Hello! I’m brand new here and I love everything I’m learning by being a fly on the wall in the group! However, an upcoming trip to Africa has me in a little panic about my gear (I don’t even think I have the right to call it that yet but I will!). I’ve been extremely interested in photography and have loved taking photos my whole life, but I’m only decent at best (not that that stops me!).

My situation: I have a decade old Canon Rebel T2i with some pretty awesome lenses (most recently I’ve purchased the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the Tamron SP 150-600 telephoto lens).

Well as you all know I’m sure, once you get started on research, then it’s hard to stop, so now I’m looking at whole camera upgrade with the Canon EOS R which would require a mount adapter to fit my existing EF lenses.

My question: if I upgrade for all of the new bells and whistles of the EOS R, would I see them all if using a mount adapter? Or do you need specific lenses for that specific camera to get the full benefit of the features? I imagine it’s the same, but didn’t know if the adapter inhibited some of its performance.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Hey guys,
I shoot nature, wildlife and landscapes and got this lens mainly for low light conditions as I’m in the woods a lot. I use it on a Canon 7D Mark 2 (crop censor) but also can use it on my 5D Mark 3 ff. Some wildlife photographers say you shoot wide open and I can see that in certain situations but I wondered for those of you using a 70-200 2.8 what your thoughts are and how you use it. It has been hard to get used to when mounting it on the ff. Also, I’ve been very pleased to see how well images come out mounting it on a my 1.4 lll tc.

Thanks and hope everyone has a great day!

P. S. Btw, headed to Glacier NP, YS and Grand Tetons second week in September for two weeks. Any suggestions on its use in these parks would be appreciated.

I've been taking photos of a band for 4 years, the band uses my photos with my permission to advertise their gigs, the band and my self each have posted many of my photos on Facebook and websites, the band created a web page and I supplied photos for a press kit. A few printed newspapers and a few digital news outlets used a photo that I took to advertise an upcoming gig. My name is on the photo and the photo is out there. A friend just contacted me and told me someone in a news organization is selling my photo. I did not give anyone permission to sell my photo I only allowed it to be used by the band for promotional purposes. What can I do? Are they allowed to sell my photo?

Somewhere I saw photographic “content” defined as the “subject, topic or information captured in a photograph”, the “subject” being “the main object or person(s)” in the image.

We see a lot of discussion of the importance of sharpness, exposure and composition of an image but I’ve seen relatively little talk of content. How important is content relative to the technical merit of a photograph? What does it take for the content of a photograph to cause viewers to overlook technical deficiencies?

I believe content is the most important attribute of a photograph. In my view, sharpness, perfect exposure, composition, etc, as important as they are, are of no value if a photograph doesn’t have a content that grabs the viewer. On the other hand, there is a limit to how many technical flaws a viewer can tolerate before even great content becomes irrelevant. I’m interested in your views on this. Feel free to post any images you think might help illustrate this topic. I will do so in my next post.

I appreciate any constructive comments you might have.

The only reason I can come up with is that in 1959 Olympus came out with what they called a Half Frame camera. This used the same 35mm film cassettes readily available but gave twice the shots i.e. 48 shots on a 24 shot cassette. It also resulted in a smaller camera body and lenses than the usual 35mm cameras. Strangely though 35mm film cameras were NEVER called Full Frame cameras as far as I can find out.

Also in the days of film photography - YES there were indeed frames in both movie and still cameras – the frame produced a good clear sharp border around the 36mm x 24mm images and the half frame 24mm x 18mm Olympus versions.

So why, I ask, are present day 35mm format digital cameras called Full Frame when there is NOT a frame anywhere within their innards full, half, or otherwise? Nor are there any frames in APS-C or M4/3 or any other digital cameras! Even smart phones don’t have frames.

There’s no logical reason for it as far as I can ascertain but my guess is that the advertising media are the culprits as using the word Full in an advert implies very strongly that one can get nothing better! The same issue has occurred with monitors and TV’s with the media still promoting Full HD as the best one can get.

So so wrong and in no way beneficial in any way shape or form to any aspiring photographer – how often do new users ask questions about full frame/crop sensor etc as they are confused by all the meaningless terms. (Crop sensor another misused and misconstrued term used mainly to denigrate and demean smaller sensor cameras! – but I won’t start on that bag of worms today!)

Anyway – Photographers of the World – please start calling a spade a spade as it will help promote photography as the precise technology it is.

Cheers JohnR