What camera and lens?

Well, I would use a longer focal length than the people in the zebra-striped car were using!

But, seriously, I can't tell from this video if the driver was at fault or not. I've been on whale watching boats, which are required to keep a certain distance, where the whale has come right up next to and even swam under us. Not our choice, but the animal's. Maybe that was the case here. Or maybe they really were pushing their luck and learned a hard lesson!

Hmmm... watched it again and it does appear the driver was getting way too close! Got what they deserved!

I use Lightroom (LR6, to be specific)...

It isn't uncommon for me to return from a sporting event with 2000, 3000 or more images. My "worst" was a 3 day event where five other photographers worked with me. I had over 20,000 photos to go through.

First, right before the shoot I make sure that my cameras' clocks are synced (as well as the clocks of any other photographers' camera)... This is done by linking to a computer and setting the camera's clock to match the computer. This way the images will later be displayed in the correct order, regardless of camera used. This camera syncing must be done no more than a day or two before the event, because the clocks in cameras lose time differently. They are off by seconds within a week, more as time goes by.

I download all the images from the memory cards. Neat thing about Lightroom is I can start working on a batch that's been downloaded while another memory card is downloading. (I don't use LR to do the download.... I just use the computer's operating system... drag and drop "copy" to a folder for all the RAW files. When there are multiple photographers, there are multiple folders... one for each shooter's RAW files.) During this stage I'm just looking quickly through images, maybe tagging some of the best ones as "keepers" or as bad ones to later be deleted.

Once all images are uploaded and have been imported into Lightroom, my first task is renaming them. When it's just me it's no problem. I use a simple YYYY_MM_DD_xxxx naming method. It's a little tricky when I work with other photographers because I have to go back and modify their images by adding a suffix... usually their initials.... to be able to easily identify who shot what. During the import into Lightroom I also have it apply any lens or camera corrections that might be available and add copyright info in the EXIF. When there are multiple photographers I have to do the copyright for each of them separately. All this is pretty easily done in Lightroom, because you can select a group of folders for the renaming and sequencing... or a single folder for the copyright info.

With the organizing done, I start to work on the images. Something I do with many events is organize the output by participant, so that they don't have to dig through hundreds of images looking for theirs (or images of their friends). Lightroom has a couple useful tools for this purpose... a color code system and a "star" system. Some use these to rate their images. I don't. I only use them for organizing. With six colors (including none) and six stars (including none), I can create 36 different "tags" for images that are later used when exporting them. I do this "tagging" while working through the images.

I've found I can "edit" around 200 images an hour in Lightroom. At this point I'm just doing simple stuff to produce "proofs" for people to look at and speed is a priority. Usually this edit is just a matter of quickly inspecting each image, maybe straightening it, maybe tweaking exposure or color balance slightly if needed. Typically that's it. Takes me 15 or 30 seconds per image on average. While doing this I use the Lightroom "flags" to choose my keepers (white flag), maybes (no flag) and trash (black flag). But for now I only delete the real "mistakes"... shots of my toes when I bumped the shutter release... totally out of focus shots... etc.

Actually, some shots of my toes are deliberate. When there is a break in the event, such as moving from one class to another or half time or the end of a quarter, I take two shots of my toes with each camera. This "marks" these periods and can be really helpful later during the image editing. I don't shoot baseball or football, but if I did I might use this trick to mark the innings in baseball or to mark each time the ball changes hands in football.

Keyboard shortcuts and the "Previous" button in Lightroom are real time savers. A single keystroke can set the flag I want on an image or "turn out the lights" to better see an image on my monitor. The "Previous" button applies the same changes to an image as were done on the immediately preceding one. Since there are often sequences with all the same "problems", this gets the job done fast.

Once I have worked through some images I use Lightroom's selective abilities with the tags I used to differentiate participants. For example I may limit LR to show only images tagged "red, with three stars". This will show me only that participant's images, in proper sequence. Often I will jump ahead to get at least a few images of each participant throughout the day up online into galleries, for them to view. Each participant gets their own JPEG folder, where I have LR send their images during export. These are fairly small, proof quality, watermarked images.

I put in about 10 hour days and get about 2000 images edited in this manner each day. So a large event may take 2, 3 or 4 days depending upon the size of the event. I only recall a single time that I took over 8000 images by myself at an event. Multiple shooter and multiple day events are another matter and a lot of work!

At this point I often use LR to keyword the images with the event title. I also may have tagged the individual participant images with their names. But I have a file folder with their signed release as well as other documents from the day, that I can refer back to if needed.

Once the above is completed, I end up with a comprehensive archive of the day's (or days') event that can easily be searched. When someone buys a print or digital image file or for any other purpose, I go back to LR to find the image, might do a little re-tweaking there if needed, then send it to Photoshop for finish work. That finish work can take anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or more, depending upon what's needed and how the image will be used.

I have event archives going back 20 years. I have a Lightroom catalog for each year from 2003 onward. I didn't start using LR until 2009 or 2010, but a single catalog soon got too large, began slowing LR down, so I split them up by year. With many sporting events this works pretty well since they tend to repeat annually.

I really like the shot with the blue fly!

I won't shoot you... I have a couple Canon 28-135s, too.

They are sort of a "sleeper" lens in the Canon SLR/DSLR system. They have excellent image quality. Can't tell the difference between shots done with one of them or with my 24-70mm f/2.8L at all the focal lengths and apertures they share. The 28-135mm does get slightly soft racked all the way out at the 135mm end, but stopping down a little helps.

The 28-135s also have decent IS, which the EF 24-70 f/2.8s lack. It's an early version of IS, the 2nd or 3rd lens to feature it. But it works. The 28-125 also has fast USM autofocus. I also found the zoom range useful even on APS-C cameras, where they are sort of a "normal to moderate telephoto" lens. The only thing to complain about is that they aren't the toughest lens and aren't sealed for weather/dust resistance. But they're cheap on the used market... well under $200 now, typically.

I know at least two or three pros who swear by the old Canon 28-135mm.

I would swap use one when I wanted to lighten my load by leaving 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 at home, such as when I had to hike some distance with my gear.

It really depends upon what you want for your "walk around"...

The EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom is quality, versatile lens. On an APS-C camera like the SL3 it gives an approx. 24mm to 135mm full frame equivalent angle of view. Note that the variable aperture range is 2/3 stop to 2 full stops less than the EF-S 17-55mm (which has an approx. 27mm to 88mm full frame equiv. angle of view). Although slightly smaller and lighter than the EF-S 17-55mm, it is a moderately large lens that uses 72mm filters and weighs about 4X what the following lens does.

The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM "pancake" is extremely compact, protrudes from the camera less than 1", is very light weight at just over 4 oz. and uses 52mm filters. On a small, light SL3 it borders on "pocketable". Note that unlike the 15-85mm and 17-55mm, this lens does not have IS and it uses quiet, quick but slightly slower STM (stepper motor) focus drive instead of USM (ultrasonic motor). It has the same f/2.8 aperture as the 17-55mm, but is a full stop faster than the 15-85mm's variable aperture when zoomed to 24mm focal length. On an APS-C format SL3, the EF-S 24mm "pancake" will give an approx. 38mm full frame equiv. angle of view.

FYI, there are two other Canon 24mm f/2.8 lenses that have been discontinued, but can be found used:

EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was only recently discontinued. Compared to the "pancake" above, it is considerably larger and over twice the weight at about 10 oz. Still, it's smaller and lighter than the 15-85mm and 17-55mm zooms. Of course, even though this lens is able to be used on a full frame Canon DSLR, on an APS-C like the SL3 it will render the same approx. 38mm full frame equiv. angle of view. To me that makes it a "slightly wide normal lens". Some like this as a small, simple walk around kit. Only you can say if it's the right thing for you. (Note: The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM was announced alongside an EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM and an EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. All three of these lenses replaced and improved upon earlier models that lacked IS and USM.)

EF 24mm f/2.8 was discontinued quite a few years ago, but can still be found used. It lacks IS, uses slower, noisier micro motor focus drive and isn't as well built as the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM that superseded it. It is moderately smaller and lighter weight than that lens. While this lens isn't bad at all, the newer version that replaced it has was optically improved for a little better image quality and slightly closer focus ability.

Canon also made two versions of 24mm f/1.4"L" that are big, heavy and expensive... as well as two versions of 24mm f/3.5 "TS-E" tilt shift/perspective correcting lenses which are also big, heavy, expensive AND manual focus only.

NOTE: If you are wanting equiv. to 24mm angle of view on your SL3, you will need a 15mm and there simply aren't many of those available. Canon did make an EF 15mm f/2.8 but it is a rectilinear fisheye lens, with heavy distortion of straight lines in images. That lens was discontinued and replaced with an EF 8-15mm f/2.8 fisheye zoom that has similar distortion. Besides the EF-S 15-85mm zoom, another option might be slightly wider EF 14mm f/2.8L USM, which there have been two versions of over the years. They are fairly pricey. Samyang/Rokinon 14mm with AF also are available. The fisheye and the 14mm lenses all have strongly convex front elements, built-in lens hoods and no means of mounting screw in filters (they may have slots for gel filters at the rear element).

You might find The-Digital-Picture website helpful... Bryan Carnathan has extensive reviews, information and tests of virtually all modern and recent Canon get there, as well as a smattering of other brands that might be compared. [/url]www.the-digital-picture.com[/url]

The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is an excellent general purpose "walk around" lens for Canon's APS-C DSLRs. It most certainly isn't JUST a wedding lens (though some might use it for that). It's sharp, has a bright f/2.8 aperture, fast ultrasonic focus, helpful image stabilization. There are myriad possible uses for it and it's one of two premium walk around lenses that Canon offers for their APS-C cameras (the other is the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, in case you're curious). New the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 sells new for $879 (plus $50 for the separately sold lens hood).

IMPORTANT: EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 also could be adapted and used on Canon's APS-C R-series mirrorless cameras (R7, R10, R50, R100), if you are considering getting one of those. There is no f/2.8 walk around APS-C lens for the R system yet. (So far there are only RF-S 18-45mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM and RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM "kit" lenses offered, as mid-range zooms.)

If you have no use for the SL3, sell it. But, no, it is NOT the most entry level Canon DSLR. There are two lower specification models (Rebel T7 and T100). There also are two "more advanced" Canon APS-C DSLRs presently (Rebel T8i and 90D). The SL3 shares a lot of features with the T8i, that aren't found in the T7 or T100. For example, the SL3 has a much higher ISO range, a self-cleaning sensor, a fully-articulated Touchscreen LCD, faster continuous shooting rate and more that aren't found on the T7 or T100.

One thing is does share with the T7 is it's rather "old school" 9-point AF system, although it probably works a lot better in the SL3 because of that camera's much newer and more powerful processor. The T8i and higher use a more advanced 45-point AF system. But, to be fair, years ago I shot and sold a LOT of sports photos with essentially the same 9-point AF system found in the SL3 and T7. Another thing that the SL3 shares with the T7 is Canon's "crippled" flash hotshoe. It lacks the center contact that's used to fire a lot of flashes... but it still is compatible with all current Canon, as well as many Godox, Yongnuo, etc. flashes. For either camera, flash compatibility should be confirmed before purchasing.

The Rebel SL3 claims to be "the smallest and lightest" DSLR currently available. It is smaller/lighter even than some mirrorless. The SL3 is a few grams heavier than the earlier versions (SL1 and SL2), but also has gained a lot of features. Introduced in 2019, it uses an up-to-date 24MP sensor and a Digic 8 processor, same as the T8i and 90D. The more entry level T7 and T100 are using four generation old Digic 4 processors! The newer processor in the SL3 also must be far more efficient, because even with all the add'l features the SL3 is rated to get nearly twice as many shots per charge as the T7. Canon has introduced a one generation newer Digic X, but that is only found in their newer R-series mirrorless and the top-of-the-line 1DX Mark III DSLR.

Finally, when taking offers keep in mind that a new SL3 costs $649 (body only). B&H Photo has a used one for $454. MPB.com has ten used SL3 avail. for between $464 and $489. KEH.com is offering two used SL3 for $534 ea.

I don't shoot with Nikon right now, but certainly recall all the "discussion" about D7500 vs D7200.

This site gives you a pretty good summary of the differences: https://cameradecision.com/compare/Nikon-D7500-vs-Nikon-D7200

If it were ME, I would probably go with the D7200 because of it's...
- Dual memory card slots
- Higher resolution sensor (24MP vs 21MP)
- Slightly higher dynamic range
- Slightly greater color depth
- Higher resolution rear LCD
- Optional battery grip

But I have to admit that there are some appealing features with the D7500...
- Slightly better high ISO performance
- Articulated rear LCD
- Touchscreen
- Moderately faster burst rate (8 frames/sec vs 6 fps?)
- Anti-Flicker (fluorescent lighting)

I have Anti-Flicker (or is it called Flicker Free?) and have used it fairly often. Higher ISO and faster frame rates are always welcome. But Touchscreens and articulated LCDs don't matter much to me.

I use grips on almost all my cameras and much prefer having dual memory card slots. Any higher image resolution and qualities are always welcome.

But, hey, that's just me. You do you!

Shooter41...

There is no such thing as a "Topcon 44.7mm screw mount".

Topcon lenses were ONLY ever made with bayonet mounts. They had two versions of external bayonet and one breech mount inverted bayonet.

The diameter of the Topcon BAYONET used on the 300mm f/2.8 was 38mm. In fact, there is not now and never has been a "44.7 screwmount".

The lens REGISTER of Topcon lenses is 44.7mm. "Register" is the measurement from the camera's bayonet mounting flange to the film plane. This is the distance where the lens needs to converge images to bring them into focus. Topcon and Exacta both used a 44.7mm lens register or flange-to-focus distance.

Most likely, your lens has been modified. It wasn't uncommon for that to be done to the Topcon 300mm f/2.8, since for a long time it was the only lens of it's type. Screwmounts are either M39 or M42. Either could easily be confirmed with a ruler or micrometer.

If it is 39mm the most common use of those was Leica rangefinders in the 1950s. A bit less common was a Canon version... same 39mm diameter, but different thread pitch... used on their 1930s and 40s rangefinder cameras. Post WWII Canon began using the same M39 as Leica.

However rangefinder cameras have a shallow register (Leica M = 27.8mm), so there is no way that your lens has been adapted for use upon any rangefinder camera. It simply isn't physically possible. However, there also were some SLRs that used a 39mm screwmount... early Russian Zenit, to be specific. While possible, I think it unlikely what your lens has been adapted to fit. AFAIK, Zenit were the only SLRs to use the M39x1 mount. And even they switched to the M42x1 mount in the 1960s.

M42 is most likely. Or, to be precise, M42x1 (1mm thread pitch) was used on a lot of different SLRs up through the 1960s. It is most commonly called "Pentax screwmount", but actually began with Praktica cameras. It has been so widely used that it is sometimes referred to as the "universal threadmount". Very probably this is what your Topcon lens has been modified to fit, simply because so many different cameras have used it. There are MANY inexpensive M42 to Sony E-mount adapters available. If it were me just guessing without measuring the threads, this is what I would order and try.

It is possible it was instead modified to accept a T-mount (by the way, T stands for "Tamron", who invented it). This is also M42... 42mm in diameter. However it uses a 0.75mm thread pitch, so is not interchangeable with M42x1. T-mount also has a very large (55mm) flange-to-film measurement, to allow adapters for many different systems to be fitted (in comparison, M42x1 uses a 45.6mm flange-to-film dimension). I think this is the 2nd most likely possibility. But it's okay too, because there are also T-mount to Sony E-mount adapters. If Pentax/Praktica M42x1 doesn't fit, try T-mount M42x0.75 (or vice versa).

Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX would be a great choice, but is rather pricey at $1500! However, I see B&H has a couple used ones at $599 and $779.

A little less expensive, a little smaller and lighter, another option is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR... sells for $1067 new, but also can be found used for a lot less. It's a wee bit wider and a little bit longer, eliminates a gap between 55mm and 70mm (which is pretty meaningless). Plus it has VR which is nice. But it does lose a stop of light at the 80mm end of the zoom range.

Even less expensive, a bit lighter and smaller is the Nikkor AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR... Appears to no longer be available new. Used copies are between $200 and $300. It has a lot of advantages similar to the 16-80mm, but loses another stop of brightness at the long end and 2/3 stop at the wide end.

If considering either of the 16-??? lenses I'd look for reviews that give image quality comparisons.

To me, any of the above make more sense than FX lenses such as 24-85mm or 24-120mm.

I also created my watermark in Photoshop and use Lightroom to apply it.

You can make type any color you want in Photoshop. It isn't limited to black.

However, I made my watermark gray outlined it in white, then I made it 3 dimensional with emboss and a shadow.

Finally, I made it semi-transparent and saved it as a PNG.

This works on ANY background.... any color... light, dark or anything in between.

Here is an example (an old watermark, website no longer exists)



I decided to do away with the white outline and just use a semi-transparent gray watermark. Also, there is no need to use the word "copyright" or the symbol © in a watermark. So I made a new PNG in Photoshop...



A nice thing about applying them to images with Lightroom is that it can scale the watermark to the size of images automatically. Before Lightroom could add watermarks, I used another software and had to keep a stock of different size watermarks because it couldn't scale them. That was a PITA!

FWIW, I also created and use a more subtle "signature" in the same way...



This I made a lighter gray and didn't outline in white. (It was printed a little larger than I like above, but this is a small version of the image.)

I believe you mean "Nikonians"... as in https://www.nikonians.org/

There have been a number of good suggestions I agree with:

KEH.com, MPB.com, B&H Photo Used Dept., Adorama Used Dept., UsedPhotoPro.com (Robert's Photo) and some other reliable retailers buy used gear to stock their shelves. While it will vary a bit from one to the next, in general they will pay you a fair, used WHOLESALE price for your gear. It's probably the easiest way and lowest risk way to sell your gear, but will get you the least $ out of them.

Selling via an on eBay (and similar) can produce a better $ return, but there's no guarantee and there's some risk with shipping, dishonest buyers and some $ end up going to auction fees, shipping, insurance.

Selling on a forum like UHH or Nikonians also can produce better $ return than wholesale and typically has a lot less risk than auction sales. You can check a member's history... how long they have been a member, if they have had other transactions, etc. There still will be cost of shipping and insurance, but you can negotiate that if you wish.

Selling locally via Craigslist and similar is also possible and can make for better $ return than wholesale, but you do need to be careful. Meet the buyer in a bank lobby, inside a coffee shop, or similar... for your own safety. Be prepared for some haggling over price. People love to play games. For example....

I sold a motorcycle via Craigslist. We had agreed on a price over the phone and when I counted the money the buyer handed me, it was $20 short. He said, "Whoops, I thought I counted that right. It's all I have." Yeah, right. And neither of the two friends who came with you have $20 they could loan you either, right? I knew it was all BS, but do I kill the deal over $20 or accept a little less than we had agreed? Obviously $20 wasn't all that much and letting the deal go through made him feel like he'd "won".

It REALLY depends upon the item... in some cases there is value in the boxes, in other cases there's not.

The box for my Leica IIIG is probably worth $100 or more. The box for my Canon EF-M 22mm lens is probably worthless, but still might increase the value of the lens if included with it when it's sold.

Do a search on eBay for "sold" items exactly like you're selling and see if there are any empty boxes being sold or items with boxes that have sold that can be compared with items that lack any box.

It might be silly, but items do tend to sell for more at auction when the box is included.

Take your pick...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/uv-lens-filter/ci/112?sort=PRICE_HIGH_TO_LOW&filters=fct_a_features_1266%3Amulti-coated%2Cfct_circular-sizes_27%3A49mm

To me the Leica filter is ridiculously overpriced.

I know the Hoya HD3 and B+W Master MRC are very good. I don't have any, but imagine the Heliopan are quite good, too. I've also heard the Formatt Hitech Firecrest filters praised.

On the low end, I'm experimenting with a couple K&F Concept filters and have been impressed with them so far. However, I bought C-Pols in two sizes though, not any UV.

All B+W and Heliopan... and I think the Formatt Hitech.... and the top-of-the-line K&F Concept filters use German Schott glass that's top quality.

I also look for 16-layer (or more) "Nano" multi-coatings, when possible. Those are more resistant to scratches, water, finger oils and easier to clean.

At a minimum I use 8-layer multi-coated filter. Single coated and uncoated filters might be okay indoors under controlled lighting... but most of my shooting is outdoors.

I carry UV filters instead of clear... UV also can help reduce bluish haze that's sometimes seen in the distance in scenic shots. I don't leave "protective" filters on my lenses all the time. I only install them in situations where they might actually be needed such as out in a storm, at the seashore (salt air and blown sand), any time I'm photographing paintball battles (doesn't happen often), etc.

No, it's definitely NOT camera shake blur!

I have no idea what it IS!