GrandmaG wrote:
I disagree that this is a brand comparison. The OP simply asked, “what would you do?” and many piped up to say they had already done it (switched brands) and were not sorry.
i agree. If you read the thread, it wasn't brand fanism at all. She said she wasn't using the Nikon at all and asked what "we would do" as GrandmaG pointed out. In fact, I told her to sell the Nikon even though I sold my a7iii because "I wasn't using it at all."
I had the Sony Rx10 iii and really didn't like it. I do believe the IV is much better. I, too, have been looking for lighter camera/lens combos because of a back problem, which is mostly a problem hiking or traveling. The rest of the time my dslrs are great. I always have an rx100 with me, most recently the rx100 vi, which I like because it fits in a pocket. I do like Sony cameras. The a7iii with either the kit lens or the Tamron 28-70 2.8 lens is a good lightweight alternative, but would involve learning a new system. Still in China, you might be better off with the rx10 iv because it offers both a somewhat wide and distance lens in the same bundle. I was in China 10 years ago and used a hefty Sony point and shoot. It took great pictures then, and the current Sony cameras are even better. You do want something good in low light though--China is pretty smoggy.
As others have said, some of the other mirrorless systems are very good, though they might involve a learning curve.
Another possibility might be the Canon sl2 (or, I suppose 3). It is an extremely small camera and you could use your canon lenses. It doesn't have all of the features of your current Canon, but it basically works the same way. I use this camera as my kayak camera, as I bought it pretty cheaply refurbished so I am not too worried about it getting wet.
Yes! There is no point in keeping a camera you won't use, and there are some terrific Sony (and other) lenses out there that you might like. Yes, you will probably lose money on what you sell, but you will get lots of use from whatever lenses you buy. Sony has some great wide angle lenses. I don't know much about their longer lenses, but I am sure others here can advise you.
I just now read that you decided to keep the Nikon. Think seriously about it. I have used dual systems in the past (Canon/Nikon) and now (Canon/Sony). I got the Sony a7rIII for travel and like its compact size and quite a few of the lenses available for it. I still tend to prefer my Canon equipment, but can't really let go of the Sony equipment either. They are so different from one another that it does screw me up sometimes, although I use them for completely different things.
If you believe all your needs are met by the Sony, it is a good direction to go in.
jpgto wrote:
Have had decent luck with it! Believe you can set a minimum and maximum value
for the Auto ISO.
I think my photos improved a lot when I stopped using auto ISO. I will sometimes use it in low light with some cameras (where I have set upper limits), but generally, I prefer to set the ISO.
Burtzy wrote:
The human brain has a tendency to edit what it sees. For instance, a man wants a shot of his wife in front of a large building. She stands there and he takes the shot. What his mind saw was his wife in front of the building. What the camera saw was a building with a tiny speck of a person in front. Had he been able to think like the camera, he would have used a much wider angle lens and have her stand much closer to the camera in the foreground, thereby enlarging her presence in relation to the building. You just need to be aware of the camera's inherent ability to think like you.
The human brain has a tendency to edit what it see... (
show quote)
This is an excellent example of a mistake everyone I know wants to make. I have a horrible time getting people to walk toward me to get the person in the scene correctly. They don't believe it won't be better with them next to the object (in my case, more often landscapes than buildings, but same concept)
Dawntin wrote:
https://www.photographybay.com/photography-laws/ Check this website.
Click on each state to compare and contrast with others. Had found a really great graphic map of the US that allowed quicker access to info. A search with the words "state by state photography laws" will give a lot of websites with lots of varying info..... ergo, my confusion.
Thank you for this link. There is a lot of valuable information here.
ggenova64 wrote:
Hedgehoggers, What brand of SD Cards where using?
?? Sandisk Extreme Pro 128 GB -- so we come up with a new commercial: "Discriminating Dogs Prefer Sandisk Memory Cards"
I think if a card is pretty mangled, the brand doesn't really matter much. With cards going through a washing machine, it might make a difference.
To the OP, a friend of mine's dog ate my San Disk card; It was visibly damaged and I wasn't able to retrieve anything from it. I am a college professor, and I felt a bit stupid telling my colleague that I couldn't send her photos of an event because "a dog ate my camera card." (I suppose this will become one of those new excuses).
It sounds like yours might have suffered less damage than mine, so good luck!!!!
I think we should both be glad that the dogs didn't swallow them. It is one of those things I wouldn't necessarily have thought of but it is a good thing to keep these cards away from pets and children.
I can view everything but Canon .cr3 files (R and RP). I previously used Fast Picture Viewer Codec Pacs, which worked beautifully, but they haven't updated their codecs since 2017. I know it is a new camera problem, but if anybody has any solutions, I would be interested in hearing them. I am using dpp4 and it has been a good and interesting addition to my workflow, and that may be what I use, but curious to what some might say here.
To the OP, I think different airlines might have different policies, so you should check. I usually put mine in checked luggage, but I went on a photo trip and a lot of us ended up on the same planes. Several of the other photographers had tripods attached to their camera backpacks and all was fine. And, this was even though I had to go through security with TSA-Precheck and they still made me pull out my camera and show that it worked, which I haven't had to do anywhere else, so the security was tough, but they still let the tripods on board. I have no recollection what kind of feet they had.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Overall, in the final result, no.
You might help by providing some example(s) if you mean something specific. I'm assuming you're talking about the Develop module. It makes more sense to apply a lens profile correction before performing any crops, for example. It's also more efficient to adjust the blacks and whites before moving the contrast slider. Although WB is the first in the drop-down sequence, it many times is the last thing I adjust to "finalize" the K temperature in RAW and the color tint over all the other edits in the image.
Several Develop sliders interact. Take the whites and overall exposure and highlights as an example. I might push the whites to the right
while holding the <ALT> key and watching for when the whites just begin to overload. You might then hold the <ALT> key and move the hightlights and / or exposure back to the left. Then, release the <ALT> and review the result and compare to the original. As you develop your knowledge and 'feel' for your own personal method of using the tools, you should develop a sense of efficiency rather than needed to tweek every interacting slider back n forth in a circle of updates.
I happened to be watching some LR u-tube videos this week. This one popped to mind from your question
https://youtu.be/UD--UshBtUA The 'topic' of the presentation is batch editing, but if you watch her work method on the first individual image and then how she tweeks the edit in every image after syncing 'the look' from the first image, you can see an example the interaction of the sliders.
Overall, in the final result, no. br br You might... (
show quote)
Thanks for this explanation. It is more or less what I have been doing, but never really thought much about why I was doing it.
I would say the Canon 10-18 mm lens is your best bet for that camera for a wide angle. Another good choice is the older 10-22 mm canon lens, but it is a bit heavier and more expensive and doesn't have IS. The 10-18 will allow you to get the wide angle shots you want and it pairs nicely with your camera.
I pretty much agree with what Chg Canon had to say. I had the Nikon 28-300 lens when I was shooting Nikon. It was ok, but I always found it a little soft. Still I knew photographers who could get really good shots from it and I envied their ability to be able to go just about everywhere with a single lens. With this in mind, I got the Canon version. I used it on two fairly substantial photo trips then sold it. I found it way too big and heavy to be a "walk-around" lens like the Nikon version (though a big guy probably wouldn't notice the weight). It was a good lens and much sharper than the Nikon version so that is a plus, but I needed a lens I could climb rocks with, and this definitely was too heavy for that kind of hiking. Most recently, I used the Sony 24-240 with a sony a7riii. Almost everyone will point out that it is Sony's worst lens, but I found it better than the Nikon long lens though not quite as good as the Canon lens. That solution, of course, would involve a whole other camera and lens (though might be had for not much more than the Canon lens new).
I know Canon has an rf 24-240 in the works. I am hoping it will be as good as their 28-300 and as light as the Sony lens. In the meantime for a light daily Canon kit, I have been using the 16-35 f4 and the 70-300 USM II that CHG Canon mentioned. It is not perfect, but it is light enough to climb with.
Thanks for sharing this! Capa has come under a lot of scrutiny lately. So has history in general. This article is an excellent example of how careful historical research and good critical thinking can explode stories/histories which seem obvious. I think the biggest is travesty is that to perpetuate the myth of the heroic photographer, one had to cover up the true heroic story of the engineers in charge of destroying obstacles at the genuine risk of their own lives. This is not to say however that Capa himself did not face danger. The story that conditions were so bad he could only get 10 photos before he fled to safety would have been an interesting story in itself.
I have rambled too much, but thanks for sharing. I will use this piece in my classes!
dennis2146 wrote:
Asking for a friend: If he has never been on a cruise like this, how would he possibly know how close the dolphins will be? Just curious, my friend said to me.
Dennis
A lot of times there are posted and known rules about how close one can get to wildlife in the water (Maui, for example); in other places, I agree, it could be hard to know unless one talked to someone. I know you can't always trust advertising, but it is clear from photos that smaller boats are designed to get closer to dolphins than larger more tour-like boats.
I have frequently read reviews on Trip Advisor, etc. to see what the comments are on how close you can go with specific companies. But, it is true that even with that information it can be unpredictable where the dolphins will be in relationship to a boat. I had a relatively short lens (24-70) based on reviews about how close whales came to boats in Baja California and really wished I had a longer lens.