Is the DJI as sharp as the Leica on a OMD E-10 Mark II ?
41870
When reading lens reviews on the Internet, I often find subjective statements about the image quality that a lens produces, such as "good contrast" or "sharp". The problem is that I don't think I am capable to actually see these qualities on an image. I don't even think I could tell the difference between a cheap kit lens and a top lens, if not by "this just looks better".  So my question is: without looking at sharpness tests and MTF curves, how do you learn to judge the quality of a lens based only on sample images? What are the characteristics you look for and what constitutes good or bad in each of them?
41854
Recently, I've been doing a lot more photography, particularly with my 100-400mm telephoto and 16-35mm wide. I am skilled enough that I can capture the shot mostly as I want with just the camera gear, requiring minimal post processing. I'm a huge fan of ETTR now, so most of my shots are overexposed to support more shadow DR and improve the noise performance of my el-chepo 450D body.  I've noticed quite a bit lately during post processing in lightroom that my sky's or any other lighter areas of my shots tend have spots on them. They are soft and dull to one degree or another (seems to depend on the zoom factor), so probably something either on the sensor or the lens. I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what they are, as I try to use my lens pen brush before any shoot, yet I still have them. I am having to make quite a few healing corrections post-process to get rid of them.  Is there an easy way to identify where the spots are on my lenses? Once identified, if a quick brush of the outer lens element with a lens pen (or soft camel hair brush) doesn't do the trick, does that mean the spots are on my sensor? Is it possible there is particulate inside the lens body (all of my gear is less than a year old outside of my 450D body, and its all Canon L-Series gear, so I would home that I don't already have detrimental particulates floating around inside my lenses messing up my shots. :|)  Here are a couple examples. The spots are harder to see on screen, and I first noticed them when I printed a few of my more recent shots. There are quite a few, and the shot the examples below were taken from, where the sky took up about 30% of the top edge of the photo, there were probably 10-12 different spots, some of them darker, many of them lighter. The darker ones are the ones that are very visible in prints, where as the softer ones are not as visible, but still apparent enough to ruin an expensive print.
25383
I will be getting a point-and-shoot camera for taking portraits and only portraits.  Specifically portraits with a shallow depth of field.   Groups portraits sometimes.  It's just too much work to add lens blur at post-prod.  I understand that setting a P&amp;S on macro mode gives a shallow focus and DOF.    How do I read P&amp;S camera specs to shortlist those with the shallowest depth of field?   Added: By point-and-shoot, I mean a camera that is easy to use -- Not necessarily compact, inexpensive, or current.  Also, if there are two or three factors/specs to get a shallow depth of field, then which spec contributes the most to bokeh? which is second most contributing? the third, etc.?
23526
I was wondering if someone can help me out in finding which speedlites I can use on a Canon 4000D, as this camera does not have a centre connection on it.
83417
I recently took on my first paying client, and she is also into photgraphy. She usually does sports for her highschool yearbook. They just have an entry level Canon DSLR with a kit zoom on it that goes up to 200mm, but it's not very fast (f/4 or 5.6 or so). She told me that she has a tough time - especially at basketball games - getting shots with any kind of reasonable lighting, and has to do a lot of work in post just to get them reasonable.   mentions the Cannon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM II for professional sports photographers. At $6k USD I suspect the yearbook won't be springing for that lens anytime soon.  So I was curious, are there any reasonable quality, fast lenses for Canon cameras that are lower priced (certainly no more than say, $1k)? I'd love to be able to point them to a couple of options. I assume the largest print they'd be making would be a full spread in the yearbook - maybe two 17"x11" (two 8.5" side by side)
108999
I've a Canon 60D and I'm mainly interested in shooting landscapes.  I feel very interested in buying a used canon EOS film camera (since my EF lenses are compatible). I would like to take pictures from my DSLR and then use the same meter reading on the SLR to take a picture.  I'm planning on scanning the negatives myself to the maximum resolution and the assumption is that the picture from the film camera would be lot more colorful and sharper.    Would their be a noticeable difference by using a film camera?  considering that my 60D comes with 18 Mega Pixels.   Sharpness and resolution matter to me only because I usually end up cropping my pictures.  Also I'm planning on using using films with ISO of 50 or 100. The used camera I'm interested in cost around $200.
13438
Does taking a picture with 8 megapixel resolution with my Canon IXUS with a 1/2.3" sensor and 12M max resolution provides the same or worse image quality (particular, noise) as if the picture was taken by another camera of the same sensor size and but with 8 megapixels maximum resolution?
31723
I was shooting the lighting of the city that is visible at the top of the trees if you shoot landscape.  No matter what I do, the image is blurry. What have i done:   ISO 100 Manual focus towards infinity Using a tripod Using really sharp prime &amp; good camera   Basically, everything I could. The only example i have is here, but it is not good, because image is underexposed:    The main question: Why can't night photographs be as sharp as daily photographs (with approperiate exposure times of course)?
73756
I'm looking into starting a small at home portrait photography business mostly as a hobby for now, and I'm wondering if the camera I have now (Nikon D3000) is good enough for portrait photography.  I've heard from a few friends who do portraits, weddings, etc. that most of the "photo magic" is really just handled in Photoshop, and how the camera is actually used, and the camera is not the only thing to think about.   Is there a flash or some other add-on I should purchase that will help the camera? I just have the onboard one now. I've signed up for a few classes at our local college, however they won't start for a month, so I want to get a head start on what I should look for in equipment.  Is this camera simply sub-par for this sort of work? Is there a better entry level camera I should look into?
91451
This is a follow-up to a .  I've been comparing cycle times (or shot to shot times in single shot mode) of mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses with traditional DSLRs and all of them, even the highest end ones (like the Olympus OM-D EM-5 or Panasonic GH3) are slower than even entry level DSLRs.  How's that possible? The electronics should be the same and they don't have the burden of a mirror going up and down between each shot. I think that there must be a technical reason for that (maybe some cpu time is going to feed the live-view before the image is encoded?), because from a commercial point of view it does not make sense.  I've seen the cycle times under the performance tab in the reviews pages of .  The average CSC has cycle times around 0.7~1.2s, the flagship ones around 0.5s. The average DSLR has cycle times around 0.4s and the flagships around 0.25s.
19515
I basically decided on a whim (from reading this site, talking to some friends, and always admiring great photos) that I want to get into photography.  Are there disadvantages to starting out with a prosumer camera like the Nikon D7000? I know stuff will be more expensive, but will there also be greater frustration or complexity?  (I am the kind of person who tries to find reasons to justify the extra cost even when I know deep down that it's not necessary...)
76118
The back-story: My father-in-law, who was an active film SLR user earlier in his life, suffered a series of strokes several years ago. He lost most of his ability to speak, and cannot use his right side (he has no fine motor skills at all in his right hand), and has limited mobility as a result. He uses a wheelchair but gets around his care facility just fine. Despite the communication barrier, he manages to get across the gist of what he's after most of the time (and while he can't speak, he's a Marine, so he can still swear at you ;-).  What we're after: We'd like to help him be able to shoot the world around him again. He lives in a facility with plenty of accessible indoor and outdoor spaces, and he has free roam of the place each day. A great environment for capturing unexpected surprises in photographs.  The constraints we're working with: His wife visits regularly and can take care of processing (transferring to computer, printing, etc), but isn't strongly tech or photo savvy, so any solution has to take her skill level into account. He'll have difficulty using anything without a simple user interface; half-presses of the shutter might be a problem, a viewfinder (rather than an LCD) may pose a problem, and it must be operable with his left hand. Also, due to his environment, the ability to easily clean (or even better, seal) the unit would be helpful. Finally, as anyone who has a loved one in a care facility knows, theft can sometimes be an issue, so this needs to be something he can take with him in his chair; bulky solutions will end up being left behind and "misplaced".  So, with that in mind:   Can anyone recommend a camera manufacturer that caters to lefties, or even better, specifically to the handicapped? Cost is a consideration, but a low one; we're much more interested in finding something that meets his needs. If anyone has specific experience with this kind of situation or equipment use case, can you share how it went for you? What worked, what didn't, things that would have been good to know?
9188
I primarily shoot low-light photos, and I upgraded from a point-and-shoot to the Sony NEX-5R (which has an APS-C sensor) a few months back.  However, I find that the low-light performance of the NEX-5R is not as good as I'd like. I find myself shooting at ISO 400 or lower, with a tripod, even at f/2.8 (I do have an f/1.8 lens, too).  I was wondering if I should upgrade to a full-frame camera. I'm told that there's only a one-stop difference between a full-frame and an APS-C sensor, which doesn't seem like much. For example, this is a 13-second exposure on my NEX (at ISO 100):     With a one-stop advantage on a full-frame sensor, I'd still need a 6.5-second exposure at ISO 200, to maintain the same quality. Even if it were a .65-second exposure, I'd still need a tripod, in which case I might as well use an APS-C sensor and give it a few more seconds.  Am I correct in understanding that for me, full-frame provides a negligible advantage at a high price? Thanks.
94580
I recently went to a one-year-old's birthday party. The event took place inside; there was some light coming through the windows from outside and there was also light from the lightbulbs in the room, although not nearly enough. I used S mode on my Nikon D5100 (with an 18-55 stock lens) in order to reduce blur as much as possible, even though I wasn't able to go too low with the speed given the lighting; I also increased ISO to about 640.  Some of the pictures came out orangey due to the lightbulbs (the white balance was set to incandescent), especially when people were sitting just below the light source, while others came out blurry, despite my effort.  What should I have done better? Would shooting in RAW have helped?
119137
I'm to take pictures at a boxing match, probably under low lights conditions.   My plan is to set the camera on a fixed shutter speed, and the let the camera automatically set aperture and ISO. But how slow can I safely take the pictures. I hope I can bring my tripod, so it's not as much a question of camera shake, more a question of catching the action.  My equipment is a canon EOS 500D and a Canon 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens.
39043
I have read a lot about the SB-800/SB-900 but I am on a low budget (around ~120$). Is there an external flash that I can have to start learning to use it? I do not need TTL compatibility so it can be an older model. I have a Nikon D5000.
17726
I use a Canon EOS Rebel T3i (600D) with the kit lens. I have experimented a lot with different settings and modes, but I feel like I have wasted many good shots that could have looked amazing, if only they were a little bit sharper.  I use auto-focus on most of my pictures and make sure to choose the right focus point, but all of my photos are still a little bit out of focus. When I zoom in, I can see that the pixels are not very crisp or well-aligned.  I am not sure if this issue is caused by my equipment or skills.