I want to buy a new "compact" (in terms of size) camera to replace my ageing Canon S90.  I have a Canon 6D which I use for travel and dedicated "photo walks", but I also use my S90 quite often when I'm not in the situation where my DSLR is with me or when it's unsuitable, a casual night out with friends, concerts, dinners, on the street commuting, spontaneous trips, etc.  So size is one of the biggest priority, second is it should be better than my S90 in all specs.  I would want to know if I were to stick with my new purchase for at least 5 years, would a large sensor compact like the Sony RX100 II, Ricoh GR, etc (preferably with zoom as it's much more flexible imo) be a better choice over the currently smallest (as Panasonic puts it) micro 4/3s camera the  with kit lens?  Is there any obvious advantages of high end compacts compared to the smallest mirrorless camera, of which the only one that fits the category of smallest is the GM1 and the Pentax Q (but the sensor's a bit too small).
61621
What would be a reason for one to pick the compact (whatever it'd be P&amp;S or something more advanced) over mirrorless compact system camera  ?  Right now market is quite confusing — we have huge market of tiny-sensor compacts, we have mirrorless that use sensors in a size of these from P&amp;S cameras (Nikon 1 being notable example), we have compacts with sensors bigger than most popular mirrorless system (Canon G1X vs m4/3), we have lot of APS-C sensor mirrorless which are matched by some of the compacts (Fuji X100 being most notable example, but even Leica has its X2),  and to make it even more confusing — Sony released RX1 with full frame sensor, beating crap out of every mirrorless on a market.  So what are your arguments to pick compact over a mirrorless?  Why are they better, what's the reason behind logic of companies like Fujifilm which at the same time offers P&amp;S and X-mount mirrorless using same sensor size?
107206
I currently own a Canon 60D, and I am perfectly happy with the camera. It is going to be years until I move to a better (most likely full-frame) body.   My main, walk-around lens is the . I am also very happy with this lens, although I also know its shortcomings, like the variable aperture (3.5-5.6).   But this morning, as a "what if" exercise, I started thinking about upgrading this lens.   Since my 60D is a crop sensor body, the closest and cheapest upgrade I can do is the   EF-S USM IS. It has a constant aperture of 2.8, and people say that it produces the best picture quality of all EF-S lenses. The upgrade would probably cost me $300-$500, depending on the price I sell my 15-85 at, and whether I want a used or new 17-55.   But 'upgrading' from an EF-S lens to another EF-S lens is not really upgrading, is it? It is more like switching between two similar quality products. Is it worth it?   A TRUE upgrade would be to get an L lens. So, assuming that price is no object (one can only dream :(), what L lens would you recommend to replace my 15-85?   EDIT: What I would look for in the ideal replacement lens.  Thanks for all the answers so far. One conclusion I came to after reading them is that there is no point for me to invest in L glass if I care about wide angle on my crop sensor body. And I do.   I like my 15-85 because it offers me the flexibility of being able to capture moments like a few snapshots in a restaurant with friends, or my 2 years old daughter who won't sit in one place for long - definitely not long enough for me to switch lenses.   I could give up the 2mm difference on the wide end of the spectrum, if the 17-55 offered me much higher IQ than the 15-85 does.   Hence the followup question - Please let me know if you upgraded from 15-85 to 17-55 and if that was a right decision.. I know it is all personal - and that is what I am asking about - what was your experience with such upgrade if you did it?
79566
Recently, I was on the Panasonic website and came across this . When looking at it I noticed it had 12.1 megapixels, which is really low compared to cheaper cameras. So why is the megapixels so low on this camera and what does lowering the megapixels do to a camera's image? One thing I do know is lowering the megapixels give the image more sharpness, but I have no idea what that means.
87693
I want to understand what are the advantages of Olympus M. Zuiko 25mm f/1.8 over Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 ASPH because Panasonic is twice as cheap.  Looking at specs those are pretty much the same except few differences.  Can someone give a good opinion on whether it is worth buying one over another?
55321
When someone wants to compliment a 35mm sensor, he can say that it's [almost] as good as medium format. Medium format appears to be the gold standard where image quality is concerned.  But. I'm usually working with natural light using my lenses wide open, and the widest lenses that I've seen for Hasselblad or Leica S2 are f/2.8, which I consider very dark. Also, when I watch clips on youtube concerning medium format, people usually use those lenses with artificial lighting, which also confirms my impression that medium format cameras aren't as light sensitive as DLSR systems.  So my question is - let's say I'm working with 1D X and 85mm f1.2. Is there anything in medium format sector, that can beat that combination when working in low light conditions?
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.
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?
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.
110484
Recently I bought my first DSLR camera. It is a beginner's one, a Sony Alpha A230 kit. To tell the truth, my shots are no more crisp than those I used to take with my old point and shoot Nikon Coolpix.   Is it possible to take really sharp photos without buying an expensive lens? What would be your advice for that? (I'm really trying to go beyond automatic mode, though with little success so far).
122507
I am an amateur photographer and I have a newborn session coming up for a family friend.   My current gear is:   Canon T5i (crop sensor) Canon 18-55 IS STM Kit lens 85mm f/1.8 lens   I plan on buying a reflector for the shoot and will be using natural light as my light source.  So my question is: is this enough gear to get some nice photos? Should I get another prime lens besides the 85mm? I don't really use the kit lens.  I also have another 8 month old baby shoot coming up and an informal wedding shoot coming up so it would be nice to use the lenses in all situations. I don't need a telephoto at the moment and will probably not use one any time soon.
73436
This is my first question in /photography. I'm a very amateur photographer, doing things wrong and by eye with lots of trial-and-error all the time.  I currently own a reflex Nikon D70 my uncle gave us after he bought a better one. It has some nice settings, and he bought a a Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 zoom lens for it. It behaves nicely, but it's getting old (it has those old cartridges before SD cards existed) and every new charge takes longer than the last.  I'm planning to upgrade to a better camera, and there are some neat offers on a nearby superstore (MediaMarkt), this one catching my eye:  Sony DSC-H400 63x, Sensor Super HAD 1/2/3 CCD 20.1MP -> for less than 300€ taxes included  I don't have any type of extra information aside from that, all I can get from the official site is clinical data from other cameras that I suspect it's not 100% accurate, and there's no photography expert on the store to ask.  The common things I use my D70 for are: taking pictures of scenery (castles, towns, forests, waves hitting rocks, etc...), nearby (&lt;5m) persons and objects, and well, things where I want to save a memory in digital format, not for professional purposes at all.  Being that my objective is to have a decent, good-zooming (superzoom looks awesome), amateur (but with manual settings) camera, is this Sony a good replacement? Will I miss any features? Is there any better, similarly-priced alternative you know of?  Basically, I want to know whether I will get better quality photos than I currently do, given the examples, with any averagely-priced bridge camera similar to that Sony, and if it's worth it.  examples of current camera results  Full zoom-out of town at night, bad quality I know; notice the pink blur at the left.    Maximum zoom on that pink blur from almost the same spot:    Daylight, cloudy, modified with Adobe Lightroom, scenery:    Same day, same beach, different settings:    Same day, same beach, rocks:
120112
I am using a smartphone for capturing photos and I need to estimate the camera sensor size (mm*mm). I have the resolution (in pixels) and the focal length (in pixels). I can also measure the size of any stationary object and its distance w.r.t the lens. Basically, I don't have a pixel-to-mm metric for any of the above parameters that I can use. Is there any way I can calculate that to estimate sensor size?
32930
I have found that my Nikon 60mm Micro AF-D changes aperture from 2.8 to 3.2 when used with a D90. I have tried both A and M mode. Is it by design? Why?  I intend to buy  and it will lock the maximum aperture at 2.0 (my guess) instead 2.8. So should I buy it or not, or would it be better to buy the newer 50mm 1.4 AF-S version?
78764
I currently have the Canon EOS 550D with the 18-55mm IS kit lens. I am primarily looking for greater telephoto reach, as I have found the 55mm length to be quite limiting at times. So, I was considering the  which would be a good general purpose replacement for the kit lens, versus the  that would give slightly greater telephoto reach while complementing the kit lens.  What are the pros &amp; cons of each like optical quality, effort in changing lenses etc, considering the fact that the 18-200mm lens is almost 3x as expensive as the 55-250mm one?  Note that it's highly unlikely that I'll be printing photographs larger than A4 size.
11616
Some flagship-level smartphones today come with excellent cameras, at least for their own use-cases. Sometimes you don't really need more than that in most of the photos you'll shoot, and thinking about a "better" camera experience isn't an easy task if you already have a "good enough" smartphone camera sensor.  However, I am looking to "upgrade" my photographical experience, without spending too much on high-end equipment and lenses, but at the same time without going for cheaper quality models that modern smartphones might actually beat in some cases.  Finding the right balance is not an easy task, you might look at a photo and say, "My smartphone shoots better than this", or look at another photo and think, "It does look better, but I don't see much of a difference to justify the price", and today's world of modern standalone cameras is not small, it certainly has many different models, which is why I've come here to ask, is there any camera model that satisfies or at least comes very close to my requirements? I am aware that I might be vague, and some photography professionals may perhaps request much more details than what I've offered you, but I hope you understand the gist of what I'm trying to say, even if I cannot express it well in words.  I have looked at mirrorless/MLIC models, but I'm not sure if they're the right type for my use case.
15500
At the current rate by which technology is improving, I believe that mobile photography is not far behind their DSLR counterparts, generally speaking. However, for amateurs like me, it is quite impossible to judge or even know properly how to buy a decent smartphone within $500 (US). And almost every phone these days have OIS, Laser Focus, PDAF, etc. as the bare minimum features. However, different media channels rate the phones (-- speaking from the point of view of photography only) differently. And often, it is hard to detect which source is credible enough if there is a huge gap between the citations therein, given the aforementioned budget limit.   A setback, in this case, is also because of the DxOMark scores for phones, and it is obvious that the phones with extremely good scores are not economically feasible for people with the aforementioned limit. So, my question is how can a person who is new to photography, is really enthusiastic about it, and wants to use his/her smartphone for that learn or research from credible sources given the rate at which technology is changing in our society so that the relevancy of this question remains valid even in near future.    EDIT:   Many people here may have a misunderstanding that I do not know about the basic differences between DSLRs and smartphone cameras. I did know the basic differences. Anyway, this is not their fault, but because of the limited information I put forth in my question as well as the way how I put it. I somewhat do know more now thanks to the inputs I have received thus far as well as  these , and their . To be short, I am saving money for an extended trip after few months and also need a new phone. So, if the details don't matter much now, there's that.
46473
I have a Canon 550D which I've been using for around a year now. I really love it and have learned a great deal with this and the 18 - 135mm kit lens. But now with experience I feel the need to get some better glass. I won't be buying a new body any time soon because I figure investing in some good glass is more important.   As I have looked around, I see quite a few good used L lenses I can get in ebay for good bargain prices. But I know that the EF lenses don't have the same focal length in the cropped sensors. Is it a wise decision to buy these EF lenses or buy the cropped sensor alternatives?  I have the following lenses in mind that I am looking to buy down the line from the canon range over the next several months.  16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200 f/4L.  Are these apt choices for cropped sensors? I know most pros with FFs use these but I am a bit skeptic that they will serve the same purpose for me. If so what are the alternatives for this that have almost as good image quality?