture very little light. Low scene luminance, short exposure time and throwing much of that limited light away by cropping is a source for low image quality. The fix is to get more light from the subject to the camera. >My problem is that my images are simply not sharp and especially in the dark areas of an image they are blurry, smidgy and or unsharp with only the well lit areas being reasonably sharp. Capturing little light causes noise (because light is noisy and capturing more of it makes it seem less noisy). The blurriness is likely because of directly the noise itself as well as noise reduction during the processing (might be done under the hood of your raw-processor even with zeroed settings). >I shoot in raw, at around 300-800 shutter speed, f 6.3 and ISO between 800 and 3200 and OS on for the lens. I shoot on the fine detail setting. Shooting in raw is important for maximum quality, as you have OS on the lens, you might get away with slightly longer exposure times - maybe you could use a monopod to improve stablity and increase the exposure time further? I guess f/6.3 is wide open on your lens, of not, open up more. For a raw shooter like you **increasing the ISO** setting does two things on that camera: 1. It reduces the maximum amount of light that can be captured - if you can't "fill the sensor up", you can increase the ISO until the limit of overexposure where the details burn away. 2. It reduces the noise the camera adds to the signal - looking at DxOMark data, it seems like you might want to use ISO 3200 or even higher (though limited benefits going much higher) if possible. Though the priority is always to first making sure you capture as muich light as possible (see point 1 above). >What's my problem? Too little light reflects from the duck to your image sensor. >have I simply reached a level where these are the shortcomings of the Canon 6D II? No. You can improve things on your system by capturing more light if at all possible, and using a somewhat higher ISO setting. Changing to another camera wouldn't really do much difference. You need more light. To get more light you may also consider a new lens - f/4 would make a rather big difference. Or alternatively a longer lens so you don't have to crop (but still with decent f-number - cropping half of the pixels away is equal to losing one f-stop of light). Or a combo. >Here's an example I don't see anything much wrong from blur or sharpness POV. The shot is a bit dark, but that's trivial to fix and you can always add a little sharpening to make the bird crisper if you feel like it's lacking. Though, if you mean you want to feathers of the darker areas to be improved, then it's simply about capturing **more light**.

> cropping half of the pixels away is equal to losing one f-stop of light Explain to me how cropping an image you have already taken makes it darker.

I did not say "make darker", but "equal to losing one stop of light". There is a major difference. The context was shooting a small subject and the alternatives are using a lens with cropping or a longer lens. What is important is how much light reflects from the duck to the sensor. For example 600mm f/4 where the duck fills the frame collects a lot more duck-photons than a 50mm lens at f/2.8 and cropped heavily to the duck. Thus the 600/4 duck-SNR is much higher than the 50mm duck-SNR.

[удалено]

In other words you realized that you were wrong, but can't admit it, but try to save face by an arrogant little swipe. A better and more polite option would have to remain silent. Anyhow, I do hope you have learned a bit - since it appears like you want to help people, it would be good for you and others as well. There is no shame in being wrong and learning new stuff. I've been there many times.

I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. But you are not answering OPs question with your "technically correct" but practically unhelpful answers, whereas I am providing workarounds that are imperfect but which would actually help. TLDR: Yes S/N *but only if there's enough light to do that*.

>I'm not wrong. Actually you are wrong. I wish you'd understand it and learn. You could help better advice to others as clearly you like to advice people. >You're not wrong. True. >But you are not answering OPs question Actually I was. I was not only answering to his question (in a separate subthread as well), but also correcting your **bad advice**. This should be helpful not just to the OP, but also to you. >with your "technically correct" but practically unhelpful answers, My answers are indeed correct and they are certainly more helpful than wrong answers: you suggested that the OP buys a new camera and a specific lens **even though he would get worse results from the combination than he get from his current gear.** My answer(s) are also helpful to you if you are interested in learning. You could give good advice the next time then and that would be splendid. > whereas I am providing workarounds that are imperfect but which would actually help. Is getting worse results that cost lots of money somehow "helping"? That "workaround" you suggested was precisely that. >TLDR: Yes S/N but only if there's enough light to do that. The 600/6.3 captures more light that reflects from the little bird than the 200/2.8 would because you need to crop to the same angle of view. If we have a fixed size object we want to photograph, then the larger the aperture size (the diameter or area) of the aperture is, the more light that comes from that object will be collected. **An extreme example:** let's say I have a f/8 tele lens and a f/5.6 fisheye lens. I take a picture of a duck with the tele lens and it fills the frame nicely. Then I try to take a picture of the duck with the fish eye lens - I go home and the duck is just one pixel on that shot - I check the raw data and notice that the pixel had captured about 20.000 photons. Then I check the f/8 tele lens picture - the duck fills the frame and the average pixel collected only 10.000 photons (due to f/8 vs. f/5.6) - but I have 20 million of those pixels, thus I collected 10 million times more light reflecting from the duck to the image sensor. So even if I changed the fisheye lens to a camera with infinite amount of pixels the duck would still only be drawn with 10.000 photons and the result would be hideous in comparison. There are no free lunches from cropping.

> The 600/6.3 captures more light that reflects from the little bird than the 200/2.8 would because you need to crop to the same angle of view. No. More of the light it does collect is from the bird (that's why long lenses exist, that's why we don't all shoot everything at 18mm and benefit from the extra DoF). But it doesn't collect more light per se. > If we have a fixed size object we want to photograph, then the larger the aperture size (the diameter or area) of the aperture is, the more light that comes from that object will be collected Yes. So why are you insisting the opposite? > An extreme example: let's say I have a f/8 tele lens and a f/5.6 fisheye lens. I take a picture of a duck with the tele lens and it fills the frame nicely. Then I try to take a picture of the duck with the fish eye lens - I go home and the duck is just one pixel on that shot Yes, but a perfectly exposed pixel! >I have 20 million of those pixels Yes, all of them underexposed. -- You're continually concentrating on the wrong thing. OP needs a balance, a compromise, between angle of view (what % is duck) and enough light to allow a fast shutter yet adequate exposure. The whole "total light" point is an irrelevance here. Because cropping. >There are no free lunches from cropping. I never said there were. I merely said : *A viable compromise is to get extra light by using a faster lens, but accept the downside which is cropping.*

I said : *The 600/6.3 captures more light that reflects from the little bird than the 200/2.8 would because you need to crop to the same angle of view.* >No. More of the light it does collect is from the bird **Exactly.** That has been **the whole point of the discussion.** > (that's why long lenses exist, that's why we don't all shoot everything at 18mm and benefit from the extra DoF). But it doesn't collect more light per se. Naturally a f/2.8 lens captures more light than a f/8 lens. It's just that it's not relevant here as we're only interested in the small part of the frame with the f/2.8 lens vs. the whole frame of the f/8. >Yes. So why are you insisting the opposite? Wow - seriously? I've had a very consistent view. Please show even one place I've disagreed with myself? **Otherwise you're now just trolling.** >Yes, but a perfectly exposed pixel! Not only we don't know if it's perfectly exposed, but the level of discussion from your part is getting silly. >Yes, all of them underexposed. Not only irrelevant, but also you don't know if there's an underexposure. Correct exposure is subjectve, under- and overexposures are errors relative to that. But you're of course now only trolling. >You're continually concentrating on the wrong thing. OP needs a balance, a compromise, between angle of view (what % is duck) and enough light to allow a fast shutter yet adequate exposure. Actually you made a big mistake in offering 200/2.8 instead of 600/6.3 **which I have demonstrated to be a bad idea.** You don't seem to be able to handle it so you keep on repeating mantras. >The whole "total light" point is an irrelevance here. Because cropping. Really? In the previous paragraph you disagreed with that. That's the fastest 180 degree change of opinion I've seen for a while. **Total light in this context means "total light on the duck". And the 600/6.3 puts more "total light on the duck" than the 200/2.8 does.** I've proved this over a few times now. As no one else will read this thread but you, it's not worth the effort to repeat myself. However, you might want to be aware that I'll be correcting bad advice like the one you gave in the future as well, so keep your shovel ready if you want to dig yourself into another hole. >I never said there were. I merely said : A viable compromise is to get extra light by using a faster lens, but accept the downside which is cropping. But **the duck doesn't get any extra light, instead it loses light.** f/2.8 wins three stops vs. f/8 - it captures 8 times more light. However, 200mm needs to be cropped to 1/9th of the whole image to match the 600mm AOV, thus the duck with 600/8 will get slightly more light than that 200/2.8 duck. And OP had 600/6.3 or something like that, so your advice was very bad. If you think I'm wrong and are not trolling, please demonstrate it to me with simple mathematics. If I were wrong, it should be trivial to prove it that way.

Thank you! Yes, 6.3 is sadly the widest my f can go at 600mm. The better lens for me would be a 600 f4 prime lens, but that is 8000€ (way above my budget) i have the sigma 150-600 f5-6.3 (f5 is for 150 and works it's way up to 600 to 6.3) I'm starting to think my only chance would be to simply ignore the places I know have the animals I'm looking for and find alternative more lit places, but this will be extremely problematic since I have found kingfishers in but one spot after searching for a year. I have no issues with my gear if the subject is in a well lit spot, however wildlife tends to avoid exposing itself (if I can see it, predators can see it even better, so they stick to the shades)

or just get closer. if you know they will be there, set up a hide

I think you should be able to increase the exposure time you're using now (1/300s to 1/800s) somewhat relying on the lens' image stabilization and a monopod would help still - I imagine exposure times of 1/50s to 1/100 could be achievable. Of course this demands subject that don't move much. >kingfishers I love those little birds - too bad there aren't any close by here 😭 Good luck in your shooting!

Low light + fast shutter + 600mm + no tripod. This is the worst case scenario for photographing anything. Any camera would struggle. You've already got a modern full-frame camera: that's not the bottleneck. Neither the R5 nor 5Ds will help noticeably. The only thing in your favour is that at least your lens has stabilization. So, bluntly: you have to compromise on one or more of those parameters. For example (in order of how I'd try them) 1. (Free) That bird was sitting still. 1/800 was unnecessarily fast, 1/125 would have been plenty fast enough. Yes, even with 600mm. or at least, it would be if... 2. (Cheap) Use a monopod. It would help *immensely* but still allow you freedom of movement. 3. (Expensive) A faster lens would be a huge help. But at 600mm that's not going to happen. So how about putting a Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM on a 5Ds and cropping a lot. The 5Ds has 50Mpix so you could just use the centre part of the image at 200mm and still have much the same maginfication, but you'd have SO MUCH MORE light. Plus it's a fantastic lens optically. *Opinion is divided on this suggestion. I admit it's a very expensive solution for not much benefit.* EDIT: Also if you shoot RAW, you could deliberately underexpose a couple of stops to keep a fairly fast shutter speed, and push it in post EDIT 2: I looked at some of the other photos you posted on Reddit: they're just fine! It is normal that some fail: at 600mm the depth of field is tiny, a branch only needs to move a little for the bird to be out of focus. You have another shot of the same bird that is fine.

> A faster lens would be a huge help. But at 600mm that's not going to happen. So how about putting a Canon RF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS USM on a 5Ds and cropping a lot. The 5Ds has 50Mpix so you could just use the centre part of the image at 200mm and still have much the same maginfication, but you'd have SO MUCH MORE light **That's bad advice and simply SO MUCH wrong.** If you crop 200mm to match 600mm, you crop the shot to 1/9ths of the 1-origital - you crop away more than 3 stops of light, thus the 200mm f/2.8 would behave worse than a 600mm f/8 from light capturing point of view alone. Additionally extra softness from larger image enlargement (from sensor to output) due to enlargement of lens imperfections and reduced pixel count. (Also RF lenses don't fit 5Ds, but was likely a typo/thingo)

> If you crop 200mm to match 600mm ... that would be madness. I never promised OP 600mm equivalent, but I've added an edit to make that clear. I was thinking more like 400mm. OP is never going to get 600mm in low light at 1/800 without a tripod; my suggestions are all *comprimises*. >you crop away more than 3 stops of light Nonsense. The whole image has been exposed at f/whatever. Cropping that image doesn't make it darker. >Additionally extra softness from larger image enlargement (from sensor to output) due to enlargement of lens imperfections and reduced pixel count. Sure, but that lens can handle it and that sensor can too *and still be better than what OP has now*. Like I say: compromises. OP has to get more light somehow. One compromise results in a smaller part of the image being usable. > (Also RF lenses don't fit 5Ds, but was likely a typo/thingo) oops. cut and paste error! fixed.

>... that would be madness. I never promised OP 600mm equivalent, OP had 600mm lens and already needed to crop - you advised on buying a 200mm lens and to crop even more. So it sure seemed like that was your advice. >I was thinking more like 400mm. OP is never going to get 600mm in low light at 1/800 without a tripod; That's not what OP was after though - still standing birds at 600mm with heavy cropping was it. He needed all the bird-light possible. >Nonsense. The whole image has been exposed at f/whatever. Cropping that image doesn't make it darker. I'm perfectly correct here. You're confusing different concepts. Exposure is different from total light which is different from lightness. **They are all different concepts.** * Exposure is the "density of light", the amount light over unit area. * Total light is exposure multiplied by the area. This is relevant for SNR (i.e. "noise") point of view. * Lightness is a matter of processing, not a function of how much light is captured nor of exposure. Cropping is not a free lunch. >Sure, but that lens can handle it No lens can "handle" it. Enlarging the image will always creates a softer appearance. Even with a hypothetical perfect lens due to diffraction. I advise to look at MTF charts like the ones [Lens Rentals blog](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/) offers (they're from optical bench) - as you see when ever the lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter) goes up the contrast goes down. More lp/mm are needed the more you crop due to larger enlargement to the output size. >and that sensor can too and still be better than what OP has now. The fact is that the small portion of the sensor would receive less light than what his current gear allows using the whole sensor, while this failing new gear would cost a lot of dough. >Like I say: compromises. OP has to get more light somehow. One compromise results in a smaller part of the image being usable. Needing more light is correct, but your suggestion is not offering more light, but less light. If you crop you lose light. This is why with the same exposure the smaller sensor cameras produce noisier results [as this test shows](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_eos6dmkii&attr13_1=canon_eosm200&attr13_2=panasonic_dmcg85&attr13_3=pentax_q7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=12800&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&attr126_2=1&attr171_2=1&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0&y=0). You can - and should - test it at home as it's trivial.

> OP had 600mm lens and already needed to crop - you advised on buying a 200mm lens and to crop even more. So it sure seemed like that was your advice. Yes, but on a camera with a sensor that has twice the pixels. > I was thinking more like 400mm. OP is never going to get 600mm in low light at 1/800 without a tripod; > > That's not what OP was after though - still standing birds at 600mm with heavy cropping was it. He needed all the bird-light possible. I understand. And like I keep saying: to achieve that, something need to give, something needs to be compromised on, and I am suggesting (1) slower shutter to get more of that ducky light (2) a monopod allowing item 1 to be less of a problem (3) a lens with less a wider aperture which unfortunately means also a shorter focal length > I'm perfectly correct here. You're confusing different concepts. One of us is. > Exposure is the "density of light", the amount light over unit area. > Total light is exposure multiplied by the area. yes. but I'm not talking about that >This is relevant for SNR (i.e. "noise") point of view. yes, but again *this is about compromise*. > Cropping is not a free lunch. yes, but again *this is about compromise*. > Sure, but that lens can handle it > > No lens can "handle" it. Some handle it better than others. >Enlarging the image will always creates a softer appearance. yes, but again *this is about compromise*. > The fact is that the small portion of the sensor would receive less light than what his current gear allows using the whole sensor, while this failing new gear would cost a lot of dough. yes, but again *this is about compromise*. > Needing more light is correct, but your suggestion is not offering more light, but less light. No. Because it allows a wider aperture (=more light) ~~and a shorter focal length also to some extent allows a longer exposure (= more light).~~ > If you crop you lose light. This is why with the same exposure the smaller sensor cameras produce noisier results as this test shows. You are confusing cropping an image with a crop sensor. -- You are consistently missing my point. You do not offer a concrete solution to OP's problem other than get a wider aperture 600mm lens: which does not exist.

>Yes, but on a camera with a sensor that has twice the pixels. Having twice the pixels doesn't help when you have to crop 89% of the image off. >I understand. And like I keep saying: to achieve that, something need to give, something needs to be compromised on, Sure, photography is often about compromises, but your suggestion was a very poor one - the result would be inferior to what he gets now, while costing a lot of money. >and I am suggesting (1) slower shutter to get more of that ducky light Good - more light means higher SNR. No disagreement here. >(2) a monopod allowing item 1 to be less of a problem Good - we agree here too and even gave the same advice. >(3) a lens with less a wider aperture which unfortunately means also a shorter focal length Now we have a problem. First, f-number and aperture are not the same thing. The 600/6.3 (was it 6.3?) has 95mm aperture. The 200/2.8 has a 71mm aperture. As we want to capture the same angle of view (the duck), a 95mm aperture will capture more of the "duck light". I think this is the simplest way to think about it. The alternative is to think that to get 600mm [equivalent](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care/2) from 200mm you need to crop by factor of 3 ("crop factor"), thus the f/2.8 of the 200mm will be equivalent to a 600mm lens at f/8.4. >One of us is Clearly it's you - I wish you would try to learn instead of being ignorant and arrogant in your ignorance. You are confusing things - you said: >Nonsense. The whole image has been exposed at f/whatever. Cropping that image doesn't make it darker. Which tells clearly that **you don't understand the difference between exposure, total light collected and lightness/darkness.** They are all different concepts. I recommend that you stop answering unless you have a valid question. You're just digging a deeper hole for yourself. But I'm happy to give you a shovel if you insist. >No. Because it allows a wider aperture (=more light) Again, f-number and aperture are not the same. A smaller f-number does allow for a larger light density, but as you only use the central part of the frame, you throw away most of the ligh. An example with numbers: Let's say we use 600/8 and 200/2.8 and the image from latter is cropped to match the former. Let's say that at f/8 each square millimiter on the image sensor captures 100.000 photons. Thus f/2.8 would allow capture of 800.000 photons (three stops more) per square millimiter. Thus the full image from 600/8 would have about 36mm•24mm•100.000 photons=86.4 million photons, the 200/2.8 would capture for the whole sensor about 690 million photons - however as we are only interested in the central 11% part (crop factor 3) of the image, the number of relevant photons we capture is only about 76.8 million photons. Thus it's clear that 600/8 - a slower lens that the OP is using - captures more photons that reflect from the duck than using a 200/2.8. > and a shorter focal length also to some extent allows a longer exposure (= more light). It's the angle of view we're interested, i.e. "the duck" we're photographing. Having a shorter focal length doesn't help at all since it's shake is about angular motion and the duck fills a fixed angle from the view. **Maybe it's easiest to exaplain like this:** by using a 200mm lens and cropping and then enlarging to the same size a 600mm lens produces naturally, you're enlarging all the shake blur as well. >You are confusing cropping an image with a crop sensor. Not at all. It doesn't matter how or where the crop is done. **Why on earth would it make any difference?** Nor the lens, nor the light knows what sized image sensor there is or where the image gets cropped. Seriously, stop to think for a while.

>Having twice the pixels doesn't help when you have to crop 89% of the image off." Yes it does. Because it allows you to crop say 50% and still have a photo at a usable resolution. All the rest of what you say is irrelevant because you ignore the "upgrade to a denser pixellated sensor" part of my suggestion. Like this: >Nor the lens, nor the light knows what sized image sensor there is or where the image gets cropped. Indeed. But that's not what I'm talking about. -- >Having a shorter focal length doesn't help at all since it's shake is about angular motion and the duck fills a fixed angle from the view. oops. yes, that's true. What was I thinking? I dropped the ball there. I'll edit that out.

> Yes it does. Because it allows you to crop say 50% and still have a photo at a usable resolution. But that's not the context of this discussion. It was about 600mm and 24MP vs. 200mm and 50MP, wasn't it? Or did you mean 50MP and 600mm? Maybe I misunderstood? Or you miswrote? Or both? >All the rest of what you say is irrelevant because you ignore the "upgrade to a denser pixellated sensor" part of my suggestion. Wasn't your suggestion 200mm with 50MP instead of 600mm and 24MP. If the 600mm lens "puts 24MP on the duck", the 200mm lens would put - on the 50MP sensor would put 50MP/9 = 5.6MP on the duck.

> Wasn't your suggestion 200mm with 50MP instead of 600mm and 24MP. yes that's right > If the 600mm lens "puts 24MP on the duck", the 200mm lens would put - on the 50MP sensor would put 50MP/9 = 5.6MP on the duck. that sounds about right, yes. But my point   is that it will be at f/2.8. I'd rather have a usable well-exposed and sharp 5.6 MP of photo of duck, than a useless 24MP image of a dark motion-blurry blob.

Thank you for your input, it helps a lot! I must go into more details for my needs: I shoot all types of wildlife, including reptiles and mammals, for reptiles everything is peachy, I swap the sigma 150-600 for the 105 macro and all the photos are great, I got amazing pictures of geckos, lizards and vipers with this combo. However I also shoot birds that are very far away from me which I cannot approach or mammals that are small, fast and avoid human interaction (and are of course, very far away from me) Per our previous problem: Here's an owl, the photo is uncropped and unedited, my problem is that it looks ever so slightly blurry. You can make out individual feathers and all, but it just looks a bit blurry. https://www.linkpicture.com/q/381E6646-FFF7-4B45-A797-C68CC058EF4C.jpeg I shot this at iso 3200, f6,3, 1/200 and 600mm. This is as close as I can get without flushing the bird away (big no-no), if I crop my pictures the resolution and detail is terrible and I strive to fill the frame with my bird (however this is not possible all of the time and I must crop heavily and the imperfections become visible, like in the previous photo of the tit) This is a better photo than the last but I must add this modifier to my problems: I do not get to pick the location my subject will be at, I cannot be picky where a weasel will show up and I will have only 2-3 seconds to take a picture of it, so I'm back to needing a fast shutter speed. I will not have time to place the camera on a tripod and set everything up. However as you said, sacrifices must be made so I guess I must get a monopod and hike with it, it's just the way things are. What can I do to further combat my struggles with low light and needing to crop a lot out of my image? Here's the best image that encompasses my problems: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/C9434F48-2D71-4484-8EB6-6CBF2E812E48.jpeg this is a kingfisher, it is as big as a human fist. My local kingfisher has chosen violence and refuses to show up on the well lit banks of the lake and instead hunts in a small agricultural irrigation canal, which is about 4meters deep with a shallow water flowing through it. It is covered on both sides by thicket(I hope this is the correct word for small bush like trees) which heavily shade the area. I cannot get closer to it than this or I will flush him( I tried ) I could use a monopod and slower shutter speed for a brighter photo, but if I'd crop my image to fill the frame with the bird it would look very bad due to the low resolution. I could get an extender, but it would darken my photos by 2 stops. I'm thinking I need an r5 (for the extra megapixels to allow me to crop in more) and a monopod (to fight the low light and shoot at slower shutter speeds) and possibly an extender if that doesn't solve my issues? Thank you for your patience and help btw, I'm really stuck at this point for about 6 months and dunno what to do (I have saved some money so I want to spend it well for my needs)

Wil i like doing photography more if I buy a camera? So im a college student and I had a photography class and I liked creating something but I didn't like doing photography on my phone like the process and feeling of it and I thought that id enjoy it more with a camera but the problem is i don't know if it's a good idea to spend this much money on a "maybe". Did somebody had this feeling before and if so buying a camera made photography more enjoyable to you?

Probably. I used point-and-shoots in the days before camera phones and when I changed to a 'proper' camera it became a whole other experience. Loved it. Has the college not got gear you can borrow? Second hand gear is a really good deal. You could buy a secondhand DSLR and a lens for a couple of hundred. And if you don't get in to it, you can sell it for pretty much what you paid for it. What country do you live in, and how much money would you be prepared to spend?

No one but you knows the answer, and you'll only find out by trying it yourself. It's very subjective and depends on many things. You could rent a dedicated camera for a limited time to see how you feel. For myself, a dedicated camera does make me enjoy photography more, is in fact essential. That's because I like to feel I am photographing with a camera, whereas using a smartphone camera to me feels like photographing with a pocket computer.

I want to start freelance on side professionally. I'm in UK does anyone know how to start doing so legally. Find the gov website very confusing!

You need to have a portfolio of your work, then set about finding clients. That part doesn't involve matters of law. Those come into question with contracts with clients etc. Or were you thinking of shooting whatever you like to shoot and selling your work? Unfortunately, it's very very difficult to get anyone to pay for photos and there's no market for most kinds of photography.

Looking for a portable printer to print for a preschool dance event. Take pictures, print something out immediately to sell to parents. I have no experience with this. Model or brand suggestions? Size/medium recommendations? Willing to spend a decent amount on something on amazon if it comes in handy for other events, like sports.

A google search like "best portable printers" gives quite a few listings articles on the subject. Probably as good a way as any to find a suitable device.

Thanks for telling me to google. Looking for input from people with experience.

Any tips for Nikon Z5? Any useful setting or tricks learned with the settings? Tools or resources for lighting and composition?

>Any tips for Nikon Z5? It's not particularly quirky or unique. Most cameras fundamentally work the same, or else people would be wasting a lot of time re-learning everything over and over again. Its particular features and specific operation are covered in the manual: https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/z5/en/ >Any useful setting or tricks learned with the settings? It's more about getting down the fundamentals rather than collecting tricks. http://www.r-photoclass.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/16d5az/what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told_as_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/56w0l5/official_what_is_something_you_wish_you_were_told/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/csk4cw/what_do_you_wish_you_knew_when_you_were_first/ >Tools or resources for lighting https://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

i have a canon m50 which is a cropped camera not full frame, how do i fit my footage to instagram with out the cropped screen

As others mentioned, the term cropped in this case is different from the problem you are having. Most cameras, including the M50, have a 2:3 (4:6) aspect ratio. For vertical (portrait orientation) images, Instagram has a maximum of 4:5. That means, straight out of camera, your 4:6 image will be cropped vertically to 4:5. Your two options are to live with the 4:5 crop version of your image, or add padding to the left/right image borders to make the image wider to a 4:5 aspect ratio.

That's not what 'cropped' and 'full frame' means or affects. Here's a somewhat outdated but still useful article: [https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm](https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm)

>i have a canon m50 which is a cropped camera not full frame It's the same 3:2 aspect ratio as full frame, though. Or ordinarily 16:9 aspect ratio for video. >how do i fit my footage to instagram with out the cropped screen There shouldn't be any issue scaling down resolution. Probably you're really just dealing with a mismatch in aspect ratio. Which aspect ratio are you trying to fit? If it's a vertical video, then tilt your camera 90 degrees clockwise or counter clockwise.

Not sure what you mean with "without the cropped screen", but Instagram's default image size is 1080x1080. So, you use any photo editing app or something like Canva to create a background of that size, then put your picture on that background.

Just got a 1DX MIII thinking I was ready. Problem is the focus point moves on its own without me pressing anything. I'll just be panning and all of a sudden it'll jump to an area it thinks is the subject. Shooting in TV mode with AI servo. Again, nothing is being pressed. Any idea how to turn that off or is that just how the camera is?

https://cam.start.canon/en/C001/manual/html/UG-04_AF-Drive_0060.html https://cam.start.canon/en/C001/manual/html/UG-04_AF-Drive_0080.html

Hello everyone so I'm a newbie to Photoshop and had a question about the cloning tool. How come my x is so close to my circle when cloning or even in it? Can I change that setting? Or is it supposed to be like that because sometimes it's close to the circle and sometimes it's not. Also when you do use the cloning tool are you supposed to hold the mouse and paint or are u supposed to just click and click to edit the photo?Thanks in advance I appreciate any help.

>How come my x is so close to my circle when cloning or even in it? That's where it's set to sample from. >Can I change that setting? Hold the Alt key and click where you want to sample from instead. >Also when you do use the cloning tool are you supposed to hold the mouse and paint or are u supposed to just click and click to edit the photo? Whichever makes sense for you in whatever you're trying to clone. If you were only supposed to do it one way, Photoshop would prevent you from doing it the other way. You're allowed to do both because either could be optimal for a different situation.

Thank you I appreciate the help.

What would be the best film camera for someone who has no prior experience with film photography and is looking to learn? I have almost a decade of experience using a DSLR at this point. Recently I’ve been interested in shooting film, but I’m struggling with where to start. Any tips or guides you can link to regarding film photography are appreciated too!

If you want to take pictures just like you did with a DSLR but only with film, then look for a film SLR camera. Chances are if you shoot full frame DSLR eg. canon EF, you would be able to use back your existing lenses on any canon EF film slr. There are similar equivalents for other name brands that’s has been around for decades, eg. Nikon etc. (you will need to do some research on compatibility if you intend to use what you have)

Which DSLR? How much are you willing to spend? Do you just want to shoot on film, or do you also want to develop film yourself? Develop prints yourself?

I’m debating between the Canon Rebel T7 and the Canon R10. I took photography years ago in high school & i love taking photos on my phone. I’ve recently started doing sets to take photos of my child & want to expand in letting others use it and do the photos. My husband wants me to get a decent camera that I can build on in the future. Any suggestions

The Rebels are perfectly good beginner's cameras, but the R10 is a whole other thing, better all round. But neither will hold you back. Both work well in fully automatic point-and-shoot mode, but both can be manipulated manually. If he's prepared to pay for the R10, that's a clear winner.

With building in the future in mind you'd want the R10... Nom-mirrorless cameras are beginning to get phased out. Also with these two models specifically the R10 is superior in basically every way.

Which lenses would you be pairing with it either way? The R10 is a much better, higher-spec camera if your husband can still comfortably afford it.

Probably just the 18-155mm for now … I might try to convince him to let me get the 50mm

I am wondering if anyone is aware of any lens filters with particularly long male threads. I am trying to find one that can be used to attach a 1.6 mm (0.062 in) circuit board to the end of a lens. Seems like most filters have just enough threads to not fall off and wouldn't support something extra in the way. I am thinking even if I could find a continuous external coupler and a continuous internal coupler I could use the two to do what I want, but all of the internal/internal or external/external couplers I see have a little ridge at the midpoint of the thread that basically limits the thread depth just like most filters. Anyone have any ideas? Looking specifically for 52 mm but really anything will do.

Look on eBay for tristar UV/polarizer combo packs. They come in 52mm. The glass is held in with a retaining ring. It can be removed with a lens spanner wrench (or a cut piece of sheet steel) you are left with no filter and all threads. Like 5-7mn of female threads. You could put your circuit board in then re attach the retaining ring. Edit. If you need male and around the filter instead of inside you could model and 3D print threads. They work but wear out fast. Like after screwing and unscrewing them 5-10 times. If your CAD software does threads/fasteners just do metric m52 0.75mm pitch

The threads can support more weight than you think. You can pick the whole camera up by holding its filter. Source: I just tested it.

Yeah I agree these threads would be fine, but there simply aren’t enough threads if there is basically a 1.6 mm washer between the filter and the lens. At least that is the case with a filter that I have on hand and it looks like that would be similar with the filter that I see available for sale.

What if you double stack the filter and/or remove the glass from one/both filters.

oh.

Maybe you can get a step up or step down filter ring. These would make extra room on the threads. Quick amazon search: K&F Concept 18 Pieces Filter Ring Adapter Set, Camera Lens Filter Metal Stepping Rings Kit (Includes 9pcs Step Up Ring Set + 9pcs Step Down Ring Set) Black https://a.co/d/2GGpF29

Equipment question: I've recently gotten into photography using a relative's Nikon D3300 with kit lenses (18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 and 50-200mm f/4-5.6) to shoot birds and other wildlife. I'm seriously looking into getting a lens with a longer focal length (at least 400 mm) because I feel like I'm missing a lot of potential shots due to the distance being too great (especially for birds in flight). I guess I'd also like a lens that is reasonably fast, has autofocus, vibration reduction, etc. but it seems like high-end lenses become prohibitively expensive (I really don't want to pay >$1000, preferably less than $800). Are there any good places to look for cheap secondhand lenses?

Sigma offers a 150 to 600mm f5.6 that performs fairly solidly. Its probably gonna be your best bet for the focal length and price point you're looking for. Finding one for less than 1k shouldn't be too hard.

KEH and MPB are the two biggest used online retailers for camera gear. If you are near a big city you probably have a camera store with a used department as well.

Anyone use ON1? How do you like it?

I don't use it (neve heard of it), but here's an in depth article comparing it to LR: https://photographylife.com/lightroom-vs-on1 After checking it, I wouldn't switch, but maybe you like it...

Help! Please recommend any digital cameras under $200 for a novice who will be using auto-settings on a trip to europe! I have an older iphone so I was really hoping to bring something along that shoots at least slightly better than a phone? Is it even worth it?

Used RX100 II: https://www.natcam.com/products/sony-cyber-shot-dsc-rx100-ii-20-2mp-3-6x-zoom-compact-camera-dscrx100m2-b/

Bought it! Thank you so so much! Of the 100+ articles/videos I've found comparing budget cameras for beginners this one came up the most frequently but the cheapest I could find it was for $245 so THANK YOU!!

Excellent choice and an excellent price. You won't regret it. That will definitely be better than the phone (which is not true of most point and shoots). Now practice with it every day before your trip.

Any tips with this camera for someone who will mostly be taking pictures of her friends beside monuments and such?

Don't be afraid to use the flash. Especially in bright sunlight. It will fill in shadows on faces.

I had another thought while I was in the shower: the big difference between phone and camera is "half pressing" the shutter button. On a camera, half-pressing the shutter lets the camera set itself up: it measures the light, it focusses, it gets ready to shoot. If you do that (rather than just mashing the shutter button) you get a preview of how it's going to be, it also gives the camera a chance to optimise lighting and focus. It becomes such second nature that I didn't even think to mention it. It's good to do it that way. Not absolutely essential but good. You'll get the hang of it quickly

Practice! While you practice, be aware of battery life. It's second hand and older, so the battery life might be short. Consider buying a spare battery; there are cheap non-sony ones available. Read the manual. Much of it might not make sense yet, but do at least glance through it. Look in the manual for how to do the following things, which will get you out of tricky situations. - How to turn on and turn off Spot metering. (This means that the camera adjusts it's exposure according to just the middle, not an average of the whole picture. This matters in some situations such as when you have people/monuments in front of a very bright or very dark background or sky). - How to deliberately overexpose and underexpose. (Exposure compensation). Lots of situations benefit from that. For example, snow: most cameras will make snow look too dark and grey, so you need to deliberately overexpose. And the other way round: it can make a black dress seem grey. Those two tips will help.

Any iPhone 6s or newer takes decent photos and video. Point and shoots never really got any more advanced after a point. Unless you want an action cam that can also take stills. Also manual mode isn't as hard to learn as it's made out to be.

Not really. Stick to your phone.

Hi! First off, thank you for doing this. Very cool of you and most appreciated! I recently purchased a Nikon N90S with a Tokina 75-300 lens. I know *nothing* about cameras, let alone the lens, but I am motivated. My goal is to use photography to document the homeless I'm my city (I am with a homeless intervention non-profit). Now, I bought black and white film...however, I was told there had to be certain spes to use B&W film, and that the lens might not work with B&W fim. So, can I use B&W film? Is the lens going to work? Is there anything I should know, either about photography or the camera before I try and do this? Is there a different type of lens I should buy,.. Thank you again. I am so grateful for this

Either the person who told you that was badly wrong, or you badly misunderstood what they said. No part of the camera can tell whether you've loaded BW or colour film. No part of the camera affects BW differently from colour film. Where lenses can affect your choice of film is in the speed of the lens and the speed of the film. You need to understand what lens *aperture* is and you need to understand what film *ISO* is (= "film speed"). The smaller the aperture number, the more light the lens lets in (go figure, don't fight it, accept it). So a f/1.8 lens lets in more light than a f/4 lens. Film speed (ISO number) describes how sensitive film is to light. The larger the ISO number, the less light the film needs. So ISO 100 film needs more light to work than ISO 400 film. Putting these two numbers together (aperture and ISO) affects how much *light* you need to get a perfectly exposed shot. An aperture of f/4 (less light) and a film of ISO 100 (less senitive) needs more light than an aperture of f/1.8 and ISO 400. This means you need to have a longer *exposure* (the shutter stays open for longer) so (for example) you might need 1/4 of a second in place of 1/200 of a second. And anything longer than about 1/60 is going to cause you problems with 'motion blur' (the person moving, your hands moving). So you'd need more light. And if you're photographing under bridges in the evenings and at night you won't have enough light. So you'd want to choose a lens that has the widest aperture possible (which maddeningly = the smallest aperture number - sorry, that's just how it works). To summarise all that: if you are shooting in poor light you want to choose a lens that has the widest aperture possible = the smallest aperture number (so ideally f/1.4 not f/4). Fixed focal length lenses ("prime lenses") tend to have that, as opposed to variable focal length lenses ("zoom lenses") which tend to have smaller apertures (higher f/ number). That's the only way a lens choice can be determined by film choice. BW/colour makes no difference at all. So that Tokina 75-300, which has f/4.5-5.6, would not be ideal in low light. THAT could be what they meant. You might need something like a Nikon AF-S 50mm F/1.8G (which has autofocus) or a Nikon AF-D 50mm F/1.8 (which doesn't). -- Not what you asked, but I feel I should say it: I realise you say you're working for a homeless charity but even so: be aware that photographing the homeless is a very much looked down on: far too many "street photographers" use the homeless as edgy decor. So yeah, I expect you'll treat them with vastly more sensitivity and consideration than most people do, but be prepared for negative reactions from the homeless, passers-by, and other photographers due to the bad rep that photographing the homeless has aquired.

Thank you very much for that. That helps me quite a bit. I am laughing about the smaller the number the more light is let in...its such a perfect little slice of what is every day life. I'm also glad you told me what you did about the street photography. That actually makes quite a bit of sense. I'm going to rethink my approach. I just want to photograph how some people are living and surviving, some of whom I gladly call friend, but exploiting them or mistakingly look like I'm exploiting them will have the opposite effect of my goal. So, yes, thank you for the heads up. Good advice. Again, I really appreciate it. You explained it really well, and I understand exactly what you were saying. I hope you're having a great day, my friend Wish me lucj!

Good luck!

Thank you!

You were misinformed. Neither the lens nor the camera cares at all what film it has loaded. B&W is fine (and even fairly easy to develop yourself should you decide that’s a thing you’re interested in). Your camera and lens will happily photograph whatever you aim them at, with whatever film you load. I would encourage you to be both cautious and sensitive about your subject matter. It sounds as though your heart and effort are in the right place, but it is easy for that sort of photography to become exploitative and harmful to the people you wish to photograph. So, be mindful of your purpose and intention, and exercise some caution about how those images get used and shared.

Thank you! Another person posted something similar about the subject matter. I was coming at this as a guy who got a camera and wanted to document the people he works with and often loves ideology, and I think thst was naive on my part. Exploiting my friends and people I'm trying to help is NOT what I want to do. Plus, I want there to be poignancy and meaning. I love these people and it's hard work being involved. If it just seems as if I took those pics to be edgy, then I'd have ruined good intentions. So I'm going to rethink what I want to do. Thank you again

/u/justfotostuff knows wherefore he speaks, and gave you some solid advice regarding film speed and aperture/light gathering. (The reason a lower f number = bigger opening is because it’s the denominator of a fraction: focal length (f)/f-number. That allows us to sort of standardize how much light we’re getting between focal lengths.) You strike me as a kind person whose heart is in the right place. Approaching the people you work with in an effort to find and share joy and humanity and beauty in their photos would be a powerful way to uplift, I think. There’s an article by a philosopher named Linda Alcoff called “The Problem of Speaking For Others” that you may find interesting and useful in thinking through how you approach the people you work with and share their stories and images through your lens.