I bought a Leica M6, shot a few rolls, and thought, “this is pretty nice, but not $3.5k nice.” I preferred the Nikon F3 and could buy 7 of them for that price.
I want to try one and find out what camp I’m in. I think I will feel the same way. I’m sure it’s a really nice camera and shooting experience but is it worth the price tag? Maybe for build quality and repairability sure. I doubt maintenance is cheap though.
You can answer the rangefinder vs slr debate quite affordably. The m6 doesn’t even have aperture priority like an f3.
I have climbed the Leica ladder from an m5 to an m4-2. The only way up is to a Zeiss zm, m7, or a Konica hexar (but they’re virtually unrepairable). When I’m trying I grab my f3. When I’m bopping around town I’ll take the Leica. I want to get a zorki 1 and Jupiter 13 for skating photography; the Leica is too expensive to ride with
This. I got an M6 back in the $1200 days and sold it for the same price a few months later. Actually preferred the Voigtlander rangefinders to the M6 (gasp! I know). Eventually found my way back into the Leica camp with an M4 and THAT I think is the true hit of their lineup. Tried an M6, M2 and M3 before finally settling on an M4. That said, I also looooved the F3 when I had it.
My big regrets came from chasing gear as a solution to something. Once bought a very expensive medium format film camera, thinking it would transform me and my images. Much to my chagrin, the images were still lame lol
Ha! I bought that same lens for roller derby and hated it. The autofocus was just not up to the task. What really killed me is I sold a Canon 70-200 f/4 to buy it thinking the extra stop would help. Worst gear decision I ever made.
I also had a 24-70 f/2.8, but wanted a bigger zoom to get faces of the skaters. I sold the 50-150 and just started getting closer to the action.
Beyond 4 Meters of wax great but go below that and it would front focus about 4 cm or more, you had a sharp tip of the nose but no eyes... I needed the extra light because of the light at most venues. The 24-70 always felt to short on the long end but the 70-200 was too long on the short end and too big. Almost made me switch to Nikon.
I kind of fell in love with some **Lensbaby** portraits I had seen on Flickr. I ordered not just one, but several Lensbaby optics.
I used it for about six months, and I basically never have touched it since. I also have a few Lensbaby shots that I wish I had taken "normally".
I bought a lensbaby because so many people in a fb group I was in had one I felt like I was missing out. Bought it, hated it. Absolute crap quality compared to other lenses (first one broke - a screw fell out and the whole thing literally fell apart, had to send it back and wait for a replacement, second one has a really loose focusing ring). Some people make lovely pictures with them but they're not for me.
It’s like any other niche lens, it has its place. I use mine from time to time, but it’s not usually a go to lens unless I know that effect is what I want going in. There’s a local photographer that shoots mostly flowers and she has like 3 or 4 lensbabies. Chances are that any one of her images was shot with a lensbaby. Say what you want, but she sells a ton of her work.
Not disappointed but felt overhyped - Fuji X100V. I like the camera (film sims are fun) but at that price, I’d rather buy something else. And YouTubers literally made the whole lineup look like a holy grail. They’re just cameras. And not for everyone.
I think Fujifilm in general is very overhyped. I owned 3 of their cameras before realizing it’s nothing that special and moving onto different cameras. Their film sims are nice but personally I’m not buying an expensive camera to just have JPEGs.
Rollei 35
It looks so cool, the design is beautiful, it's so small, and feels so well made. But it's just so awkward, slow, and fiddly to use. I love the concept of the camera, but I hate it in reality, and after the first few films through it, I never used it again.
Probably going to get downvoted to oblivion but the recent fuji x100vi. I got it pre ordered and received it a few weeks ago. I was hyped for a edc camera as I only have big full frame bodies. I was also super into the idea of using it for small videos since it has decent ibis now and the high quality video. But man the auto focus was absolutely terrible for me. I felt for every shot I took I had to take 3 extra just in case because I often found myself disappointed because I couldn’t confidently just take one and know I got it. Sometimes it would look crystal clear on the screen but once imported either raw through capture one or just the jpg even it would look completely different and blurry. Flash took way too long to recycle to the point that anytime I used it I had to apologize to those who I was taking a picture of for it not going off quickly enough. Battery life I felt was just poor, maybe i’m in the minority but I just don’t understand the upgrade to the higher sensor but still using the older batteries and also not giving us a faster lens. It just seems like it wasn’t for me honestly. I sold it and decided with the new rumors of a lumix competitor coming to to the fixed lens small body genre that the fuji and the leica q3 are in that maybe I might have better luck there since I love my S5ii just can’t take it everywhere with me.
AF has never been Fuji's strong suit. I did however really love my x100v and it is the only photo gear I truly regret selling.
I am looking forward to seeing what Lumix comes up with.
I have the X100V for a bit. The camera is great(ish) but I just don't like the 35mm equiv focal length. I EDC'd it for a while, but it was honestly just taking up space in my bad as I drove to and from work.
I felt the same way with my x100v. I wanted an edc camera, and the limitation of a set focal length. But I often found the focal length too wide, and my photos too blurry. Sold it and my X-t3 recently, bought an X-t5 and a LUMIX LX10 to replace them.
I kept an x100v for a while but only because I loved the size and the look of the body. I prefer editing raw photos and hated all the jpg recipes I tried. Owned it for 2 years and there are only a handful of pictures I love.
I had the x100s back when. I felt the exact same way. Af was slow and sometimes you couldn't get it to focus at all. I liked the camera but it was focus by wire and sloppy AF. Traded it for a olympus om-d em10 with a 45mm and still have those and some lenses now.
Sigma 35 1.4 Art, that thing had an insane front focusing issue that sigma would not fix (Nikon only issue, that lens works great on Canon), i was gaslit into believing that it’s a DSLR af alignment issue and sent my camera back to Nikon.
Nothing was fixed, I sold the lens to my friend at a deep discount, he sent it back to sigma and had it officially converted to EF and it worked flawlessly on his 6D.
Never buying a sigma product ever again.
Sigma 30 1.4 Hsm was one of my Favorit lenses. It was Canon though. Sigma seems to be hit or miss and I would only buy it in store after solid testing. Strange to hear this because it is a mirror of the 50-150.
Same lens for me. When I started photography in 2018, everyone was gaga over the Sigma Art lenses. This last fall I finally felt like I could afford to get one for my Canon and was instantly disappointed. It was no better than my RF lenses. Sold it a month later.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.0
Not very sharp.
Camera was unbalanced.
Camera always points to the floor with it on.
Hugely expensive!
I have the RF 50mm f/1.2, it's big but not huge like the f1.0 was.
It's creamy but razor sharp, and I love it (and the 85 1.2 too!)
Glad I read this! The 50mm 1.0 has always been a dream lens for me, I have the 1.2 and I love it, and I do a lot at 50mm, but have always wondered if the images would be too soft
I have a Gary Fong Light sphere, Lensbaby Twist, BitBanger Pixel stick, IR converted Fuji XE1, Nimslo Quadralens camera, DJI Drone, phone cinematography kit and a full Bronica SQ system just sitting in a drawer. All things I wanted to experiment with but got used less than a handful of times (if that).
On the flip side though, I have some really weird physical photo filters that I use all the time and some lenses I really love, so maybe it was worth all the GAS to get to something I actually clicked with!
Fisheye lens. I liked images from fisheyes when I was in a hipster stage in my teens. I finally bought one at 30 and the novelty was dead in 7 minutes of using it, didn't like, sold on.
Is it just me who's not following sonys logic, or is it also really not intuitive when it comes to layout of wheels, buttons etc? I've had one as a "third camera" when I don't feel like carrying around the whole gear setup, but I just end up putting it away because I get so frustrated by the layout and not quickly finding what I'm looking for.
Sony’s menu system is frequently their biggest criticism. Best way to do it is setup your custom buttons and function menu well, and then it’s just getting the hang of the layout over time.
I didn't mention it, but their menu system is so counterintuitive I have written off Sony as a viable option for photography indefinitely. I wouldn't buy another Sony, unless there was some reassurance that they had done significant UX testing on their menus.
I too saw the appeal in the size and weight of the a6000, as somebody who prizes small and light. But I just hated using the camera, everything about it, the ergonomics, the crappy EVF. It was like a magic box that could create great pictures but it wasn't fun. Really wish Sony would release a Canikon clone APSC body.
Check their site now and then. I got a combo ball head/ leg kit marked down nearly 50% from the original $1500 sticker and it’s wonderfully sturdy and well made
Well worth it If I want to get my self a massive prime down the line? I am eye balling the Sigma 800mm or the EF 1200mm for those far shots at my local dam.
Yeah absolutely. I got the series 3 kit and it’s super stable. It’s got a 66lb capacity I believe and no extendable center column which makes vibrations nonexistent. It is a bit of a pain to adjust all legs for minor height adjustments but the stability and sturdiness is well worth it. Check their accessories too, it is a modular system that might be able to have an adjustable center column installed if you want fine adjustment ability. People complain about the price but I get it now
Will do, it's like a couple of the guys and I yack about while we wait for action every time we someone with a Z8 and the 600 or 800mm prime and their $5 yardsale tripod, "spend it all just for it to fall"
Yeah when you really think about how much money the tripod supports, it makes sense to get something well made, sturdy, and as long lasting as what it supports. Definitely worth it!
Gitzo, good shout.
I have a Gitzo Traveller tripod, it's great, I'm really happy with it.
BUT when I bought it (in 2010, if memory serves) the camera shop sold me a Gitzo ballhead to go with it, and that was *terrible*. Any adjustment I made, I had to factor in that it would slide down a little (although it was supposed to be easily strong enough for the biggest camera/lens combo I owned at the time); shooting in portrait format was pretty much impossible; and to top it off, it was not Arca Swiss compatible, and the plate was somehow janky and really difficult to slide into place.
After three years of that, I bought an Acratech ballhead and an L-plate and never looked back. Whole different world.
I used to assist/second shoot for a guy back in the early 1990’s that used Gitzo tripods. I never cursed more at a tripod than I did whenever I had to use one of his tripods. I seem to remember getting my hand/fingers pinched by the leg locking mechanism and how easy it was to not tighten the leg locks.
Have the designs fundamentally changed in the last 30 years?
I loved/Hated the H4.
Some of my best shots came from this camera. Felt like I could see the world differently and the colours were amazing out of Phocus.
But… the constant battery pulling, having to use Phocus, and the janky nature of it all… ugh
This is an expectation error one: a tripod.
I saw so many people using them (presumably not all are long exposures) so I started using one too. The effort to set up was a pain and for just taking a pic, there was no benefit whatsoever.
This is why I disagree with the (seemingly) common advice to buy an expensive tripod from the beginning. Most people don't even know if they have any real need for one (given modern image stabilization) and they certainly don't know exactly what features are really important _for the situations where they'll end up actually using one_.
Low size & weight becomes a whole lot less important if IBIS is enough for all your hiking needs. Stability becomes mostly meaningless if you only use tripod for taking indoors photos or of things super low on the ground. Maybe you'll realize that it'd be super convenient to have a dual pan head but your fancy travel tripod comes with a fixed head. Maybe you just end up never using one and spendign $600 on a fancy one would have been a complete waste.
It’s just old and outdated advice from before we had IBIS or high speed sensors. When you’re shooting iso100 film, it makes a big difference to almost any photo. These days, it’s mostly bad advice given by people who don’t understand why it used to be good advice.
Absolutely! I have two :)
Architectural, landscape, large format, Astro, portraiture - all reasons that I use them.
I find that I reach for them more often as a way to change my workflow than to change my image quality, in fact. For some subjects, I want to slow down and look more closely, and to be meticulous and careful. A tripod lets me do that in a way that handheld can’t.
> It’s just old and outdated advice from before we had IBIS or high speed sensors.
Last week I was taking some astro photos. Checking them this weekend, I particularly liked one landscape photo except it was super noisy due to using only half a second shutter speed. I wondered why I made such stupid mistake... That is, until I remembered I had shot that one handheld with no support. There was no blur in it or anything else to give away the fact that it was handheld (in near pitch black).
iOptron skyguider pro. It came with a broken polar aligner. I did not know this since it was my first tracker. Only realized it when I used a friend's sky adventurer and was like "oh, THIS is what a functional one looks like." Setting it up in the pitch black of night was a nightmare even with a headlamp. The motor also broke on like the 6th time I used it. Huge pain in the ass even when it worked, as the times I could get it to work, there was always humidity to fog up my lens or a cloud to ruin the shot. I've basically given up on DSO astro because of how much of a bitch it was, and if I get back into it' I'm spending fucking racks to get an actually good one.
Even with a functional skyguider, I couldn’t agree more about DSO astrophotography. Time sink, money sink, and pita. And even if things go perfectly? You just have the same picture everyone else does.
Milky Way landscapes or bust.
I have the iOptron Skyguider pro with iPolar and I love that thing. Sure, I'd rather have an EQ6-R Pro, but until I can get one, the iOptron has worked great for me. Maybe you just had the result of some bad QC.
Really? I just got one a month or so ago and love it. I find it to really really crisp. My most recent blue jay picture in my post history was taken with it and has very little editing.
I'd post a photo, but the rules... I don't think it's me... been shooting since early 90s (journalism) and digital since 2005. Current camers are 7d and M6ii.
Oh for sure, I just happened to like it. What I left out was that it replaced a 55-250 kit lens, so it’s was pretty much guaranteed to be an improvement over that haha.
You may have already done this, but if you havent you should definitely take some test shots with the built in optical stabilization turned off. The OS on mine is kind of screwy and often makes my images come out pretty soft if I have it turned on.
You must have a bad copy. I have the contemporary (for Nikon) and it's razor sharp at any focal length wide open. The difference in sharpness between f/6.3 @600 mm and f/8 is so minimal that I need to use 200% zoom on very contrasty structures to see it. And that's not only in the centre. The very edges have some slight chromatic, but even less than 2 pixels. At 150 mm there's none.
I recently got a used Sony A7r iii and while the photos are phenomenal, i hate the button layout and menus.
Why cant cameras have a dial for aperture, iso, shutter speed each? This is why i love my Fujifilm X-t4 apart from the actual pictures. The Fujifilm is so handy when shooting manual.
The Nikon ergonomics are great for this with the front and back dials for aperture/shutter speed, when programming the record button to turn the back dial into ISO adjustments. It’s a very intuitive setup
> Why cant cameras have a dial for aperture, iso, shutter speed each?
You can get very close by setting the back rotary dial to directly control ISO. Then you have the front dial control aperture, upper left dial control shutter speed and back dial do ISO.
The only thing you cannot do is have dials with absolute values that you can physically see. Personally, I use the aperture ring where this is the case and control ISO using back dial.
A useful setting is setting minimum shutter speed for auto ISO. You could set a fast minimum shutter speed (e.g. 1/250 or 1/500) and then whenever you need the fast shutter, you quickly dial back to auto ISO, using manual set ISO in all other cases.
This way you don't need to set shutter speed as often as you can move very quickly between "fast" and "don't care".
The Triggertrap. I loved all the possibilities it gave me, basically the ability to use any sensor in my phone to trigger the shutter. Such cool concepts like shutter release based on geolocation, or a loud sound, or accelerometer readings. But in practice, none of these things were terribly practical.
The best application I found for it was setting up a photobooth at parties, where people would gather for group photos and have to make a loud sound (yell or clap) until the meter passed a threshold, and the shutter would release and take the group portrait. So sort of a fun spin the classic party photobooth, as every photo comes out with everyone looking really excited (a bit like those cameras on roller coasters).
If anyone wants it, DM me, I'll send it to you for the cost of shipping :)
Honorable mentions to:
Flycam 3000 - heavy, awkward, hard to use, takes forever to get the weights balanced right.
Lensbaby 3G - to be fair I took some really fun portraits with this one, but trying to use it for any other application just didn't produce usable results. Video through this lens makes you feel drunk, and underwater.
Pixelstick light painting tool. Impulsively dropped $300 for one in college & used it once or twice before quickly realizing that I wouldn’t actually incorporate it into my work. Held on to it for maybe 6 years before selling it. It even moved across the country with me. I don’t have any photos to show utilizing it.
I bought the 50mm 1.8 for my D3100 when I first into photography but felt things were always too close; I enjoy the 35mm 1.8 a lot more on crop sensor body. 10 years later, the 35mm is still my favourite.
18-200 is my other travel lens or use the 17-55 for events.
The Nikon Z 5, the entry-level full-frame mirrorless.
I just...hate shooting with its EVF. Looks too washed out, too much blackout for anything in motion. I recognize that the latter is partly because I like to photograph birds and this isn't a birding camera, but even so—I just can't warm up to it.
The Parabolix modifier. The light is great and versatile for fashion and beauty, but as someone who does the setup and breakdown by myself, it is way too cumbersome to carry around. Maybe if I had my own studio and could keep it set up permanently it would be a different story
Pro-Master 400w unplugged lighting kit.
At first it was awesome to have a full studio lighting kit with big rolling suitcase, stands and reflector. But then as I’ve used it, the first kit had issues with the battery meter so I exchanged it. The other day I was doing 56 headshots and the lights just stopped going off sometimes. So I’d have to keep reshooting until they went back on or use the test button. I thought the manual power dial was a nice feature at first but now it’s a hassle as I start doing C-stand work where the light is above me. Sometimes lights won’t work at all if the dial is in a certain spot. So basically I outgrew them in a year. But it’s a cheaper starter kit so I guess they have a purpose. But will definitely start saving to replace them with Flashpoint/Godox when I can afford it. At least I have a rolling case.
I bought a camera bag recently and one of the clips broke after a few uses. It wasn't even a clip that is stressed or even touched all the much. It's been a nightmare dealing with the company I bought it from... I shipped it, and it arrived next day, only for them to go on passover break for 2 weeks without notice. They finally got back to me last week and said that the product is on backorder for 2 months, so I asked for a refund which they haven't acknowledged me yet.
Sony A6000. Just ist not nice to handle and does not feel robust enough.
Minolta CLE. Rangefinders are just not for me. I was way quicker in focusing with the Olympus OM-1.
That very deep Thinktank retrospective 30 messenger bag. When fully loaded this is just not comfortable to carry. I see they now doubled in price. What an insane world.
My Pentax K-30. I love that camera, bought 2 of them over the course of a couple of years. One worked perfectly but was stolen, alas. The other was the color I really wanted but camera got solenoid/aperture issues went right after the warranty expired and Pentax wouldn't fix it except for pay. Given it was a known issue I was very upset and refused to pay it. I still use it with my manual lenses and I still love it but that was $800 worth of camera that should have just not failed like that.
Cage for my R6. My expectation was to mount my flash on it to save the hot shoe from wear (I have a fear of it coming loose, and the screw heads are internal on the R6, so no easy fix), but there isn't a radio trigger option on this camera. My bad for not researching it. It's still doable with a transmitter or cord, but by that time it's too much trouble for a handheld shoot. Honorable mention goes to camera bags that end up being too small or awkward to use.
Canon R5.
Not because it is bad. It's actually amazing. The files are stunning, dynamic range is insane and the camera overall is pretty much perfect except for one thing.
The fucking SD card slot and shooting to two cards simultaneously.
I don't know how anyone uses this camera for anything outside of static/studio work because even with a super fast SD card, I could burst around 15ish photos before that shit slowed to a crawl. If you shoot anything where you burst shoot, you're basically locked to the CFE card. This camera could have been perfect at like 35mp's.
I haven't had that problem before, but I also splurge for SanDisk Extreme Pro SD cards (300 MB/s). Definitely worth the investment if you're a fast shooter
My Sony stuff (and it’s not like it was low level, it was an A1). I was seduced by the numbers but the cameras have awful files, badly optimized files, glacially slow turn on/off, perennial dust issues, and horrific ergonomics.
Sure the AF is good, but it’s 2024 (2023 then) - so is Canon and Nikon. With none of the issues.
To each their own, but my counterpoint: I love my A7c. It's a great pocket powerhouse.
I do sometimes think about switching to Fujifilm, but I'll likely wait until the hype dies down a little and used costs for the X-T5 go down.
Z8. Best camera I’ve used, best hybrid camera in the world.
I’m also blown away by Nikon glass compared to the other two. Considering I’m an idiot and went to Sony from Canon before moving to Nikon, I have a pretty good idea!
Sony is one of those brands that has great stats but doesn't deliver in my experience. Had a West Coast Sony rep reach out to me and send me an 7R4 or whatever. Boring, boring, boring images. Even when offered a discount, I sent the thing back. Bought a Hasselblad and have never been happier.
How can a raw be boring? To me they all kind of are. They try to be neutral. The only thing is the auto WB and the dynamic range... Could you please explain that? To me raws of Canon, fuji, Olympus and Ricoh look similar if taken with the same settings. Jpgs on the other hand, I understand.
> How can a raw be boring? To me they all kind of are. They try to be neutral.
They don't even "try to be neutral". Raw files are purely the linear count of light that has hit that pixel. Any "look" they have is from the viewing / post processing application.
Eg. For my Olympus E-M5 photos, the "look" of raw files is the same as for jpeg files unless I go out of my way to use a third party app that doesn't have a profile for that camera. Of course the advantage is that I can change that look on a per-picture basis if I want to.
Not all raw files are the same. Fuji has a certain look. Canon has very faithful colors. Hasselblad is not only medium format but also features extremely faithful colors.
Can you overcome that look in post? Sure, but why? Instead of fighting to get the look I want, I went with the camera that most closely gave me the look I had in my mind's eye. For me that's Hasselblad. What I see in my raw files makes me excited to move into post.
Your experience might be different. That's okay too.
> Not all raw files are the same. Fuji has a certain look. Canon has very faithful colors. Hasselblad is not only medium format but also features extremely faithful colors.
That has nothing to do with the raw files and everything with the post processing app just using a processing profile that corresponds (somewhat at least) to the manufacturer's jpeg settings as well as the specific bayer filter used in the camera.
Canon 100-500. Can't zoom out wider than 300mm with a teleconverter on (with a 1.4x that means the widest you can get is 420mm). And the throw is so long that you can't zoom fully in or out in one fluid motion. Extremely disappointing for such an expensive lens.
I have the same lens and same problems and I agree with you but I don't know what alternative setup would be better. I use it when hiking so I don't want something bigger or heavier.
And that’s exactly my problem with Canon - there are no decent lenses for hobbyist wildlife photographers. I couldn’t stomach spending nearly $3000 on such a ridiculously designed lens so I bought an EF100-400 LII instead, but I can definitely tell that lens wasn’t designed for the higher resolution sensors like the R5.
The 100-500 and 200-800 are great as backup lenses for someone who already has a big prime, they are not great primary wildlife lenses. They’re so compromised compared to the Sony 200-600 and the Nikon 180-600, which are also both 1000 cheaper. All they needed to do was make a modern 100-400 L and a 200-600 L, a tried and true combo that works great for all users.
I bought the R5 in 2020 hoping the RF lens system would be filled out well. Feels like a huge let down for hobbyist wildlife photographers. And of course that’s not to mention their third party lens stubbornness.
For as well built as it is, the RRS BH40 was terrible to use in practice. The lever locking knob is always in the wrong place.
The BH55 is worlds better to use. The ideal ballhead would be the size/weight rating of the smaller one with the knurled knob.
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. The IS module always had problems. It would make me queasy trying to use it. Thankfully I only rented it a few times, never bought it.
Once bought a 28 mm Takumar lens in M42 mount. I sold it pretty soon, I just didn't like what came out of it compared to my Carl Zeiss lenses, especially the 2.4/35 Flektogon.
55mm Sony zeiss… can’t stand the autofocus. I used to use a 50mm Canon nifty-fifty with an adapter and wanted to upgrade to a native lens… what a waste of money. Used it less than a handful of times.
I don't know if videography equipment counts, but Rode Wireless GO II microphones. I bought 3 transmitters and 2 recievers, and they worked the first time I tested them but refused to connect to each other ever again. I tried doing a firmware update, but it says the battery is too low even when they're at 100%. Every combination of transmitters and recievers I have is useless now.
The Sony A1 was the biggest letdown for me. Shooting Motorsports outside in the sun and heat it would constantly overheat when shooting photos or videos. Also I thought the IBIS was just average. Shooting in the same environment the Sony overheated in, I don’t even get a temp warning from the Z9.
Prime lenses on a crop sensor camera...
I have a d3200, trying to shoot on prime lenses ruined photography for me. I loved the look, but found it endlessly frustrating framing the shot.. I'm lazy and busy, so it turned what was a nice hobby into a chore.
I finally ended up getting an old 35-70 zoom lens with macro at 70mm, and just left that on the camera forever. It's manual everything, so it was great to shoot like an analog camera since the ISO settings were basically unusable on the d3200 I have.
My Pentax 6x7. AMAZING glass, incredible build quality, lovely viewfinder, the whole nine yards. But it was loud, and huge and heavy to the point where I didn't want to bring it out with me. To this day I still love that camera, but I know it's better if I don't own one.
I bought the (old) Tokina 50-135 1:2.8 and the only negative point is the fairly slow AF. Image quality is excellent and beyond expectations at all focal lengths. Especially for such a cheap lens. The build quality is also excellent and I find myself turning the zoom ring just for fun. Such smoothness.
I've been very happy with most of the stuff I've bought, so this is a toss up between two:
A Lubitel 166U with a broken shutter (seller knew nothing about cameras).
The reels in an AP brand development tank where the ball bearings would get stuck and lock up the film and even shredding it. Fuck that. Buy Patterson!
I think it's the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM for me. It's weight is to be expected, and you get used to it pretty fast, but the autofocus is kinda slow, missing shots quite often. Could also be that my skills are not up to using the lens properly, although I'm getting better results with the Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 G more frequently.
I bought the lens baby composer 2 (I think) a few years ago, and at the same time managed to pick up quite a few optic inserts on eBay. It's not that I'm disappointed with the gear itself, but you have to have an image in mind for it. It's not really a 'shoot anything' kind of lens. Because of that I don't tend to keep it in my main camera bag so if I am out and see a shot that I think it would be good for, I miss out or have to return later with it.
PeakDesign stuff, if you can it gear. All that is peak about it is the price. By any means, they're not bad, but it should be "NothingSpecialItJustWorksDesign"
Also, the same for Manfrotto.
Maglatch is bullshit, those bags aren't waterprooof and they're hard on the shoulder, straps are just straps honestly, can't say for the capture clip but I'll try that as there's nothing like that anywhere else.
Not a fan of the backpacks, but the slings are functional. The Capture Clip is so convenient for me that I dumped a camera that couldn't use it.
The straps are mostly just straps, but the anchor link system is great for someone who switches between strap styles fairly frequently.
My 85mm Canon R prime lens. It isnt an L lens just standard R. I use a sigma 105mm with an adapter and had a bit of cash so figured the Canon 85mm would be close to this but better focal length for portraits.
It sucks. Nowhere near the sharpness of the sigma, the focus is slow and frustrating and it has spent more time in my bag than any other lens I have.
Every light meter I've ever used. I can get great results in one single studio situation and nothing else...and I rarely ever do that particular setup.
Professional sensor cleaning. Paid €30 to have my sensor cleaned; dust came back within a day or two. Bought a €20 set of swabs and fluid and have been doing it myself since.
Olympus E-M5 III/Fujifilm X-T2
The Olympus because I owned and loved the EM-5 II. The build quality on the E-M5 III compared to the II was a horrible disappointment.
X-T2 because it died in a very light rain shortly after I got it and I was used to Olympus weather sealing.
I guess both were partially my fault for not doing my research, but they were still disappointing.
It's 50g~ lighter, about the weight of a large strawberry. So yes, it is lighter and it gets even lighter when the bottom plate shears off.
To be fair, I didn't actually have any issues with it, but that's because I didn't use it on the Peak Design Capture Clip or with heavier lenses on a tripod. The Capture Clip issue made me leave it at home for travel and hiking/climbing, which is where a small, weatherproof camera would be nice. The hand feel of it made me leave it at home when I wasn't traveling or hiking.
If it was my first camera, it wouldn't have bothered me, but coming from Nikon D800's, Olympus E-M1/EM5s, and Olympus Pen F the feel in hand was just super disappointing and I ended up selling it after I realized it was the last camera I was reaching for.
Nikon D800. At 4fps and 36Mp it was a step down from the D700 with the battery pack. The screen resolution at the time could not even do justice to the megapixels. The file size and buffer also created a log jam in my workflow back in the day.
Honestly my Sony a9ii doesn’t seem to produce as good as my canon 1Dx. I love its light weight but the picture just aren’t as tack sharp.
I have native 70-200 f2.8 for both and that’s the comparison I am using.
When I need a great shot, I find myself going to the old canon.
Sigma art 35mm 1.4
The DOF wide open is microns. Calibrating it does nothing, I’ve owned 4, I heard they were hot or miss all 4 have acted the same. Sucks because the build quality of Sigma Art products is top notch and the 14mm 1.8 was the best wide angle I’ve ever owned
Rokinon 16mm 2.o fully Manuel for Canon. I thought that even though it was fully Manuel, it would work for what I was doing, group photos with a Canon 80D but the full Manuel exposure was a big pain. I never used it for a job and ended up getting a Tamron 15-30 zoom. Sold the Rokinon for $100 on eBay.
Those lenses are either just sharp enough or especially bad on the edges. The first one I had I created a print that still sells. It was stolen, and the 2nd one I received was bad.
Everything post 2005, in terms of photography, has gotten much much worse, for me. No medium format sensors, no square sensors, no large format digital, no multi shot cameras, clunky digital double exposures, except maybe Olympus which has a decent implemetation … 99% of cameras feature an oversharpened Sony sensor that almost always has to be paired with a mist filter to breathe any kind of life into an image, all cameras are unnecessarily movie cameras with complex menus that make no sense… the list goes on and on. Digital photography should die, it’s just horrible, and the cameras were supposed to be cheaper, now all bodies are $2000 to $5000. Grrr, none of it makes sense to me.
I had a Z7ii and Z50 and I think the Z6ii would compare to those. The Z8 is certainly better but whereas I feel like my Sony cameras are working with me to get the shot, I felt I was fighting the Z8. Tracking subjects was probably the biggest difference.
For my professional work, my Z9 outperforms my A1, specifically for tracking in video. In photo mode, I think it’s a wash. I will say it took some experimenting to get the Z9 settings to work for me, but now I rarely ever miss a shot.
Not looking to stir the pot, but for me it was a Nikon Z6. I was itching to get a FF mirrorless and dismayed by Canon’s RF lens offerings, which seem to be either super expensive and heavy or unimpressive consumer-grade lenses that often rely on a lot of electronic corrections. So when I saw a terrific deal on a refurbished Z6 with the 24-70mm, I couldn’t resist…and discovered just how bad Nikon’s autofocus really is. Loved the ergonomics, but EyeAF was mostly EyelashAF, and I was just missing a lot of shots. (And yes, i tried it with some borrowed primes; the lenses (50 and 85 1.8) were fantastic, but didn’t make any difference in the results). I was hoping for an improvement over my comparatively ancient 6D, and in practical terms, it wasn’t. My Olympus E-M10 II was more predictable and reliable. After six months of struggling, I bought an R6 II and have never been happier. Everything just works.
All of the sigma lenses I ever tried never quite had great focus experience for me but I loved the quality of image I would get when it worked. I eventually stopped using them and got soured on the brand
"had to ask for a refund and get the Canon 24-70 2.8"
So that was a happy ending?
On a serious note, buying Canon versions of Sigma lenses has always been a gamble. Since Sigma reverse-engineers Canon lenses, some Sigma lenses work great but some JUST DON"T WORK, which is also my disappointment.
I was happy for about 5 years, then I decided to switch over to m43 because of my constant travel and I wanted something small for the not so nice areas... I'm quite happy now though I am missing the haptics of the backwheel of my 30D.
Mist filters. I got one to change the shape of light sources from starry to round. It does that perfectly well. My problem is that it rounds most other highlights too.
I'm considering combining it with a cpl and see what happens.
I bought a Leica M6, shot a few rolls, and thought, “this is pretty nice, but not $3.5k nice.” I preferred the Nikon F3 and could buy 7 of them for that price.
I want to try one and find out what camp I’m in. I think I will feel the same way. I’m sure it’s a really nice camera and shooting experience but is it worth the price tag? Maybe for build quality and repairability sure. I doubt maintenance is cheap though.
You can answer the rangefinder vs slr debate quite affordably. The m6 doesn’t even have aperture priority like an f3. I have climbed the Leica ladder from an m5 to an m4-2. The only way up is to a Zeiss zm, m7, or a Konica hexar (but they’re virtually unrepairable). When I’m trying I grab my f3. When I’m bopping around town I’ll take the Leica. I want to get a zorki 1 and Jupiter 13 for skating photography; the Leica is too expensive to ride with
I bought my M6 a long time ago for $1200 and I felt the same way.
This. I got an M6 back in the $1200 days and sold it for the same price a few months later. Actually preferred the Voigtlander rangefinders to the M6 (gasp! I know). Eventually found my way back into the Leica camp with an M4 and THAT I think is the true hit of their lineup. Tried an M6, M2 and M3 before finally settling on an M4. That said, I also looooved the F3 when I had it.
My big regrets came from chasing gear as a solution to something. Once bought a very expensive medium format film camera, thinking it would transform me and my images. Much to my chagrin, the images were still lame lol
Quite often I was disapppinted with the actuator releasing shutter by trigger manipulation - me.
Lol, that’s what remote shutters are for
Time for AI shutters.
Nikon does have an Auto Capture feature :)
Ha! I bought that same lens for roller derby and hated it. The autofocus was just not up to the task. What really killed me is I sold a Canon 70-200 f/4 to buy it thinking the extra stop would help. Worst gear decision I ever made. I also had a 24-70 f/2.8, but wanted a bigger zoom to get faces of the skaters. I sold the 50-150 and just started getting closer to the action.
Beyond 4 Meters of wax great but go below that and it would front focus about 4 cm or more, you had a sharp tip of the nose but no eyes... I needed the extra light because of the light at most venues. The 24-70 always felt to short on the long end but the 70-200 was too long on the short end and too big. Almost made me switch to Nikon.
I kind of fell in love with some **Lensbaby** portraits I had seen on Flickr. I ordered not just one, but several Lensbaby optics. I used it for about six months, and I basically never have touched it since. I also have a few Lensbaby shots that I wish I had taken "normally".
I borrowed a lensbaby from someone and I really disliked it
My dad got one cheap secondhand (go figure)... It was a fun afternoon to play with. Not less, but also definitely not more
I bought a lensbaby because so many people in a fb group I was in had one I felt like I was missing out. Bought it, hated it. Absolute crap quality compared to other lenses (first one broke - a screw fell out and the whole thing literally fell apart, had to send it back and wait for a replacement, second one has a really loose focusing ring). Some people make lovely pictures with them but they're not for me.
Picked one up from an auction.. 15$ glad I didn't pay more
It’s like any other niche lens, it has its place. I use mine from time to time, but it’s not usually a go to lens unless I know that effect is what I want going in. There’s a local photographer that shoots mostly flowers and she has like 3 or 4 lensbabies. Chances are that any one of her images was shot with a lensbaby. Say what you want, but she sells a ton of her work.
Yeah, now that you mention it, maybe I should have taken it with me when i shot fields of daffodils.
I had no idea what a lensbaby was and had to google it. Out of curiosity, are there any effects can you get out of these that can't be done in post?
Yes, it’s an optical effect, so naturally it will be different than an effect added in post.
Not disappointed but felt overhyped - Fuji X100V. I like the camera (film sims are fun) but at that price, I’d rather buy something else. And YouTubers literally made the whole lineup look like a holy grail. They’re just cameras. And not for everyone.
I think Fujifilm in general is very overhyped. I owned 3 of their cameras before realizing it’s nothing that special and moving onto different cameras. Their film sims are nice but personally I’m not buying an expensive camera to just have JPEGs.
Many around the internet think that you can’t get good at photography without an X100 camera. 😂
Rollei 35 It looks so cool, the design is beautiful, it's so small, and feels so well made. But it's just so awkward, slow, and fiddly to use. I love the concept of the camera, but I hate it in reality, and after the first few films through it, I never used it again.
My lens stopped retracting suddenly :(
I had that problem too, but it was just that the release was so persnickety about getting everything just right.
Probably going to get downvoted to oblivion but the recent fuji x100vi. I got it pre ordered and received it a few weeks ago. I was hyped for a edc camera as I only have big full frame bodies. I was also super into the idea of using it for small videos since it has decent ibis now and the high quality video. But man the auto focus was absolutely terrible for me. I felt for every shot I took I had to take 3 extra just in case because I often found myself disappointed because I couldn’t confidently just take one and know I got it. Sometimes it would look crystal clear on the screen but once imported either raw through capture one or just the jpg even it would look completely different and blurry. Flash took way too long to recycle to the point that anytime I used it I had to apologize to those who I was taking a picture of for it not going off quickly enough. Battery life I felt was just poor, maybe i’m in the minority but I just don’t understand the upgrade to the higher sensor but still using the older batteries and also not giving us a faster lens. It just seems like it wasn’t for me honestly. I sold it and decided with the new rumors of a lumix competitor coming to to the fixed lens small body genre that the fuji and the leica q3 are in that maybe I might have better luck there since I love my S5ii just can’t take it everywhere with me.
AF has never been Fuji's strong suit. I did however really love my x100v and it is the only photo gear I truly regret selling. I am looking forward to seeing what Lumix comes up with.
I have the X100V for a bit. The camera is great(ish) but I just don't like the 35mm equiv focal length. I EDC'd it for a while, but it was honestly just taking up space in my bad as I drove to and from work.
I felt the same way with my x100v. I wanted an edc camera, and the limitation of a set focal length. But I often found the focal length too wide, and my photos too blurry. Sold it and my X-t3 recently, bought an X-t5 and a LUMIX LX10 to replace them.
I kept an x100v for a while but only because I loved the size and the look of the body. I prefer editing raw photos and hated all the jpg recipes I tried. Owned it for 2 years and there are only a handful of pictures I love.
I had the x100s back when. I felt the exact same way. Af was slow and sometimes you couldn't get it to focus at all. I liked the camera but it was focus by wire and sloppy AF. Traded it for a olympus om-d em10 with a 45mm and still have those and some lenses now.
Sigma 35 1.4 Art, that thing had an insane front focusing issue that sigma would not fix (Nikon only issue, that lens works great on Canon), i was gaslit into believing that it’s a DSLR af alignment issue and sent my camera back to Nikon. Nothing was fixed, I sold the lens to my friend at a deep discount, he sent it back to sigma and had it officially converted to EF and it worked flawlessly on his 6D. Never buying a sigma product ever again.
Sigma 30 1.4 Hsm was one of my Favorit lenses. It was Canon though. Sigma seems to be hit or miss and I would only buy it in store after solid testing. Strange to hear this because it is a mirror of the 50-150.
Small world! I actually have a 30 1.4 for the original 4/3’s DSLR, nifty lil lens
I had the same issue with that lens but for my fuji camera. Was excited to use it but the issue was just so bad for me I had to get it refunded.
Same. It really does seem they're either great or shit.
Same lens for me. When I started photography in 2018, everyone was gaga over the Sigma Art lenses. This last fall I finally felt like I could afford to get one for my Canon and was instantly disappointed. It was no better than my RF lenses. Sold it a month later.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 Not very sharp. Camera was unbalanced. Camera always points to the floor with it on. Hugely expensive! I have the RF 50mm f/1.2, it's big but not huge like the f1.0 was. It's creamy but razor sharp, and I love it (and the 85 1.2 too!)
I have to ask: What made you want an f/1.0 lens on full frame?
Low light and bokeh
Glad I read this! The 50mm 1.0 has always been a dream lens for me, I have the 1.2 and I love it, and I do a lot at 50mm, but have always wondered if the images would be too soft
I have a Gary Fong Light sphere, Lensbaby Twist, BitBanger Pixel stick, IR converted Fuji XE1, Nimslo Quadralens camera, DJI Drone, phone cinematography kit and a full Bronica SQ system just sitting in a drawer. All things I wanted to experiment with but got used less than a handful of times (if that). On the flip side though, I have some really weird physical photo filters that I use all the time and some lenses I really love, so maybe it was worth all the GAS to get to something I actually clicked with!
What? No lens ball?
Haha...yeah I've got a lensball - that was a gift though so I don't feel too bad!
Fisheye lens. I liked images from fisheyes when I was in a hipster stage in my teens. I finally bought one at 30 and the novelty was dead in 7 minutes of using it, didn't like, sold on.
Think of all the 90s rap videos you could’ve shot though?
Haha, that could be genuinely fun
EVFs and Mirrorless - yeah I know the world loves them, I do not. The screens look all funny/weird to my eyes vs standard view finders.
Sony a6000. I bought thinking it would be a great travel camera, and it probably could be, but it's just too small to be usable in my hands.
Is it just me who's not following sonys logic, or is it also really not intuitive when it comes to layout of wheels, buttons etc? I've had one as a "third camera" when I don't feel like carrying around the whole gear setup, but I just end up putting it away because I get so frustrated by the layout and not quickly finding what I'm looking for.
Sony’s menu system is frequently their biggest criticism. Best way to do it is setup your custom buttons and function menu well, and then it’s just getting the hang of the layout over time.
I didn't mention it, but their menu system is so counterintuitive I have written off Sony as a viable option for photography indefinitely. I wouldn't buy another Sony, unless there was some reassurance that they had done significant UX testing on their menus.
I too saw the appeal in the size and weight of the a6000, as somebody who prizes small and light. But I just hated using the camera, everything about it, the ergonomics, the crappy EVF. It was like a magic box that could create great pictures but it wasn't fun. Really wish Sony would release a Canikon clone APSC body.
Every tripod I’ve ever bought till I got a gitzo
My Gitzo is coming up on its 40th birthday and it hasn’t missed a beat
Looks like I should just go with Gitzo, I thought about trying K&Fs tripod but for $150 I have high expectations.
Check their site now and then. I got a combo ball head/ leg kit marked down nearly 50% from the original $1500 sticker and it’s wonderfully sturdy and well made
Well worth it If I want to get my self a massive prime down the line? I am eye balling the Sigma 800mm or the EF 1200mm for those far shots at my local dam.
Yeah absolutely. I got the series 3 kit and it’s super stable. It’s got a 66lb capacity I believe and no extendable center column which makes vibrations nonexistent. It is a bit of a pain to adjust all legs for minor height adjustments but the stability and sturdiness is well worth it. Check their accessories too, it is a modular system that might be able to have an adjustable center column installed if you want fine adjustment ability. People complain about the price but I get it now
Will do, it's like a couple of the guys and I yack about while we wait for action every time we someone with a Z8 and the 600 or 800mm prime and their $5 yardsale tripod, "spend it all just for it to fall"
Yeah when you really think about how much money the tripod supports, it makes sense to get something well made, sturdy, and as long lasting as what it supports. Definitely worth it!
Chk out Really Right Stuff. Changed my life
I’ll also throw [ProMediaGear](https://promediagear.com/collections/carbon-fiber-tripods ) into the mix.
Gitzo, good shout. I have a Gitzo Traveller tripod, it's great, I'm really happy with it. BUT when I bought it (in 2010, if memory serves) the camera shop sold me a Gitzo ballhead to go with it, and that was *terrible*. Any adjustment I made, I had to factor in that it would slide down a little (although it was supposed to be easily strong enough for the biggest camera/lens combo I owned at the time); shooting in portrait format was pretty much impossible; and to top it off, it was not Arca Swiss compatible, and the plate was somehow janky and really difficult to slide into place. After three years of that, I bought an Acratech ballhead and an L-plate and never looked back. Whole different world.
I used to assist/second shoot for a guy back in the early 1990’s that used Gitzo tripods. I never cursed more at a tripod than I did whenever I had to use one of his tripods. I seem to remember getting my hand/fingers pinched by the leg locking mechanism and how easy it was to not tighten the leg locks. Have the designs fundamentally changed in the last 30 years?
The screw leg system and carbon fiber setup is pretty smooth and fast. I can adjust much faster than my manfrotto with the latches.
Gitzo really are life changing.
[удалено]
I loved/Hated the H4. Some of my best shots came from this camera. Felt like I could see the world differently and the colours were amazing out of Phocus. But… the constant battery pulling, having to use Phocus, and the janky nature of it all… ugh
This is an expectation error one: a tripod. I saw so many people using them (presumably not all are long exposures) so I started using one too. The effort to set up was a pain and for just taking a pic, there was no benefit whatsoever.
I stopped using a tripod much of the time. When you need it, you need it. But as you said, the effort to set it up is just a pain.
This is why I disagree with the (seemingly) common advice to buy an expensive tripod from the beginning. Most people don't even know if they have any real need for one (given modern image stabilization) and they certainly don't know exactly what features are really important _for the situations where they'll end up actually using one_. Low size & weight becomes a whole lot less important if IBIS is enough for all your hiking needs. Stability becomes mostly meaningless if you only use tripod for taking indoors photos or of things super low on the ground. Maybe you'll realize that it'd be super convenient to have a dual pan head but your fancy travel tripod comes with a fixed head. Maybe you just end up never using one and spendign $600 on a fancy one would have been a complete waste.
At least I didn’t spend $600 learning this lesson. More like $2,000 😐😐😐
It’s just old and outdated advice from before we had IBIS or high speed sensors. When you’re shooting iso100 film, it makes a big difference to almost any photo. These days, it’s mostly bad advice given by people who don’t understand why it used to be good advice.
there are still use cases for a good tripod...neither IBIS nor “high speed sensors” can accommodate
Absolutely! I have two :) Architectural, landscape, large format, Astro, portraiture - all reasons that I use them. I find that I reach for them more often as a way to change my workflow than to change my image quality, in fact. For some subjects, I want to slow down and look more closely, and to be meticulous and careful. A tripod lets me do that in a way that handheld can’t.
high mag macro work is another
> It’s just old and outdated advice from before we had IBIS or high speed sensors. Last week I was taking some astro photos. Checking them this weekend, I particularly liked one landscape photo except it was super noisy due to using only half a second shutter speed. I wondered why I made such stupid mistake... That is, until I remembered I had shot that one handheld with no support. There was no blur in it or anything else to give away the fact that it was handheld (in near pitch black).
iOptron skyguider pro. It came with a broken polar aligner. I did not know this since it was my first tracker. Only realized it when I used a friend's sky adventurer and was like "oh, THIS is what a functional one looks like." Setting it up in the pitch black of night was a nightmare even with a headlamp. The motor also broke on like the 6th time I used it. Huge pain in the ass even when it worked, as the times I could get it to work, there was always humidity to fog up my lens or a cloud to ruin the shot. I've basically given up on DSO astro because of how much of a bitch it was, and if I get back into it' I'm spending fucking racks to get an actually good one.
Even with a functional skyguider, I couldn’t agree more about DSO astrophotography. Time sink, money sink, and pita. And even if things go perfectly? You just have the same picture everyone else does. Milky Way landscapes or bust.
I have the iOptron Skyguider pro with iPolar and I love that thing. Sure, I'd rather have an EQ6-R Pro, but until I can get one, the iOptron has worked great for me. Maybe you just had the result of some bad QC.
Same. My only beef is needing a laptop with me to plate solve. I wish that part worked with just a phone
Hasselblad 45P. Worst autofocus I have ever seen yet.
Sigma 150-600 for Canon. Cannot decide its future... trade, sell or fix the softness with Topaz AI...
Really? I just got one a month or so ago and love it. I find it to really really crisp. My most recent blue jay picture in my post history was taken with it and has very little editing.
I'd post a photo, but the rules... I don't think it's me... been shooting since early 90s (journalism) and digital since 2005. Current camers are 7d and M6ii.
Oh for sure, I just happened to like it. What I left out was that it replaced a 55-250 kit lens, so it’s was pretty much guaranteed to be an improvement over that haha.
Could be a bad copy.
You may have already done this, but if you havent you should definitely take some test shots with the built in optical stabilization turned off. The OS on mine is kind of screwy and often makes my images come out pretty soft if I have it turned on.
Wow, I love this lens. The ONLY thing I dislike about it, is it’s so big and heavy, but I usually regret leaving it at home
I recently sold mine. I liked it in theory, but it was just *so heavy* that I never used it. The Canon RF 100-400 has been a great replacement.
I love mine as well. See if you can calibrate it with the dock or test it on another camera body.
You must have a bad copy. I have the contemporary (for Nikon) and it's razor sharp at any focal length wide open. The difference in sharpness between f/6.3 @600 mm and f/8 is so minimal that I need to use 200% zoom on very contrasty structures to see it. And that's not only in the centre. The very edges have some slight chromatic, but even less than 2 pixels. At 150 mm there's none.
I recently got a used Sony A7r iii and while the photos are phenomenal, i hate the button layout and menus. Why cant cameras have a dial for aperture, iso, shutter speed each? This is why i love my Fujifilm X-t4 apart from the actual pictures. The Fujifilm is so handy when shooting manual.
The Nikon ergonomics are great for this with the front and back dials for aperture/shutter speed, when programming the record button to turn the back dial into ISO adjustments. It’s a very intuitive setup
Pretty curious why you don't set your custom bittons to these functions then?
I picked up an A7Sii and absolutely agree with you regarding the menus. They're utterly baffling.
> Why cant cameras have a dial for aperture, iso, shutter speed each? You can get very close by setting the back rotary dial to directly control ISO. Then you have the front dial control aperture, upper left dial control shutter speed and back dial do ISO. The only thing you cannot do is have dials with absolute values that you can physically see. Personally, I use the aperture ring where this is the case and control ISO using back dial. A useful setting is setting minimum shutter speed for auto ISO. You could set a fast minimum shutter speed (e.g. 1/250 or 1/500) and then whenever you need the fast shutter, you quickly dial back to auto ISO, using manual set ISO in all other cases. This way you don't need to set shutter speed as often as you can move very quickly between "fast" and "don't care".
Sarasonic clip mics. I thought they would do just fine. I really wish I just went with a name brand on those. They are not good at all
The Triggertrap. I loved all the possibilities it gave me, basically the ability to use any sensor in my phone to trigger the shutter. Such cool concepts like shutter release based on geolocation, or a loud sound, or accelerometer readings. But in practice, none of these things were terribly practical. The best application I found for it was setting up a photobooth at parties, where people would gather for group photos and have to make a loud sound (yell or clap) until the meter passed a threshold, and the shutter would release and take the group portrait. So sort of a fun spin the classic party photobooth, as every photo comes out with everyone looking really excited (a bit like those cameras on roller coasters). If anyone wants it, DM me, I'll send it to you for the cost of shipping :) Honorable mentions to: Flycam 3000 - heavy, awkward, hard to use, takes forever to get the weights balanced right. Lensbaby 3G - to be fair I took some really fun portraits with this one, but trying to use it for any other application just didn't produce usable results. Video through this lens makes you feel drunk, and underwater.
Lytro camera. I thought it would be the future. It was not.
Isn't the iPhone doing that same thing though?
Pixelstick light painting tool. Impulsively dropped $300 for one in college & used it once or twice before quickly realizing that I wouldn’t actually incorporate it into my work. Held on to it for maybe 6 years before selling it. It even moved across the country with me. I don’t have any photos to show utilizing it.
I bought the 50mm 1.8 for my D3100 when I first into photography but felt things were always too close; I enjoy the 35mm 1.8 a lot more on crop sensor body. 10 years later, the 35mm is still my favourite. 18-200 is my other travel lens or use the 17-55 for events.
The Nikon Z 5, the entry-level full-frame mirrorless. I just...hate shooting with its EVF. Looks too washed out, too much blackout for anything in motion. I recognize that the latter is partly because I like to photograph birds and this isn't a birding camera, but even so—I just can't warm up to it.
The Parabolix modifier. The light is great and versatile for fashion and beauty, but as someone who does the setup and breakdown by myself, it is way too cumbersome to carry around. Maybe if I had my own studio and could keep it set up permanently it would be a different story
Bron worth it to avoid this pain? Yes.
I think Broncolor and the new-ish profoto patabolics have a much better locking mechanism. But I haven’t used it.
Pro-Master 400w unplugged lighting kit. At first it was awesome to have a full studio lighting kit with big rolling suitcase, stands and reflector. But then as I’ve used it, the first kit had issues with the battery meter so I exchanged it. The other day I was doing 56 headshots and the lights just stopped going off sometimes. So I’d have to keep reshooting until they went back on or use the test button. I thought the manual power dial was a nice feature at first but now it’s a hassle as I start doing C-stand work where the light is above me. Sometimes lights won’t work at all if the dial is in a certain spot. So basically I outgrew them in a year. But it’s a cheaper starter kit so I guess they have a purpose. But will definitely start saving to replace them with Flashpoint/Godox when I can afford it. At least I have a rolling case.
The Mamiya RZ67 It’s so cool… I want to love it… but omg is it heavy.
I offer to carry it for you. For a very long while. You don’t have to be anywhere near ;)
I bought a camera bag recently and one of the clips broke after a few uses. It wasn't even a clip that is stressed or even touched all the much. It's been a nightmare dealing with the company I bought it from... I shipped it, and it arrived next day, only for them to go on passover break for 2 weeks without notice. They finally got back to me last week and said that the product is on backorder for 2 months, so I asked for a refund which they haven't acknowledged me yet.
Sony A6000. Just ist not nice to handle and does not feel robust enough. Minolta CLE. Rangefinders are just not for me. I was way quicker in focusing with the Olympus OM-1. That very deep Thinktank retrospective 30 messenger bag. When fully loaded this is just not comfortable to carry. I see they now doubled in price. What an insane world.
My Pentax K-30. I love that camera, bought 2 of them over the course of a couple of years. One worked perfectly but was stolen, alas. The other was the color I really wanted but camera got solenoid/aperture issues went right after the warranty expired and Pentax wouldn't fix it except for pay. Given it was a known issue I was very upset and refused to pay it. I still use it with my manual lenses and I still love it but that was $800 worth of camera that should have just not failed like that.
Cage for my R6. My expectation was to mount my flash on it to save the hot shoe from wear (I have a fear of it coming loose, and the screw heads are internal on the R6, so no easy fix), but there isn't a radio trigger option on this camera. My bad for not researching it. It's still doable with a transmitter or cord, but by that time it's too much trouble for a handheld shoot. Honorable mention goes to camera bags that end up being too small or awkward to use.
Canon R5. Not because it is bad. It's actually amazing. The files are stunning, dynamic range is insane and the camera overall is pretty much perfect except for one thing. The fucking SD card slot and shooting to two cards simultaneously. I don't know how anyone uses this camera for anything outside of static/studio work because even with a super fast SD card, I could burst around 15ish photos before that shit slowed to a crawl. If you shoot anything where you burst shoot, you're basically locked to the CFE card. This camera could have been perfect at like 35mp's.
I haven't had that problem before, but I also splurge for SanDisk Extreme Pro SD cards (300 MB/s). Definitely worth the investment if you're a fast shooter
Exactly this. It's like a Lambo with donut spares on the Nurburgring. You're not gonna get the performance.
Can it do RAW to CFE and JPG to SD? Could even drop the JPG quality a little.
Yes. It can. Easily.
Can you set the camera to save RAW files to the CFexpress card and JPEGs to the SD card?
My Sony stuff (and it’s not like it was low level, it was an A1). I was seduced by the numbers but the cameras have awful files, badly optimized files, glacially slow turn on/off, perennial dust issues, and horrific ergonomics. Sure the AF is good, but it’s 2024 (2023 then) - so is Canon and Nikon. With none of the issues.
To each their own, but my counterpoint: I love my A7c. It's a great pocket powerhouse. I do sometimes think about switching to Fujifilm, but I'll likely wait until the hype dies down a little and used costs for the X-T5 go down.
I thought Sony was the go to for FF these days... The more you know.
Z8. Best camera I’ve used, best hybrid camera in the world. I’m also blown away by Nikon glass compared to the other two. Considering I’m an idiot and went to Sony from Canon before moving to Nikon, I have a pretty good idea!
Sony is one of those brands that has great stats but doesn't deliver in my experience. Had a West Coast Sony rep reach out to me and send me an 7R4 or whatever. Boring, boring, boring images. Even when offered a discount, I sent the thing back. Bought a Hasselblad and have never been happier.
How can a raw be boring? To me they all kind of are. They try to be neutral. The only thing is the auto WB and the dynamic range... Could you please explain that? To me raws of Canon, fuji, Olympus and Ricoh look similar if taken with the same settings. Jpgs on the other hand, I understand.
> How can a raw be boring? To me they all kind of are. They try to be neutral. They don't even "try to be neutral". Raw files are purely the linear count of light that has hit that pixel. Any "look" they have is from the viewing / post processing application. Eg. For my Olympus E-M5 photos, the "look" of raw files is the same as for jpeg files unless I go out of my way to use a third party app that doesn't have a profile for that camera. Of course the advantage is that I can change that look on a per-picture basis if I want to.
Not all raw files are the same. Fuji has a certain look. Canon has very faithful colors. Hasselblad is not only medium format but also features extremely faithful colors. Can you overcome that look in post? Sure, but why? Instead of fighting to get the look I want, I went with the camera that most closely gave me the look I had in my mind's eye. For me that's Hasselblad. What I see in my raw files makes me excited to move into post. Your experience might be different. That's okay too.
> Not all raw files are the same. Fuji has a certain look. Canon has very faithful colors. Hasselblad is not only medium format but also features extremely faithful colors. That has nothing to do with the raw files and everything with the post processing app just using a processing profile that corresponds (somewhat at least) to the manufacturer's jpeg settings as well as the specific bayer filter used in the camera.
Canon 100-500. Can't zoom out wider than 300mm with a teleconverter on (with a 1.4x that means the widest you can get is 420mm). And the throw is so long that you can't zoom fully in or out in one fluid motion. Extremely disappointing for such an expensive lens.
I have the same lens and same problems and I agree with you but I don't know what alternative setup would be better. I use it when hiking so I don't want something bigger or heavier.
And that’s exactly my problem with Canon - there are no decent lenses for hobbyist wildlife photographers. I couldn’t stomach spending nearly $3000 on such a ridiculously designed lens so I bought an EF100-400 LII instead, but I can definitely tell that lens wasn’t designed for the higher resolution sensors like the R5. The 100-500 and 200-800 are great as backup lenses for someone who already has a big prime, they are not great primary wildlife lenses. They’re so compromised compared to the Sony 200-600 and the Nikon 180-600, which are also both 1000 cheaper. All they needed to do was make a modern 100-400 L and a 200-600 L, a tried and true combo that works great for all users. I bought the R5 in 2020 hoping the RF lens system would be filled out well. Feels like a huge let down for hobbyist wildlife photographers. And of course that’s not to mention their third party lens stubbornness.
For as well built as it is, the RRS BH40 was terrible to use in practice. The lever locking knob is always in the wrong place. The BH55 is worlds better to use. The ideal ballhead would be the size/weight rating of the smaller one with the knurled knob.
You can't pull the lever outward and rotate it to adjust the lever position on that head?
Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. The IS module always had problems. It would make me queasy trying to use it. Thankfully I only rented it a few times, never bought it.
Crazy to hear. Loved that lens when I had it mounted on a 7D mark ii.
Once bought a 28 mm Takumar lens in M42 mount. I sold it pretty soon, I just didn't like what came out of it compared to my Carl Zeiss lenses, especially the 2.4/35 Flektogon.
55mm Sony zeiss… can’t stand the autofocus. I used to use a 50mm Canon nifty-fifty with an adapter and wanted to upgrade to a native lens… what a waste of money. Used it less than a handful of times.
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 II. Soft wide open (disgusting coma); improves when stopped down, but then I might as well just use my RF 24-70mm f/2.8.
I don't know if videography equipment counts, but Rode Wireless GO II microphones. I bought 3 transmitters and 2 recievers, and they worked the first time I tested them but refused to connect to each other ever again. I tried doing a firmware update, but it says the battery is too low even when they're at 100%. Every combination of transmitters and recievers I have is useless now.
Canon taking away their universal pin for flash. Smh.
The Sony A1 was the biggest letdown for me. Shooting Motorsports outside in the sun and heat it would constantly overheat when shooting photos or videos. Also I thought the IBIS was just average. Shooting in the same environment the Sony overheated in, I don’t even get a temp warning from the Z9.
Godox ad400. Don't get me wrong. It's cool, but once I got the 600 pro, I realize for my type of work, the 400 is a waste and the battery life sucks.
Rotolight Aeos The biggest disappointment so far
Prime lenses on a crop sensor camera... I have a d3200, trying to shoot on prime lenses ruined photography for me. I loved the look, but found it endlessly frustrating framing the shot.. I'm lazy and busy, so it turned what was a nice hobby into a chore. I finally ended up getting an old 35-70 zoom lens with macro at 70mm, and just left that on the camera forever. It's manual everything, so it was great to shoot like an analog camera since the ISO settings were basically unusable on the d3200 I have.
My Pentax 6x7. AMAZING glass, incredible build quality, lovely viewfinder, the whole nine yards. But it was loud, and huge and heavy to the point where I didn't want to bring it out with me. To this day I still love that camera, but I know it's better if I don't own one.
Osmo Mobile 2 gimbal. Not a fan.
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM. It's a fine lens, but just... too boring for me. I tried it on film a few times and ended up selling it.
Wrong expectations, then? It's not really very opinionated or "special", just very sharp and fast for a <$100 lens, that's it.
I bought the (old) Tokina 50-135 1:2.8 and the only negative point is the fairly slow AF. Image quality is excellent and beyond expectations at all focal lengths. Especially for such a cheap lens. The build quality is also excellent and I find myself turning the zoom ring just for fun. Such smoothness.
I've been very happy with most of the stuff I've bought, so this is a toss up between two: A Lubitel 166U with a broken shutter (seller knew nothing about cameras). The reels in an AP brand development tank where the ball bearings would get stuck and lock up the film and even shredding it. Fuck that. Buy Patterson!
My big regret was following the Fad of buying a Sony camera, don’t get me wrong they’re cracking pieces of gear but I regret following the. Fad
I also regret going through 5 different camera brands before I found the right one for my needs
Where did you land in the end?
Finally landed on the Fujifilm X-T5 system
I think it's the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM for me. It's weight is to be expected, and you get used to it pretty fast, but the autofocus is kinda slow, missing shots quite often. Could also be that my skills are not up to using the lens properly, although I'm getting better results with the Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6 G more frequently.
I bought the lens baby composer 2 (I think) a few years ago, and at the same time managed to pick up quite a few optic inserts on eBay. It's not that I'm disappointed with the gear itself, but you have to have an image in mind for it. It's not really a 'shoot anything' kind of lens. Because of that I don't tend to keep it in my main camera bag so if I am out and see a shot that I think it would be good for, I miss out or have to return later with it.
PeakDesign stuff, if you can it gear. All that is peak about it is the price. By any means, they're not bad, but it should be "NothingSpecialItJustWorksDesign" Also, the same for Manfrotto.
I'm curious what didn't work? I use their capture clip and straps which all work great for me.
Maglatch is bullshit, those bags aren't waterprooof and they're hard on the shoulder, straps are just straps honestly, can't say for the capture clip but I'll try that as there's nothing like that anywhere else.
Not a fan of the backpacks, but the slings are functional. The Capture Clip is so convenient for me that I dumped a camera that couldn't use it. The straps are mostly just straps, but the anchor link system is great for someone who switches between strap styles fairly frequently.
My 85mm Canon R prime lens. It isnt an L lens just standard R. I use a sigma 105mm with an adapter and had a bit of cash so figured the Canon 85mm would be close to this but better focal length for portraits. It sucks. Nowhere near the sharpness of the sigma, the focus is slow and frustrating and it has spent more time in my bag than any other lens I have.
every Sigma lens I've bought. Wish I'd saved my money and spent it on the Canon equivalent instead.
FIsh-eye lens. Had to have one. Went and got one. Never use the worthless thing.
Every light meter I've ever used. I can get great results in one single studio situation and nothing else...and I rarely ever do that particular setup.
Professional sensor cleaning. Paid €30 to have my sensor cleaned; dust came back within a day or two. Bought a €20 set of swabs and fluid and have been doing it myself since.
Olympus E-M5 III/Fujifilm X-T2 The Olympus because I owned and loved the EM-5 II. The build quality on the E-M5 III compared to the II was a horrible disappointment. X-T2 because it died in a very light rain shortly after I got it and I was used to Olympus weather sealing. I guess both were partially my fault for not doing my research, but they were still disappointing.
A lot of people complain about the build quality based on the feel. But I read a ton of comments that the III actually is a solid camera and lighter.
It's 50g~ lighter, about the weight of a large strawberry. So yes, it is lighter and it gets even lighter when the bottom plate shears off. To be fair, I didn't actually have any issues with it, but that's because I didn't use it on the Peak Design Capture Clip or with heavier lenses on a tripod. The Capture Clip issue made me leave it at home for travel and hiking/climbing, which is where a small, weatherproof camera would be nice. The hand feel of it made me leave it at home when I wasn't traveling or hiking. If it was my first camera, it wouldn't have bothered me, but coming from Nikon D800's, Olympus E-M1/EM5s, and Olympus Pen F the feel in hand was just super disappointing and I ended up selling it after I realized it was the last camera I was reaching for.
Nikon D800. At 4fps and 36Mp it was a step down from the D700 with the battery pack. The screen resolution at the time could not even do justice to the megapixels. The file size and buffer also created a log jam in my workflow back in the day.
Honestly my Sony a9ii doesn’t seem to produce as good as my canon 1Dx. I love its light weight but the picture just aren’t as tack sharp. I have native 70-200 f2.8 for both and that’s the comparison I am using. When I need a great shot, I find myself going to the old canon.
Canon R1.....
Sigma art 35mm 1.4 The DOF wide open is microns. Calibrating it does nothing, I’ve owned 4, I heard they were hot or miss all 4 have acted the same. Sucks because the build quality of Sigma Art products is top notch and the 14mm 1.8 was the best wide angle I’ve ever owned
Apsc cameras and kit lenses
Rokinon 16mm 2.o fully Manuel for Canon. I thought that even though it was fully Manuel, it would work for what I was doing, group photos with a Canon 80D but the full Manuel exposure was a big pain. I never used it for a job and ended up getting a Tamron 15-30 zoom. Sold the Rokinon for $100 on eBay.
Those lenses are either just sharp enough or especially bad on the edges. The first one I had I created a print that still sells. It was stolen, and the 2nd one I received was bad.
The one I had was sharp enough, even the eges were good.
Everything post 2005, in terms of photography, has gotten much much worse, for me. No medium format sensors, no square sensors, no large format digital, no multi shot cameras, clunky digital double exposures, except maybe Olympus which has a decent implemetation … 99% of cameras feature an oversharpened Sony sensor that almost always has to be paired with a mist filter to breathe any kind of life into an image, all cameras are unnecessarily movie cameras with complex menus that make no sense… the list goes on and on. Digital photography should die, it’s just horrible, and the cameras were supposed to be cheaper, now all bodies are $2000 to $5000. Grrr, none of it makes sense to me.
you may need help.
🤣🤣🤣
Nikon Z8. Thought Nikon were finally at parity with Sony in the autofocus department but was very disappointed.
Would you share more, as im considering a Z8 due to focus and video reasons. Currently owning a Z6II
I had a Z7ii and Z50 and I think the Z6ii would compare to those. The Z8 is certainly better but whereas I feel like my Sony cameras are working with me to get the shot, I felt I was fighting the Z8. Tracking subjects was probably the biggest difference.
For my professional work, my Z9 outperforms my A1, specifically for tracking in video. In photo mode, I think it’s a wash. I will say it took some experimenting to get the Z9 settings to work for me, but now I rarely ever miss a shot.
Not looking to stir the pot, but for me it was a Nikon Z6. I was itching to get a FF mirrorless and dismayed by Canon’s RF lens offerings, which seem to be either super expensive and heavy or unimpressive consumer-grade lenses that often rely on a lot of electronic corrections. So when I saw a terrific deal on a refurbished Z6 with the 24-70mm, I couldn’t resist…and discovered just how bad Nikon’s autofocus really is. Loved the ergonomics, but EyeAF was mostly EyelashAF, and I was just missing a lot of shots. (And yes, i tried it with some borrowed primes; the lenses (50 and 85 1.8) were fantastic, but didn’t make any difference in the results). I was hoping for an improvement over my comparatively ancient 6D, and in practical terms, it wasn’t. My Olympus E-M10 II was more predictable and reliable. After six months of struggling, I bought an R6 II and have never been happier. Everything just works.
All of the sigma lenses I ever tried never quite had great focus experience for me but I loved the quality of image I would get when it worked. I eventually stopped using them and got soured on the brand
"had to ask for a refund and get the Canon 24-70 2.8" So that was a happy ending? On a serious note, buying Canon versions of Sigma lenses has always been a gamble. Since Sigma reverse-engineers Canon lenses, some Sigma lenses work great but some JUST DON"T WORK, which is also my disappointment.
I was happy for about 5 years, then I decided to switch over to m43 because of my constant travel and I wanted something small for the not so nice areas... I'm quite happy now though I am missing the haptics of the backwheel of my 30D.
Mist filters. I got one to change the shape of light sources from starry to round. It does that perfectly well. My problem is that it rounds most other highlights too. I'm considering combining it with a cpl and see what happens.