I'm just someone who enjoys photography, but I'm not a photographer. I don't know a lot, so please try and keep things simple.  I've been using a Fujifilm Finepix S9200, a bridge camera with a 24-1200mm lens (50x zoom), but only a 1/2.3" sensor. It's too cumbersome for travel, so I'm looking for something lightweight, most likely a point and shoot. Some of what I enjoy photographing are faces: children, statuary, etc. I've never needed to go to the end of my lens, but I've easily used 3/4 of my lens capability.    If I get a camera with a 35x zoom, will that be sufficient for what I want to shoot?
18059
I need to purchase my first ever lens. So far I've only used lenses that were built into a camera. This specific lens is for the BlackMagic Deign Pocket Cinema Camera (a video only camera, but one that uses photography lenses). I would prefer this to be a prime lens.  I have tried to find the exact way to calculate the focal length of the lens I need but I have not been able to find a good resource to make this simple enough for my limited optics knowledge. Can you please explain a simple way to calculate the focal length of a lens given the following inputs as an example:    I would prefer a simplified mathematical explanation so that I may use it to make similar determinations in the future using a "" method.  I have . Using that method, I came up with:  Required lens focal length = 7.02mm sensor height x (77in / 36in) = 15mm   Is that correct?
13212
How can I take a photo like the ones below? The problem is that my photos (taken with a bridge, Sony H2) will get blown up at the highlights. Is it because I'm using a weak camera? Is it because I'm shooting in JPG (can't use RAW)?  Is this dynamic range achieved by greater cameras + RAW? Or is it by post-processing?  Is there a pattern to this type of photos like: wide apperture (&lt; f5.0), RAW, ...?  Examples:   or  or
21453
I have a great passion for photography. I own a normal Canon digital camera of 10 megapixel. I would like to learn more about the various techniques, tips for taking great pictures so that I an enthusiast currently can become a professional someday. Please let me know how this can be achieved.
33126
I am planning to migrate from my Sony DSC-HX1 bridge camera (28-560mm) to Canon EOS 800D.   Now I had learned that 'x' based zoom values are not applicable to DSLR's and I am lost with all the mathematical calculations, so my questions is:  What lens will provide me all capabilities of my earlier bridge camera like shooting Macro, landscape, portraits, zoom range etc. effectively?
27258
I am planning to buy a DSLR soon.  Before I zero in on the model, I want to know whether it is advisable to buy a kit (body + 18-55 lens) or not? OR should I go for the camera-body and the lens separately?
32247
I'm currently using a Canon 700D with a few EF-S lenses, I like the Canon system, the looks, feel and ergonomics but I'm not happy with the files I'm getting. Whenever I come across a photo that appeals to me from a technical point of view it happens to be shot on a full frame camera or some Sony sensor APS-C. The most important thing I miss in my files is sharpness, overall Canon crop sensor cameras lack in focus and / or sharpening ability when compared to Nikon / Sony / Fuji etc. Would you advise me to upgrade to a full frame 6D or to switch brands to Nikon D7100 / D7200 / possibly Nikon D610? I have just 4 basic lenses so the cost wouldn't be very high. I don't want to ask another question which brand is better, just some opinions on the best / the most efficient way to raise technical image quality. I know I can buy a professional lens like Sigma 18-35, but I have just one body which I'm going to upgrade soon, and I think maybe it would be more wise to buy the Sigma lens for a Nikon body to get optimal results.
78366
I was looking into the new Nikon D600, which looks like a pretty compelling camera. I however noticed that its 39 AF points though quite a lot are all bunched up in the middle.  I am used to having AF points more spaced out, usually because I tend to use the Rule of Thirds quite a bit in my compositions. I haven't had the chance to see the camera out in person yet.  So, focusing on that one aspect only can someone with experience advice me how much of a nuisance that would be?
120938
I came across this  on Stuck in Customs today that makes a strong case to hold off too much investment in DSLR gear, and instead switch to mirror-less cameras like the Sony NEX. The author prefers to call such cameras 3rd generation cameras to prevent any bias.  The crux of the argument lies in the smaller size and faster shooting speeds of the new cameras, while the sensor size is an area where they seem to be lacking (Sony &amp; Samsung cameras are APS-C sized though). Currently the big makers - Nikon &amp; Canon - have practically no presence in this market (Nikon seems to be doing something with the V1). However, they seem to have slowed down the introduction of new entry level DSLR models over the last year as well.  So, as DSLR users looking to build and enhance their kit (there are many like me who've jumped the bandwagon over the last couple of years, and are just starting to build their kit), what are the advantages of sticking with the DSLR system rather than switching to the 3rd gen cameras?  IMO, one point that could cause a massive switch in the DSLR base would be if Nikon &amp; Canon announced mirror-less models compatible with their current lens lineups, but that is a hypothetical scenario.  P.S. There is a similar question on mirror-less cameras, but that seems to be from the perspective of a person starting out rather than a person already invested in the DSLR system.
105228
I have a Canon EOS 550D. Right now I only have some standard lenses, and I'm looking to buy a Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX II 11-16mm F/2.8. (I love landscape photography and photography in nature in general.) I want to try using a circular polarizing filter, and I've been looking at the Hoya Filter Circ Pol DMC Pro1 77mm. I can see that the "slim" version is cheaper than the regular one, however, I'm not sure what the difference is. Can any of you tell me which would one be preferable for landscape photography? (I found a thread posted about this some years ago but I would like to hear what you guys think, knowing what camera, lens and filter I'm thinking about combining.)  All feedback would be very much appreciated! :-)
69618
I'm really interested in getting into serious or even professional photography. I've read some articles about fundamental concepts like aperture, exposure, ISO sensitivity, etc., and I want to get the feeling of how changing different setting affects the resulting picture.  My point-and-shot camera has a manual mode but it seems like no matter what kind of settings I select, I always get worse results than if I shoot in auto mode.  Some people claim that manual mode on point-and-shoots is a joke. Should I get a "real camera"?
34017
So I decided to start photography. My aim is simple: take photos of my future travels around the world. I want to take good photos.  Well, I made the mistake of buying the gears before even learning about it. I bought a Nikon D5100 camera, and I think it's not good but maybe it's just my skills.  So here it goes my questions:   Where can I learn about gear? Things like a lens, protection and cleaning stuff... Is the Nikon D5100 a good camera? The lens is "18-55mm" What are the good software for editing photos and where to learn how to use them?   Also any estimates of how much time this should take?
48918
I'm trying to decide on a higher-end digital SLR, and I'm down to choosing between an APS-C model and a full-frame model.  I understand that the sensors are of different sizes, and as such have an effect on the perceived magnification of the lens, with the smaller APS-C sensor having an effective focal length greater than what it otherwise would be with a full frame sensor. But why does this matter?     What things should drive my choice between one or the other?   In which situations is one better than the other, and why?
96051
I am looking to add a longer lens to my current zoom (a Tamron 17-50) for my Nikon D300 (but I believe this question is relevant across aps-c lens manufacturers).  There is just one currently in production — the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 (which is Pentax mount only).  What is the reason behind this? Is there a physical reason why making a smaller DX alternative to a 70-200 is not be possible? I have seen it mentioned that "beyond 100mm the advantage in making dx lenses is gone", but not sure if this is folklore or a genuine restriction.
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)
121935
On the weekend I attended a wedding and took my camera along.  I was not the official photographer -- just a guest.    My camera is a Canon 5D Mark III, and I was using an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens.  At the evening reception, which was a dark room with disco lights etc, I was going round taking lots of photographs of all the party people and in order that I didn't have to worry about my camera settings, I shot in Aperture Priority mode, with auto-ISO, and f/number of mostly around f/2 - f/4.  I used AI Servo mode so that it would track people dancing etc.  Of course, I also shot in RAW.  It is a testament to the 5D Mark III that it was able to find focus in such challenging conditions!!  However in my stupidity, I didn't change the maximum auto-ISO setting, and most of the shots were taken at a whopping ISO 25,600 -- the camera seeming to prefer to increase the ISO rather than slow the shutter speed to get an exposure.  The shutter speed in most shots is probably faster than it really needed to be - around 1/125-1/250th...  For a 50mm lens I probably only really needed 1/80th-1/125th to freeze the action?  This has resulted in some incredibly noisy and grainy shots, lacking in the detail I'm used to.  Note that I don't think it's a focus issue - the focus is fine, and the shots aren't blurry either.  Just noisy.  I imported all the photos into Lightroom 4, and have been playing with the Noise Reduction and Sharpening sliders, but in order to really get the noise levels to a normal or acceptable level, I've had to push that NR slider all the way up to 80 (choke!!).  Normally I'd only apply at most about 40, even in a low-light photo!  This much NR has meant that the detail in peoples faces is overly softened, and skin tones are looking almost plasticky.    So my question is, what would you say is the best way to "recover" these photos and balance noise reduction against sharpening, or to reduce the noise in another way?  I do also have Photoshop Elements 11 at my disposal, though I'm not the best with it.  However, if there is another way in which I could use that to achieve the same thing, I'd also appreciate some pointers.
17
So I'm about to buy my first DSLR (definitely a Canon, probably the 700D) and my original plan was to buy the one with the included 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens.  At the same time I was thinking about picking up the 50mm f/1.8 on account of the fact that it's cheap and I love taking photos of people with a shallow depth of field.   A couple of friends who are big into photography both suggested that the kit lenses aren't that good and produce blurry, distorted and drab imagery. They also both suggested that I should use the money saved by just getting the body to offset the cost of a decent prime lens.  At this point their views differed:   One suggested that I should get the Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. This works out at only £12 more expensive than the kit. They said it takes much better photos than the 50m f/1.8 for only a small amount more and it's very light. Another suggested that I go directly to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 as it's a lens that I'll never ever need to replace. This works out at £150 more expensive than the kit, although I can take (very small) comfort in the fact that I'm saving £80 by not buying the f/1.8 as a stepping stone to the f/1.4.   Both also suggested that once I'd had some lessons, learnt how to use the camera and absolutely must have a zoom lens, then I save up and look to buy something decent at that point in time, rather than use the kit lens.  Should I drop the kit lens and pick up a decent prime? Will I be missing out on some types of photography without the kit lens? Or should I start off with the kit and nifty-fifty and upgrade each component over time?
48732
Everyone I speak to says that a 50mm lens is the best and beats them all as an all-rounder. I was wondering whether to get myself a decent, fast 50mm as well. However I'm still not 100% sure whether I really need such a lens.  I use a Pentax K10D and mainly shoot people (kids, portraits, some street shots). The lens I love and use most is the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited. I often also use a DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited. They are great little lenses that produce very high quality images but they could be a bit faster.  Is is worth spending 400 quid on a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in my situation? It seems like a good compromise between the 40mm and 70mm and much faster (in fact, 2 f-stops faster than the DA 70mm f/2.8!). On the other hand would the lens be sufficiently different from my current lenses?