Top products from r/photography

We found 880 product mentions on r/photography. We ranked the 5,854 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/photography:

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/photography


If you're brand new I would highly recommend the book Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It's an awesome book that will teach you the fundamentals you will use along the way. Here

Another important thing is a good memory card. I loved my D90 and SD cards are much cheaper than the CFs I have to use in my D300. I used to used transcend cards like this one It comes with the card reader too which is something you should definitely invest in. They're faster for putting the photos onto your computer and also they get rid of the risk of connecting your camera to the computer and having some type of short circuit or something ruining the brand new expensive camera. I say get 2 cards at least the more the better. Cards will fail and it's good to have a backup I always have 2 or more of everything.

To clean my camera and lens I always use my Giottos rocket blower and a lenspen and a microfiber lens cloth to clean my lenses and body.

You're probably going to want a new camera strap if you're using that too. I used this one on my D90 and it was super comfy and strong.

Depending on how much you're shooting you could also get a second battery if you're going to be out all day somewhere with your new camera. Don't get fooled into thinking you always have to buy Nikon brand. For a lot of accessories you can get the cheaper 3rd party versions and they'll do you just as well if not better most of the time. I had this battery with my D90. Lasted longer than my Nikon one!

I saw you asking about a flash. If you want a nice flash that will do everything you want without really breaking the bank definitely look into the nikon sb600 if you can find one used it's an awesome flash! I would be hesitant to get the Sb400 because you may eventually want more from the flash and then you have to pay more and upgrade. The sb700 looks to be pretty nice but also pricier. If you're only going to be doing off camera flash which I doubt you can check out a Vivitar 285HV flash.

Then comes the tripod. Don't cheap out when looking for a tripod. Remember that it's holding your multi thousand dollar equipment so don't cheap out. They say when buying a tripod you have: price,weight,sturdyness and pick any two. There's a million different tripods out there. I have a manfrotto 190xprob but wish I would have spent the extra money on the 055xprob.
Check out these make sure you look at how much weight it can hold and then make sure it's a few pounds more than you think you'll be putting on it to be safe.

This little remote was awesome I still have mine actually if you want to buy it for pretty cheap i'm sure I could help out.

If you already want another lens depending on what you're shooting a great walk around lens is the Nikon 35mm 1.8 it's the equivalent of a 50mm on a DX (52mm ish) Here or maybe you like portraits more and sweet bokeh check out the 50mm 1.8D Here also a great lens.

You're going to need something to keep all of this in so check out a nice camera bag. Take a look at some of these I have the kata 3n1 Medium and a Tenba shootout to hold all of my stuff and the Kata is great for when you have some gear and walking around town or hiking or something.


While I do use M at times unless you're shooting using studio lighting and everything controlled I don't really recommend it. People say you have to use it to learn photography but I don't agree at all. I have my camera on Aperture Priority 90% of the time. You still have to control your ISO and aperture (f#) but the shutter speed is taken care of.

Remember it's digital so just keep shooting and changing things until you get what you want. That's the beauty of it all. Have fun and enjoy it.

If you want to see some reviews of some of the products I mentioned I did some on youtube Here and a few photoshop beginner tutorials.

If you have any more questions about stuff just ask I might have forgot a few things. Most importantly get out shoot and have fun with it all!

u/sergi0wned · 1 pointr/photography

I recently went on a once in a lifetime trip to France for two weeks, so hopefully I can provide some helpful advice/insight.

First, and I cannot stress this enough, have enough memory! I'd recommend bringing at least 16GB, if not more.
I brought two 8GB cards to France and transfered them to my computer each night. I never used the second card, however, if I wouldn't have had the luxury of transferring to a laptop each night, I would have quickly exceeded this.
If you are able to bring a computer or other means by which to back up your photos, I'd STRONGLY recommend it. It's great peace of mind to not have to worry about losing pictures or running out of room.

Second, DO NOT use the Auto mode, that just makes your DSLR a big point and shoot. A lot of people recommend using M(anual), but it can be a little overwhelming if you're not used to your camera. The Av (Aperture Priority) mode is great because it allows you to select the aperture value you want (which will effect what's in focus and Depth of Field) while automatically determining the rest. Constipated_Help gave you some very sound advice on exposure, so follow that if you're able.

Third, make sure you have the right accessories. A tripod would be great for landscape shots. The Dolica Proline is a great value at 40$. At least one extra battery would be good to have, especially if you will not be able to recharge during the trip. An Opteka t2i battery can be had for 12$, and works with your Canon charger.

If you can swing it, a new lens would be good to have since the lens is the determining factor of image quality. If you like to "zoom" and isolate subjects, you'll want a telephoto. The Canon 55-250 IS is a great deal at 240$. If you like wide angle, you'll need an ultra wide. These will typically run above 400$. I have a Tokina 11-16 and I am very pleased. As others have recommended, the Canon 50 1.8 is an incredible deal at 100$ and provides creative options with it's wide aperture.
A nice bag is also a good thing to have. You can buy either a messenger style, a holster or a backpack. Filters would also be nice, but they're not a necessity.

I hope this can help. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'd be glad to (try to) help! :)

u/TonyDarko · 3 pointsr/photography

Dude thanks for the proverb but I asked for book titles. I understand that I need to take more pictures, that wasn't even remotely in question. As an athlete I don't think reading a book on rugby tackling is going to make me the perfect tackler but it'll sure as hell help with the basics and knowing what to look for.

Similarly, if I know little to nothing about exposure, composition, and the basics of photography, continuing to take bad pictures will not help me as much as if I had actually read into these concepts and covered the fundamentals as to what I should be doing/prioritizing when taking a picture.

You don't go and just solve mathematical problems. You learn HOW to solve them (or at least build up a toolbox) then you go and practice solving them and using your tools until you've mastered that process.

And yes, your photography will improve through taking pictures, but to say that it will ONLY get better through photography? That's just incorrect. Reading a manual? I'll learn how to use my gear better. Better knowledge of gear? Better pictures. Knowing how exposure works? I'll know to crank up my shutter speed and change my aperture before I just resort to setting my ISO at 6400 and taking bright enough yet terribly grainy pictures. Knowing how to frame a picture or where to place the subject? That will make my photography more pleasing to the eye.

Going and taking a bunch of pictures will not inevitably make my picture quality as great as if I actually studied photography.

You don't tell someone who makes finger paintings to just keep painting. You show them what great art looks like, and maybe even teach them the basics. You don't say "eh, maybe if you do a couple thousand paintings you'll learn how to paint a beautiful landscape."

Just leave the cookie cutter answers that everyone gives when they don't want to be helpful in your head, and actually answer a question. If you have no answer, keep it to yourself.

The pretentious, non-helpful answers in this sub need to stop. Everybody knows that they need to take more pictures to get better. Help people when they ask questions.

OP- if you're looking for books I decided to look some up:

Understanding Exposure

The Photographer's Eye

These are both seen as great introduction books for beginners. From what I've read, the first will basically help you figure out what type of lighting and exposure settings you would want to get your desired look for a given scenario, whereas the second book will help you develop your creative abilities and understanding what makes a good picture.

Those might help out your photography a teeny bit, and you won't have to take a picture!

u/admiraljohn · 3 pointsr/photography

First off, let me paste this... I keep this in a text file on my desktop for this question, when it pops up:

  • Order Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Box Set. His books are incredible resources.

  • If you're going to use Photoshop and/or Lightroom for your post-processing, also pick up Scott Kelby's Adobe Photoshop CS5 Book for Digital Photographers and Scott Kelby's Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book for Digital Photographers.

  • Order Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. This, along with the Scott Kelby boxset, should be required reading for any aspiring photographer.

    You're on the right track, starting with the /r/photoclass subreddit. Now for your other questions...

    As far as what is and isn't relevant, given most of your work would be shown on the web, don't get all hard over megapixels. Get what you can afford, but don't let yourself be swayed into getting a camera with a huge MP count. The higher numbers of megapixels come into play when you're doing close cropping, or printing large prints.

    For example, take a look at this picture. I shot this several weeks ago with my Canon 40D, which has 10 megapixels. Are there cameras with higher megapixel counts? Sure. For the type of photography I do, though, this camera suits me perfectly.

    As far as why you should get a DSLR versus a point-and-shoot, the biggest reason is lens interchangeability. A DSLR will let you change your lens based on the kind of shots you're taking, which gives you much MUCH more freedom in the kind of pictures you take. Also, DSLR's generally can offer you more freedom as you grow in your photography due to more advanced features (full manual mode, the ability to shoot Raw, etc), which ultimately give you far greater control over the finished product.

    So to blanket answer your question, it's not the camera that produces great photos, but the photographer. Hand Ansel Adams a point-and-shoot camera and I guarantee he'll outshoot me with my 40D. You want to get a camera that you feel comfortable with, you can afford and gives you the greatest freedom to grow as your interest grows.

    Does that help? :)

u/neuromonkey · 3 pointsr/photography

The D90 is still a great camera, but I'd also lean towards the D7000.

Adorama has [refurb D7000 bodies.](

Buy from B&H Photo, Adorama, 42 St. Photo, or another of the biggies. Abe's of Maine is great too. Even if they're slightly more expensive than some little outfit, it can pay for itself many times over if an issue needs addressing. The big guys just fix it. Put together the package you want, and call all of them to get their best price.

Get her a copy of Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.

Despite the plastic build, the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens is optically very good, and a great place to start. The $99 "import" is fine. If it breaks, screw it. Put it on eBay for parts, and get another one.

Nikon 35mm prime. ("Prime" means that it doesn't zoom. Fixed focal length.)

Used Nikon 28-105mm -- Good, older lens.

Which lenses she uses most will depend on how/what she shoots. Go general. Later, she may want a macro lens or a long zoom--you can't predict that.

At least two memory cards. Getting three mid-capacity cards is better than getting one huge, fast one. (If a card dies, you don't lose everything.)

At least one additional camera battery. Nikon is best, though there are good 3rd party batteries out there, it's hard to know which use good cells.

A couple good lens cloths (I love the BIG Nikon ones,) and a lenspen. Also, a Giotto Rocket Blower.

A decent bag. Don't go crazy here. I found a LowePro Slingshot 200AW on eBay for $40, shipped. I like it OK, but I'd prefer a backpack style. Look at what kind of bag she carries -- backpack, messenger, etc. Different styles work for different people. The key is to have everything padded and held immobile.

Also... If you're computer savvy, maybe think about some software (there's plenty of good, free stuff available,) to organize and edit her photos.

Um... that's all I can think of right now.

u/charlieplexed · 1 pointr/photography

As far as lenses go, I'm not sure what you'll be shooting (portraits? movies? landscape?) but on my student budget I amassed the following as add-on to my T1i:

Canon 50mm f/1.8 (nifty fifty)
which is the cheap go-to lens for portraits / low light photography. ~$100. Here's a great lens review

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
for landscape. I just got this, and is great fun! Sigma's is much cheaper than canon's 10-22mm but similar (ish?) in quality. It's a pretty slow lens, but ok since it's so wide. ~$350

Canon 70-200mm f/4L
for wildlife / portraits. It's the cheapest L lens, and it really makes it more fun to take pictures. Worth it! ~$400. Note that of the 70-200mm lens can have f/4 or f/2.8, and IS or non-IS. "upgrading" a feature will make it cost 2x more (f/2.8 non IS ~ $1k, f/2.8 IS ~ $2k) but unless you do concert photography / low light stuff with this lens, you'll be ok with f/4 non-IS.

Canon 18-55mm (kit lens)
all around good lens to carry around. IS helps, and pretty straight forward.

Be sure to check out a hot-shoe flash, which is probably the best investment for indoor (bounced flash) pics. I have the 430EX II ~$200.

Tripod I have this which has been great.

Good luck and enjoy your trip!

u/Iamthetophergopher · 3 pointsr/photography

EDIT: Just realized pics 2-4 are of different lenses, flip them around and show us the other end. Assuming you have a 18-55 and maybe a 55-200 or a 18-135. Can't tell from the photos.

Google will be your friend:

First picture is the camera body, Nikon D40x, a decent but older camera, 10 MP, a pretty decent camera for a starter kit. Amazon for the camera and the kit lens

SEE EDIT: Second picture through the fourth are shots of what looks to be the Nikon "kit" lens, or the one that most likely came with his camera. 18-55mm, which is sort of the standard cheap but good zoom lens (zoom meaning adjustable) that gives you a mix of wide angle and a little bit of reach for farther away shots. This is most people's beginning lens.

Next comes a sensor brush. The sensor of a digital camera uses electrically sensitive sensor chips to capture an image, with a common downside being that the static of the charge can attract dust. This brush is specifically designed to attract said dust to it instead of the sensor for cleaning. I wouldn't recommend trying to clean the sensor yourself until you've read up on exactly what to do.

Next is a flash, I don't know much about this model, unfortunately, but flashes can run from a few bucks to hundreds of dollars, depending on the tech and quality. Assuming it is a real SB-600, it's a pretty solid flash and sells on Amazon for a few hundred bucks

The next one is the 70-300 Nikon lens, this is a telephoto zoom, meaning it's variable in zoom, but starts at a pretty modest telephoto range of 70mm to a really long 300mm. This is good for sports and such. Amazon link

Most of the rest of this stuff is miscellaneous gear:

Next photo is a flash cord, this allows you to control your flash (the SB-600) without having to have the flash on top of your camera. This allows for greater creative flexibility in your lighting. Most pro/sumers use wireless triggers nowadays, but a connected flash cord is great bceause it rarely fails. Cheap part.

Next are a series of converters. The wide conversions take your lens at whatever focal length it is set at, say 18mm with that 18-55. This then "converts" the image your camera sees to a wider image, say a 12mm, giving you a wider field of view. The teleconverters do the opposite, lengthening the focal length, say from 300mm to 400-something. This will allow you to zoom in deeper. The issue with these sometimes is that since they implement an additional layer of glass between the subject, your lens, and the camera, the quality of the converter can degrade photo quality and you get in less light, meaning you need to adjust the camera settings to capture what you want, sometimes making a shot impossible to get, or at least difficult. I don't know enough about these Nikon ones, but for Canon, they vary in price from $50-400 or more.

The rings look like lens adapters, allowing you to adapt lenses from other manufacturers to the camera. Can't tell what they're for, though. Does he have other non-Nikon lenses around?

I think the Stroboframe is to hold flashes or strobes off of the camera and also has an additional grip.

The rings with tinted glass are filters of some kind, placed at the end of your lens to produce an effect, like polarizing the image, reducing how much light goes through (ND filter) or cuts out some of the UV light that might be hitting your sensor. Can't tell what you have there, though. One of them says PL, that's most likely a polarizer. Both of them will fit a lens that has a 37mm threaded end, which will be written on the side of the lenses.

The last picture is a battery grip. This slides into the battery housing on the bottom of the camera, and provides controls for shooting vertically, as well as carrying 2x batteries instead of one for longer battery life. Makes for a chunkier camera, which is nice in a studio, but sort of sucks when you're out hiking or trying to be discreet.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

u/kangaroooooo · 1 pointr/photography

Hello everybody. I know there's probably not much you can do to help me with my current dilemma, but I really appreciate your help.

So here's the deal: I have about $200 to spend on lenses, and I have two I'm deciding between. They have very different purposes, quality, and benefits. I can't decide which one I'll use more. Here they are.

  • Canon 40mm f/2.8

    For this, the benefits are that it is very small, and very light. I'm going to Iceland soon, and I feel like having a small, very portable lens might be a really big benefit. Also, the image quality is supposed to be pretty good.

    On the other hand, that focal length is already covered by my 18-55mm kit lens. Is the image quality really good enough to justify spending $160?

  • Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II

    This has a great zoom range, and is perfect for taking pictures of cycling, my other hobby. However, it's really big.

    Which should I get?
    I know you can't solve my problems for me, but do you have any advice? In case it's important, I currently have a Canon t3i with 18-55mm kit lens.
u/EnclaveLeo · 2 pointsr/photography

Of course! It depends on your budget and what you want to photograph, but I highly recommend the 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can find it used for even less than the price listed ($200) as well. The lens is really sharp and decent for landscape and portraits. You can set your 18-55mm to the 35mm focal length to see what it looks like.

If you want a higher focal length than your 18-55mm, look at the 55-200mm lens. It is a kit lens sometimes bundled with the 18-55mm. There's also a 70-300mm if you want the extra 100mm range. These are usually best for something you need to zoom in on, like sports and wildlife.

If you want something super wide, I recommend either a Tokina 11-20mm or the Tokina 11-16mm. The 11-20mm is the sharpest and fastest autofocus of the two, but it is slightly more expensive. They are both good lenses. These are great for astrophotography, landscapes, and indoor architecture shots.

Here is an example picture of what different focal lengths look like. I hope this was helpful! If you have any more questions or want me to clarify something, let me know.

u/psyduckduckgoose · 2 pointsr/photography

In my opinion, the most important thing to understand first is the exposure triangle - that’s the relation between ISO, shutter speed and aperture and it’s what determines how light or dark your photo will be (each setting of course changes other things about the photo, but this concept is crucial to understand).

I’d recommend learning how to use aperture priority mode and shutter priority mode. The former will let you take control of the aperture portion of the exposure triangle while the camera takes control of the shutter and the ISO. The latter will let you control the shutter speed while the camera takes control of the aperture and ISO. This lets you focus on the composition and will guarantee that you get proper exposure. This is perfect for any “in the moment” shots and of course for landscape photos as well.

If you have the time, though, and the moment isn’t fleeting, get your tripod and put it into manual mode. Experiment with the 3 parts of the exposure triangle and see how each affects the result. You will have so much more control than any phone will give you.

However, if it’s something important or you’re going to miss the shot if you’re not quick, don’t be afraid of auto mode! It’s fine to use that and it usually does a pretty good job. Perhaps use the auto “no flash” mode, though.. on-board flashes suck in most situations.

Yes your camera is good enough! As I’ve found from upgrading, the camera body is more about durability and ease of access to controls. Lenses are much more important. As you learn more about the exposure triangle you’ll start to understand why a wide aperture (low f-stop number) is so important.. and maybe you will even want to buy one of these.

Hope this helps! I’m not an expert or anything, just self taught, but I’m happy to help if you have any questions!

u/justincleduc · 1 pointr/photography

(This was orignally a post, but got removed by a mod because of the sub's rules)


First off I'd like to state that even though I've been shooting for 5 years on the regular and know how to operate a camera and frame a photo, photography wise, I still see myself as one hell of a beginner.

Post-processing (heavy composites) have always been more of my thing, and a decent camera has always been essential to having good material to work on for later in PS.

What I presently own :

  • Canon EOS Rebel XSi - 18–55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (What I've been shooting with for the past 5 years)
  • 2 X Neewer TT560 Flash Speedlite
  • Reflectors / Stands / Tripods
  • Wireless remote

    What I'm looking for :

    I'm still looking to do some studio-type photography and get better at it (might be keeping my Canon for that), but as of now, I'm looking to get into street photography. I live in the heart of Toronto and there's a lot of nice things to shoot here!

    My budget :

    My budget is between $1000-$1200. I'm okay with buying used.

    My research so far :

    I've started going through this sub 3 weeks ago, doing lots of research. It got me a little intimidated (hence this post's 1st paragraph), until I started to feel the community's love for the Fujifilm X100S. Reading on it, I started to like a lot of things about the X100S, but as time went on, I began to feel pretty underwhelmed when I saw the photos it produced (and I saw a lot). It just felt like... the feel of the photos (35mm lens maybe) wasn't the right fit for me(?). Can't put my finger on it.

    Shortly after, I started to read up on the Fujifilm X-E2 and that's when I started to really love the vibe and feel of a Fuji camera, even with its 18-55mm lens. So as of now, this is what I'd like to go with.

    I'm reading a lot about full-frame cameras and a lot of people suggesting to invest in new glass, and as much as I agree, I'd really much like to go with a new camera completely.

    Question :

    So, with that said, I come to you and ask; what the hell should I be buying? Stick with Canon, get my hands on a Fuji/Nikon...? If it's of any help, my Instagram account might give you a better idea of what I like to do shoot for now:

u/istguy · 1 pointr/photography

I'm getting ready to go on vacation, and I'm considering buying a new lens to celebrate and have fun with. Currently, I'm shooting with a D60, and I have the 18-55mm kit lens + the 55-200 telephoto lens.

The pictures I'll be taking on the trip will probably be a mix of shots of scenery/landscapes and my friends.

I would love to get an 18-200mm lens, but the Nikon one is simply out of my price range at $600. Is the Sigma 18-200 an acceptable substitute? I like the 18-200mm coverage, because it would be very nice to just take the one lens, and not worry about changing it.

I'm also considering getting a prime lens instead, because in the future I'd like to do some better indoor shooting. Possibly the 35mm Nikon or the 50mm. My sense is that the 35mm would be great for landscapes on my trip, but that the 50mm might be better for taking pics of friends. Am I wrong?

I'd welcome any advice/opinion on which lens to get, and which lens(es) to carry with my traveling. Thanks in advance.

u/beautyjunkbunny · 3 pointsr/photography

I have a canon t3i, budget is $400 and am upgrading my tech for beauty videos. I need new lights, focus remote control, new battery, sd card, 2 lenses. Zoom and wide.

I know this is a photo thread but hear me out and share input.

I never specified that I'm focusing on video. I guess I assumed it was self explanatory with the info I went on to ask about pertaining to video.


How much film time will this sd give me? Google says 2 hours, but maybe someone here knows better.

Are these lights worth it?

I currently have these

They heat up and take up too much space in my little square room and dont light enough or evenly even with my ring light in front of me.

What zoom and wide lens can I use, to zoom into face sitting 4+ feet away from tripod. I currently have the canon 50mm lens.

What wide lens can I buy? My kit lens is still too close to me even zoomed out.

Budget friendly lenses for my crop sensor.

What my videos look like now, I need to update, get a nice bokeh when zoomed into face, even lighting, and nice wide shot to use for intro and outro of videos.

Any other tips on saving money, improving my videos, etc, I'm open to learning. Thank you.

I would really like to have a nice blurry background like here for intros and outros

u/TheFryingDutchman · 5 pointsr/photography

Learn composition. You have a compact camera so you already have the tool to take interesting photographs. I would start with a book like The Photographer's Eye to start learning about what makes certain photographs compelling and interesting. You can hit the photography section of the local library and just start looking at great photographs. As someone posted here couple weeks ago, "Buy books, not gear."

Later on, you may decide to buy a DSLR, but think carefully about what you need. A camera is a tool, nothing more. A great camera will open up new possibilities, but you still need knowledge and experience to convert those possibilities into good pictures. Since you brought up the classical music analogy, think of the camera like a piano. A grand Steinway can make beautiful music, but it cannot turn a novice into a concert pianist. Only hard work, training, experience, and knowledge can do that.

For inspiration, here is a great war photographer who uses only point-and-shoots.

Good luck and happy shooting!

u/odd_affiliate_link · 15 pointsr/photography

I suggest the D7000 - I really like mine. The ergonomics (aside from the ISO button placement) are fantastic, and it feels very well made. I had some lenses already, but if you nave no lenses, I would go with the kit w/18-105mm lens and add the excellent 35mm 1.8. Also keep a sharp eye out for used lenses on Craigslist - The D7000 can use pretty much any old Nikon lens.

I was given an old Quantaray Vivitar 70-210mm 3.5 that would not meter on a friend's D50 but works great on the D7000. It isn't the best lens, but it is very fun to play with and has a macro mode.

Regarding lenses, some people will tell you to skip the kit lens and just go with primes. I disagree. Primes are great, but for someone who is just starting out and getting a feel for a 'real' camera, a decent zoom is great. 18-105mm is a huge range, so it should give you an idea of what focal lengths you like after using it a bit.

Edit: Fixed lens manufacturer mentioned above.

u/bube7 · 2 pointsr/photography

Welcome to the wonderful world of photography. Enjoy the process of taking photos, loving them, hating them, and getting better at it everyday (just don't get caught up in the bottomless pit that is "why don't I get more likes on social media" :))

> I take a few seconds to compose before I shoot. Is this too slow or should I hold down the shutter button to take multiple shots?

Definitely not a rule set in stone, but composing and shooting a single frame is generally regarded as the "correct" way to shoot. It helps you develop your eye and mind in looking and finding subjects, frames, composition.. The other method is usually "spray and pray", and yields a very low keeper count. It's only relevant when you're shooting action and sports, where you only have a split second to get a frame worth capturing (and even then, you pre-compose and anticipate shots).

> I've enabled the rule of thirds grid in the EVF already, but how I can improve the framing/composition?

It may be cliché, but it's said that rules like the thirds are "always meant be broken". They are just suggestions, a place to start. There are lot of different aspects to composition, and it's best to study some basic techniques and look at a lot of examples. I find this article to be helpful. If you're looking to go even more in-depth, then I wholeheartedly recommend this book.

> Is there a decent post processing software on the PC that are free? If not, what's a good budget friendly option?

There are quite a few good options to choose from. Here are the most commonly recommended ones (may not be available on all systems, check their websites). The first three are Lightroom alternatives (they offer photo processing), the last one is a Photoshop alternative (photo processing + manipulation). I recommend starting with photo processing.

u/Timeuhr · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know why everyone puts cleaning gear in such high priority, my gear is still perfectly clean after 3 years of use. A good bag will hold loads of dust away from your gear.
Together with my first Dsrl (I'm a Canon user but I got to work with Nikon cameras quite often) I got the essential stuff:

  • Adobe Lightroom - heads up the best software to edit and store your RAWs in my opinion
  • Tripod - my first tripod was quite cheap because I was a on a low budget, but it did it's job till I moved to Manfrotto
  • Remote shutter release - Should do it's job, if you want to shoot timelapse you'll have to buy an intervalometer remote
  • SD cards - I suggest to always go with class 10 cards if you mainly shoot RAW and videos (high data rates)

    After all that stuff I got my first prime lens. The 50mm f/1.8 (Canon).

    The good old so called nifty fifty helped me to learn so much about composition and framing because you have to think about how to frame your subject rather than to just use zoom etc. It also has such a great sharpness and beautiful bokeh. It's a really great lens for portraits! Of course this also applies to the Nikon 50mm.

    The Nikon equivalent to Canons 50mm f/1.8 lens runs around $190 which will give you great optical performance, a lens pouch, plus if you ever feel like upgrading from your D3200 the flexibility of being able to use this lens with all of Nikon's Dsrl (internal autofocus motor).
u/ezraekman · 5 pointsr/photography

For your purposes, a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably your best bet. That said, they aren't cheap. Used, older models can go for as low as $600-800 if you're lucky, but make sure it works before you pay for it. Test it THOROUGHLY, make sure it has no mold, scratches, or other obvious defects, make sure autofocus is fast and smooth even (especially) in low light, and make sure the aperture isn't sticky (resulting in over/underexposure) when shooting at high frame rates. Buying used can be risky, so be sure if you do.

If cost is an issue, go with a prime. It is not the same experience as shooting with a zoom, but they're cheaper and, when compared to the after-market brands or older branded zooms, are usually of superior quality and sharpness. (Newer branded zooms are much better quality, but as you've noticed, are much more expensive. This will, to a certain extent, depend on your camera body. I swear by my 50mm f/1.4, but that probably isn't going to be long enough for your needs, even on a cropped sensor (making it an effective 75mm f/1.4). A fixed focal length will be a pain in the ass when trying to follow fast-moving subjects around, particularly if you're stationary in the stands or on the sidelines, but it can be done.

Another factor to consider when thinking about fast primes is that their smallest aperture isn't always that small. For example: the 50mm f/1.4 can only stop down to f/16. Why is that a bad thing? Well, for one, it means you might have to shoot at a much faster shutter speed under bright lights/sunlight, which might not be what you want if you're trying to show action by allowing a small amount of motion blur by shooting at 1/30 to 1/60 of a second. This is mostly a non-issue indoors or out of direct sunlight, but is worth considering.

Personally, I love my 50mm f/1.4 - it's my most frequently used lens at the moment... depending on the type of event I'm shooting. I used it about 1/3 of the time while shooting some dancers at SF City Hall last week (1/3 was a 24mm f/2.8 and 1/3 was a 70-200 f/2.8, because I could move around), and the low light made me glad I brought it. It is invaluable for live performances, and makes stage lighting look like a studio portrait. I used my 50mm about 60-75% of the time for both of those shoots. It's also good for general portraiture, either medium or close-up. The 50mm barely left camera body for those two shoots. Most of these shots were on a D700, which is a full-frame sensor. I'm guessing yours is a cropped frame, which means the 50mm becomes a 75mm, at which point you might actually have a decent lens for medium and wide shots when at the sidelines. It probably won't be tight enough if you're in bleachers, though. And as I mentioned earlier, the ability to zoom in and out without having to move around is going to make things a LOT easier.

But a 70-200 f/2.8 will run you close to $1,000 used, whereas you can find a 50mm f/1.4 on Craig's List in decent shape for $200-250 fairly regularly. It'll cost you $450 on for the AF-S version, $350 for the SF-D version (slightly slower & louder focusing), or $125 for the AF-D f/1.8 version if you don't mind losing a half-stop of light. $429 will get you the 85mm f/1.8, which also loses the half-stop of light but is a tighter shot and is still fairly fast. You can reasonably expect to find this lens used for about $100-150 less than it's new price, in decent shape.

Insofar as after-market vs. Nikon-branded lenses are concerned, I have never owned an after-market lens that did not develop some kind of problem after 1-2 years of regular use, and I've owned a few of them. Sigma/Quantaray sucks for longevity; I've had to send one of their EX (pro) line back twice, and it still has some of the same problems. Tamron is okay, depending on which version you get... and it seems that some lenses come off the assembly line in good shape while others don't. Tokina seems to get good reviews, but also seems to be more limited in specs. Most of the other after-market brands aren't even worth mentioning. On the flip side, I own Nikon lenses that have been dropped onto cement, smashed into the ground lens-first when knocked over on a tripod, smacked and beaten, which work just as well now as they did when I bought them. The primes are built like tanks. The pro zooms are as well, though much more expensive. The more plasticky prosumer or kit lenses aren't, but still seem to develop fewer problems than after-market lenses. Another thing about after-market lenses: their autofocus is usually slow, and they frequently hunt for focus (focusing in and out, unable to lock) in low light. Pro AF-S will be your best bet for this, but is expensive. AF-D is usually good for sharp, accurate autofocus, but is slower than both pro and consumer AF-S.

I've been shooting for ten years and won't buy another after-market lens if I have a choice for all of these reasons. Yes, I get paid for my work and thus tend to spend more money on my gear than the average amateur, but for me, photography is more like a hobby that occasionally pays for itself than a business; I have a career that's completely separate. As a result, I have many of the same concerns about spending over a thousand dollars on a lens. However, I also know I'll get tons of use out of it over the years. I shoot, on average, 1-4 events per week (work allowing, of course), and many of my events put my gear at risk due to rowdy crowds, so I need that beefier build quality. Much of this may not be as true for you, so bear that in mind when making your decision.

Hope that helps!

u/jseliger · 2 pointsr/photography

Doesn't matter much. Personally, I'd take the t2i because it's a level "above" the Nikon D3x00 series (the D5x00 series is Nikon's equivalent), but see also below.

I wrote this for some other threads:

The T2i and 18 - 55mm are fine places to start; so are their Nikon and Sony equivalents. If you have any friends who are interested in photography, ask them and buy whatever they use, because they'll be able to help you better than a bunch of people on the Internet. The differences among cameras at this level are really small—think f/11 small—and you're better off learning how to use your camera and how to think photographically than agonizing over which to buy.

If you're like most people, you'll eventually want to explore fixed-length primes. Canon sells a $100 50mm prime, and so does Nikon. Once you have some experience with the kits lens and the "nifty 50," you'll be ready for something else—but what that "something else" is depends on what you shoot.

See the Digital Photography Review Canon t2i guide, the Digital Photography Review learning guide, and How to make the jump from automatic to manual. If you have questions after reading them closely, come back and ask.

The important thing is learning your camera and training your eye. For the former, a knowledgeable user can help; so can a book. I got David Busch's t2i guide and like it fine. I'm sure there are others; get whichever you see as most useful.

u/SnowHawkMike · 3 pointsr/photography

Thank you, I am glad that it's useful. I am the first to admit to people, although I learned and grew up using Nikon, my experience with their glass is limited since I no longer use their system. That's my longwinded way of saying take what I say with a grain of salt.

Having said that I find the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G to be one beautiful piece of glass. As good as the famed nifty fifty that Canon users love. Yes, you will get some light fall off with this lens, but stopped down that disappears. However who really cares, since you are most likely using it to focus in the center and not around the edges. And on a crop sensor I am guessing you are mostly using this for portraits, or similar centre focused shots.

The 35mm is just as good, if not better, seeing as how it's $50 less (MSRP), and on a crop sensor like in the D7000 it works beautifully as an all purpose lens. If you have the [cash for it]) I would say keep both in your bag, and use the 35mm for those times when you need a lens to do anything on the fly, and 50mm for more specific situations.

Another contender worth tossing into the mix, and this is what I use, is the Leica Summicron-R 50mm. It's the most used lens in my kit, and whether I am shooting film or digital I never leave the house without it. If you decide to pick one up look for the newer 3 cam version, and if you want to save some money do not buy the ROM version. Simply buy the cheapest good condition non-rom version you can, and send it to Leica to be upgraded to ROM for $325 if you really need that extra data.

If it's helpful here are links to the flickr groups for the three lenses I just talked about:

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g

Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2

u/johnny5ive · 6 pointsr/photography

Yes!!! I'm in this thread early so i'm just gonna dump my questions. For reference I'm shooting with a D7100 (I blame DatAperture for owning that instead of a D7000)

  1. Do you all know exactly what combo of shutter speed / aperture / ISO you need to get a picture exposed correctly or are you just doing guess-and-check? I know the general relation between all 3 and how it determines exposure but I rarely get it right on the first or second try. Do you all have warm up shots or do you just nail exposure the first time?

  2. Debating a yongnuo flash for my indoor events. How important is TTL?

  3. Shooting a friends rehearsal dinner (she doesn't want anything crazy she just wants pictures to remember the night by). I'm not too nervous because I've had tons of practice and can turn out pretty good photos (thank you lightroom!) but i'm wondergin if a Sigma 18-35/1.8 will be all I need for the night. Should i get a nifty fifty to go with? Should I look into renting a 24-70 for the night or will I be ok just having the other two?

  4. I have a D7100, Can I save $100 and get the 50mm 1.8D or is the 50mm 1.8G that much better? Would I be missing out on that much?

  5. As a hobbyist would I be missing out if i bought a zoom a f2.8 or is f/4 enough? Is that extra stop really worth it if i'm mostly using it for friends/family/vacation? I know it really depends on the lighting and how many shots i'm ok with missing but i'd like to hear if there's anyone that regrets getting a lens at f/4 instead of f/2.8

    Thank you for your help. Here's a picture I took of my dog as thanks for your comments. Taken at 1/25, f/2.5, ISO 3200.
u/Capitol62 · 2 pointsr/photography

Also, if you don't want the kit lens and only want to get the 55-200 you should give them a call. They might knock off an extra $75 or so.

To be honest though, if I were buying new again, (I own a d40x and am in the process of getting a d300) I would start with a D80 and here's why. The d40/d40x/d60 is a great camera, really, it's awesome for an entry level rig. It does have one major drawback, which is also why they are so cheap in price not quality. They don't have an internal lens motor. Not having a lens motor limits the lenses you can put on the camera. You pretty much need to get lenses with motors in them if you want to auto focus.

Why this is a problem. I was recently looking to buy a 50mm f1.4. There are several Nikon options. The older 50mm lenses cost between $100-200 used and have great image quality but I couldn't use them on my camera unless I gave up auto focus. The only lenses that would work are the sigma and the new Nikon that was literally just released. They cost $450, clearly much more expensive.

So, the d40 line are cheaper now and if you just want to take nicer vacation pictures will work absolutely great but if you want to move into any other sort of photography they'll quickly become more expensive because you'll be forced to buy more expensive lenses. Something like this might work. It's a little more than what you want to spend but it's a great camera and the 18-135 lens will give you much greater flexibility than the standard 18-55 kit lens.

Or this and this

u/revjeremyduncan · 11 pointsr/photography

I'm far from an expert, but I have a 7D, and I can tell you a few things to consider.

  • A 7D has a crop (APS-C) sensor, whereas the 5D has a Full Frame Sensor. The difference being that any lens you put on a 7D is going to be zoomed in by 1.6x compared to the 5D. See here. In other words, a 50mm lens on a 7D is going to act like an 80mm lens would on the 5D. Full frame sensors have a more shallow depth of field, too, which may or may no be desirable with video. Shallow DoF looks nice, but you really have to be precise when focusing.

  • Both the 7D and 5D have fixed LCD view screens. The 60D, which is like a cheaper version of the 7D, has a flip out screen, so you can see what you are filming when you are in front of the camera. An alternative would be using a laptop or tablet to as an eternal monitor. Honestly, if video was my focus, I would go with the 60D. 7D is better for still photography, though. Just my opinion.

  • The 7D, 5D and 60D do not have continuous focus for video, like what you are probably used to on a regular video camera. That means you have to manual focus with the focus rings on the lens, as you are filming. It gets easier with a lot of practice. The only Canon dSLR that I know of that has continuous focus on video is the Rebel T4i, which is quite a down grade from either of the previous. Also, the only lens that I know of that is compatible with continuous focus (so far) is the 40mm Pancake lens. That's a good, cheap lens to have in your arsenal, though.

  • The 5D does not have a built in flash, but that probably doesn't matter to you, if you are only doing video. Either way, I would get a speedlight if you need a flash. I have used my pop up in a pinch, though. All the other models I mentioned do have a flash.

  • Other people are likely to have different opinions, but some cheap starter lenses I would consider are; Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 (Nifty Fifty), Canon 40mm ƒ/2.8 (Pancake Lens), and Tamron 17-50mm ƒ/2.8 (great, fast lens for video for the price IMO).

    Again, I cannot stress enough, that I am not as experienced as many of the photographers in this subReddit, so if they have differing opinions, you may want to consider theirs over mine. I hope I could help a little, at least.

    EDIT: Changed the order of my comments.
u/stephaquarelle · 1 pointr/photography

Trying to set up to take photographs of my watercolor paintings to produce digital copies that I can make prints from. I am open to buying stuff if I need to, but if possible would like to use what I already have. My main concerns are accurate colors, even lighting and of course a sharp image without distortion. Will be editing in Adobe Photoshop. I am by no means a good photographer, but I am a bit familiar with manual settings. Both my brother and dad were into photography at some point, so I have access to some gear.

I have:

Nikon D7100

50mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.4 G

35mm f/1.8 G

85mm f/3.5 G ED macro

4 tripods

3500K light bulbs

A wall to attach paintings to

My current plan is to use the 50mm f/1.4 lens on a tripod about 3ft away from the wall - or at a distance where the painting fills most of the viewfinder. I put two 3500k lights on tripods and will have one on both sides ideally at a 45 degree angle (or less?). Will be shooting raw and at iso 100 - that's about the extent of my plan but I am trying to do more research for the best set up.

My questions are: Would some sort of color balance or grey card help? I am not exactly familiar with how something like this works but I've seen them mentioned in a few places online - it seems expensive but accurate colors is important to me.

Should I get something to diffuse the lights? I am almost just considering getting something like this if that would be sufficient.

Any critique of my plan or other tips on photographing artwork would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!

u/mcdronkz · 19 pointsr/photography

The most important thing that 99% percent of the photographers don't seem to know: if you want to make good photos consistently, learn the fundamentals.

Because a photo can be made in an instant, a lot of photographers work intuitively, without making any informed decisions about their pictures whatsoever. This is why a lot of photos taken without any training aren't appealing.

If you learn about composition, color, light, etc. like an illustrator or a painter does, you will be able to make repeatable successful photos. In the beginning, you shouldn't be overly concerned with sharpness, depth of field or your equipment. No, you should be concerned with how your photo looks at the most basic, fundamental level.

Since I started taking drawing lessons and reading books on color and composition this year, I feel way more confident about my photography. I make informed decisions that I know will work. I am able to analyze pictures that work for me, and I know why they work now. Thanks to drawing lessons, I can see a lot better, which is also a great help for retouching. I can think in terms of lines, shapes, forms, spaces, light, shadow. But the most important thing of all: I feel like I can reach the level of photography that I only could dream about last year, the high-end commercial automotive photography.

Some books that helped me a lot:

u/phylouis · 1 pointr/photography

Hi ! My first camera was a canon 70D too ! A great all around camera especially if you are into videography. About what lenses you should get, you should definitely buy the nifty fifty, it is just a fantastic lens for its price !
If you are a video enthusiast, you should consider buying the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 which has a great IQ, a nice optical stabilizer and a constant f2.8, video I made with the sigma+70d here.

Or if you can afford a canon lens, the equivalent that is this one.

Anyway, the 70D is probably one of the best camera out there to start. Make sure to read a lot of books about photography, exposure, etc.. And even consider joining /r/photoclass2017/ !

Have a great day !

u/adamtj · 2 pointsr/photography

What's the point of taking photographs that suck? Tricks and techniques that require a DSLR are mostly just tricks and they won't make a fundamentally bad photo any good. Shallow depth of field, or creative control of shutter speed won't fix a fundamentally poor composition. First get good.

You can get very good with just a phone. Lots of people spend big bucks on expensive cameras thinking it will let them take great pictures. It turns out you can take bad photos with any camera, and you can take great photos with just a phone. If I were in a photography club with only a phone camera, I would want to learn to take better pictures with it than my uncle/mom/friend/etc can take with their big expensive DSLRs. It's fun to win, especially when you're an underdog.

Anybody who is excels at anything, photography or otherwise, has mastered the fundamentals. There are no exceptions. Fortunately, you don't need fancy equipment to learn some of the more important fundamentals in photography: composition and lighting. It's a rare photo that is good, but lacking in one of those areas.

Composition is easy to learn and hard to master. Google around. Read about the rule of thirds, leading lines, and so on. Learn to do each one well. Take lots of different pictures using each techniques. Combine techniques. Then figure out when to break the rules, and thus learn why they are important. A phone will work just as well as a DSLR here. Your only real limitations are inability to control depth of field and inability to change your focal length, and those aren't so important. At least, it's easy to find situations where you don't need those particular tools.

Lighting is also important, but it seems to get less blog space than composition. You can learn all the important things about lighting with very little equipment. You also don't need to leave your boring classroom as long as you have people and stuff. Do portraits. Do well-lit product photography.

You can study lighting without flash. There's a lot you can do with just a window, or the sun and a wall, or a lamp you can move around. Dig up some scrap cardboard for a gobo. Cover it with white paper and you have a reflector. Cover it with tinfoil and you have a different kind of reflector. Rembrant didn't have a flash.

On the other hand, if you have even a little money to spend, you could learn about off-camera flash, even with phone cameras. For $40-$60 on Amazon you can get a cheap but powerful hotshoe flash with an optical slave mode that you can probably trigger with a phone's LED flash. Hotshoe not required.

For example:

Add a mirror or your reflectors from above and your one light source becomes two or three. Clothespin a plain white T-shirt or tape a white plastic garbage bag to a bent wire clothes hanger and you've got a diffuser that works like a white umbrella. Attach a black plastic garbage bag to the back and now you've got a softbox with more control over the backscatter, so it doesn't bounce around the room and light up parts of your subject that you don't want lit. Just be sure not to enclose the whole flash body so you get enough light to trigger the optical slave sensor.

Now you can do this:

One of the problems with phone cameras is that you don't have much control over depth of field. While you can't really blur out distracting backgrounds, you can use lighting to de-epmhasize them. See, for example, the first photo in the Lighting 101 link above. Can your Aunt who keeps her DSLR in Auto mode do that?

u/Roknboker · 1 pointr/photography

I'd say do it, but you're going to have to spend the money on a lens that has the autofocus motor built into it. A great lens would be this 35mm. It's a great lens. I'm also a fan of this 50mm but it will not auto-focus on your D50.

That 35mm though, I promise you will fall in love with it, and it will still work perfectly when you upgrade cameras.

u/hennell · 2 pointsr/photography

There are a few things you can get without much info; but it'd help if you know what sort of things he likes to shoot (and where - indoor, outdoor), as well as how long he's been shooting for! (If he has an online portfolio (especially flickr) that may say what camera/lens he uses etc in the metadata, or just show what subjects he likes if you don't want to ask!)

Your best option however might be a book; understanding exposure and the photographers eye are ones often mentioned here that are pretty universal to any model camera or photography subject. (I don't own exposure, but I believe it's pretty useful for most beginner to intermediate shooters, Eye is probably a little more intermediate+ (it's understandable to all levels, but you have to want to put the effort in to use it if you see what I mean!))

u/MacGyverisms · 3 pointsr/photography

I can't really recommend the DX 55-300 either, especially for wildlife photography. I find the focusing to be highly inaccurate and slow, and that's with stationary subjects. It's most noticeable at the the 300mm end of the lens. Anything moving (like wildlife) is going to be really difficult to get in focus. The manual focus ring is also very touchy, which is something to consider if you'll be using it often. I still keep mine around for that odd graduation or other event where I need the extra reach, but most of the time it sits on my shelf collecting dust. That being said, I've heard good things about the Nikon 70-300mm. The AF is faster, and it's compatible on FF cameras. You also get the same aperture range as the 55-300mm. This is the lens I wish I picked up instead of my 55-300mm. Make sure you pick up the AF-S version I've linked if you have a camera in the D3000-5000 like I do. Those ranges don't have built in focusing motors and thus you need an AF-S lens. If you have a D7000 and up though, you can save yourself a bit of money and buy the older version of the lens. You forgo VR and a few other things, but save yourself $350. Good luck!

u/cmtrinks · 3 pointsr/photography

After wanting a DSLR for several years, I recently decided to bite the bullet and finally buy one. I picked up the D7000, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. While this lens is perfect for me so far and does everything that I want while I continue to learn, eventually I'll be looking to acquire more lenses. Heres where I'm confused on what would actually be the best lenses to purchase down the road. I'm not constantly shooting portraits, or fast paced sports games; I usually just shoot whatever I want, whenever.

I'm looking to grab either a 35mm, 50mm, or a wide angle. These are what I've found so far that have my interest: 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm f/1.8G. I'm not exactly sure which would be better since I have a 28-75. I've read a ton of articles of 35mm vs 50mm, and even wide angle but I'm still confused on which to buy. I would like to take city landscape, food, and possibly portraits with whatever lens I get. Any wide angle recommendations would be appreciated.

Secondly, I want to purchase a telephoto but I'm not sure which one would suit my lifestyle more. Right now I wouldn't mind spending $5-700 for this. I was looking at this model: 70-200mm f/2.8 I would eventually upgrade to a better telephoto, but for the time being I don't necessarily want to spend $1,000+. Any suggestions on what would be a better lens to buy instead of the one I linked, and what would be a good lens to upgrade to in a few years?

I've taken a few longer exposure night time shots that have turned out very nice, but I wasn't sure about how to do daytime bright light exposures until recently learning about neutral density filters. I've heard multiple pros and cons about adjustable ND filters, so I'm unsure if I should be buying an adjustable or regular filters.

u/Garak · 2 pointsr/photography

I do! That's what I wound up getting. I'm having a blast with mine--this is my favorite picture so far. It's a great camera. It's not the most sophisticated camera Nikon offers, but it's got everything you'll need for quite a while. It's also nice and light, so you can ease into lugging around SLR-sized cameras.

I started out with a D40 because Rockwell made such a stink about it, but I exchanged it for the D60. The D60 is a nice upgrade in a few ways. First off, the kit lens has image stabilization, which comes in pretty handy in low light. Second, the extra megapixels, despite what Rockwell says, do come in handy. It's nice to have room to crop. There are a few other little extras, too, like a sensor cleaner and a few interface improvements.

The only caveat has to do with lenses. Nikon is in the middle of transitioning from putting the autofocus motor in the body to putting it in the lens. The D40 and D60 don't have an in-body motor, so you lose autofocus on some older lenses. This is mostly a non-issue for newbies like us who don't have lens collections, except when it comes to the legendary 50mm 1.8. It's one of the few "fast" cheap lenses, meaning that you can open the aperture to blur backgrounds and shoot in low light. You can still use the lens, but you'll have to focus manually.

Good luck!

u/scyshc · 2 pointsr/photography

hmmmm since she was looking for superzooms, I don't think she'll appreciate the 50mm as much because she already has that field of view, same goes for the 24mm. The only advantage they have for her would be the wider aperture, helping her with low light situations.

You could get her a fisheye lens like the Rokinon 8mm f3.5 but honestly you take fisheye lenses for maybe once or twice and you get bored with it. You could also get her a macro lens, but again, those are one trick ponies. Unless you see her trying low light photography and/or playing with depth of field, don't think primes would suit her at this moment. Primes generally are better performing, but I think she values versatility more than that little extra performance that you get out of primes.

Sounds like she could like the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 lens. There's three versions of this lens (but don't bother with the first one). second one is bit cheaper at 195 new. third one is more expensive at 300 bucks new, but it has quieter autofocus, instant manual focus (meaning you don't have to bother with the AF to MF switch to get manual focus, you just turn the focus ring) and it can focus a bit closer than the second one (second one focuses up to 3.6' or 1.1m, third one focuses up to 2.8', or .85m).
It's not a big difference, but you do get a slight bit more functionality for that extra dough.

Well I hope you look into my suggestion. And tell her the first photo with the trees is fantastic!

u/wh0ever · 5 pointsr/photography

I don't shoot Canon and this is a little more expensive at $110 but here's a 50mm lens that should work for your friend.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens
Any Canon shooters can correct me if I'm wrong but this should mount to your friend's camera and it seems pretty popular. Good luck! You sound like a thoughtful friend.

u/inorman · 1 pointr/photography

I highly recommend NOT getting the fisheye converter or the starter pack kit of cheapo accessory lenses. I know it sounds like a good deal because you're getting a lot of "stuff" but frankly all of those things are complete and utter crap. Take the $75 and the extra $220 dollars you wish to spend and spend it on a fast prime like the AF-S DX NIKKOR
35mm f/1.8G
and spend at least a little more on a decent tripod with a ballhead like this affordable Dolica Tripod. I used one of those tripods for years doing studio work and landscapes and it's actually pretty good. A steal for $50 and sure to be better than the one you originally linked to.

Trust me on this one, you'll thank me later. That 35mm f/1.8 will be the best lens you'll own for a long time, guaranteed.

u/ChocolateWatch · 4 pointsr/photography

Brand flashes are some of the most overpriced items in photography. I wouldn't jump straight in with one if I wasn't sure I needed it.

People recommend YongNuo flashes for good reason - they are well built, do pretty much exactly the same job as the brand flashes, but are a fraction of the price.

You can go for a 560iii which is fully manual, or the 565 which is TTL; that is, the flash will adjust itself based on information gathered Through The Lens.

As you can see, the 560 is under £50 and the 565 is under £70, so even if you do upgrade, you haven't exactly broken the bank, and it will mean you just have 2 decent flashguns. Which you go for is up to you. TTL may be useful for parties where you going around taking candid or quickly posed shots in changing light, so if you can afford the extra 20 quid, go for it. If your budget is tight, the 560 will still do a great job - it's easy to adjust on the fly.

You will probably also want to look into light modifiers like softboxes (mini ones for on-camera, larger ones for off camera), umbrellas, light stands, and remote triggers. A more affordable flashgun gives you much more leeway in that regard.

As for learning how to use it, head over to The Strobist. And of course, you can always ask here.

u/TThor · 2 pointsr/photography

Personally the obvious entry-level lens after the kit 18-55mm lens is to pair it with something like a 55-200mm lens. That way you will have most of your necessary range covered, all the way from 18mm ultra-wide to 200mm telephoto. These basic lenses aren't anything too special, but they are surprisingly solid for their cheap price.

-Here is a basic 55-200mm; if you want something with more reach such as for wildlife photography, here is a basic 55-300mm. If you believe that you might someday upgrade to a fullframe camera^([>$1500 at the cheapest]), and want a lens that can upgrade with you, here is an FX 70-300mm. All three of these lenses have vibration reduction, which reduces shake from say your hands.-

After a wide-angle zoom lens and a telephoto zoom lens, the next obvious choice for a budding photographer on a budget I would say is either a 35mm prime or a 50mm prime. as I said previously, both of these lenses are close to the focal range of the human eye, making them good choices for general purpose photography. And when compared to say your 18-55mm kit lens, both of these primes will be far faster and sharper at their given focal length, with a small depth of field that is very fun to play with (here is an example of what a small depth of field can look like).

-Here is a 35mm f1.8 [DX]; here is a 50mm f1.8 [FX]. Both are roughly the same price, both are roughly similar focal lengths; choose the 35mm if you prefer to get closer to your subject, choose the 50mm if you prefer to have a little more reach. (also, the 50mm is an FX and cheap, so if upgrading in the future was something you wanted, it would be the better choice. There is an FX 35mm nikon lens also, but it costs over double the price.)-

So to summarize, a solid starter set of lenses would be an 18-55mm, a 55-200mm(or something similar), and a good general purpose prime lens such as either the 35mm or the 50mm. Any lenses after that will depend widely on your given needs and desires.

u/RedditarDad · 1 pointr/photography

I always think that a tripod is a good thing to have. When I didn't have one I never thought I needed one, but once I finally got one I found that I wanted to use it all the time. You do not need to get an expensive one, I have 3 and I have gotten them all from thrift stores and yard sales.

If you want something which will help you take different kinds of photos I would recommend an off camera flash. These are a little more on the expensive side, but there are great options out there that do not include the $500+ Canon version. I have two Yognuo's and they are fantastic. These wireless flash triggers are an awesome addition to the flash.

u/parkerpyne · 2 pointsr/photography

>Where can I go from here on an extremely constricted time schedule?

It's not going to be doable when time is of the essence.

I think you need to more carefully compose your shots. Most of those are shot at or near the minimum depth-of-field your lens will afford you but in all of them, there is way too much going on in the background none of which contributes in a good way. Ideally, an image has an element that leads your eye into the frame until it finds the main subject.

The eye then begins wandering around and the eye's path may follow very different routes. It might be zig-zagging through it or swirling around the center in an elliptic fashion but ultimately the eye should be led out of the image again. In traditional paintings, particularly in portraiture, you often find somewhere in the background something as obvious as a door or a window that serves as that exit.

Mind you, achieving the above is hard even for a very good painter but it's harder in photography because you have to make do with what you have in the scene and you can't freely rearrange or add items as you see fit. Somewhere I read about the five-seconds rule: Look through your viewfinder and when you think you are ready to take the shot, look for another five seconds to see if there are any obvious flaws in your composition or things that could be improved. Pay particular attention to the background where the most obvious blunders tend to occur.

If you are interested and have the patience, there is quite a bit of literature out there that strives to make you a better photographer. I often hear The Photographer's Eye getting recommended. I have no first-hand experience with it myself but I have no reason to believe that it isn't excellent. And looking at the preview, it seems to be dealing with all the right topics.

Something that I am currently reading (and I am sure the members of this subreddit are already getting tired of hearing me mention it again) is Pictorial Composition which only talks about composition in paintings. From what I have read so far I can tell it's going to be very tough to apply this to photography but at the very least it will make you aware of the many aspects that make a great a image.

u/Enduer · 1 pointr/photography

It depends on the pictures you're taking.

A 50mm f/1.8 is always a good choice. About $100. It's better for portraits or walking around than landscapes though.

A wide angle zoom like this 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 from Canon wouldn't be bad. It'll let you get wide angle landscape shots of basically anything. Would not be the best for low light situations though and if you ever go full frame you would have to sell it.

Finally, more expensive, but generally worth it, is the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. You can get them used to save a bit of money and the best part is generally lenses hold their value very well, unlike camera bodies. This lens will be much more appropriate for low light shots or pictures of the stars.

If you're gonna splurge, splurge on lenses. Hope that helps a bit or gets some ideas flowing.

u/iggyfenton · 16 pointsr/photography

Here are lenses I suggest: (I shoot Canon, but you can find these focal lengths and aperture in any brand.)

If you don't have a Nifty Fifty, get one today.

This is the cheapest lens you can buy and it's great. Easily the best buy in lenses.

For indoor closer photos: 85mm f1.8

I use this for basketball. It will help you freeze the action by having a faster shutter speed. I shoot canon and I find that the lens performs best at f2 not wide open at f1.8

You also need to buy a 70-200 f2.8

This is a real go-to lens for sports. I carry it on my side for everything I shoot and I use it as a primary for many sports as well.

If you want me to give you some tips on your composition and shooting let me know. I have some notes on these images that can make them better in the future.

u/rhcpxc · 2 pointsr/photography

Nikon D5000... here is a comparison between the D3000 and D5000 in terms of technical performance:

(Note: Copy/paste the link, I don't know HTML tags to make it work in the comments)

I have the D3000 because I didn't have much money at the time, but now I wish I had gone with a camera with better ISO performance. It really doesn't take much time to read up on aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, exposure, white balance, etc. You'll be glad you got a better camera once you expand your knowledge of photography, and you won't feel like you want to upgrade so soon.

After that, I got the 35mm 1.8 lens:
It is a great walk-around lens, very sharp/fast, and can cover a variety of situations. It augments your kit lens well, and enables you to photograph in dim/poor lighting conditions.

u/gam8it · 6 pointsr/photography

Well first is there enough light, you would need it to be quite bright to get a good exposure with those manual settings. Even though there is plenty of light in the hotel room I am in to see without a light my camera takes a black shot with those settings.

At ISO 100 and 1/250 I had to widen my aperture to f1.2 to get an ok shot


At ISO 100 and F8 I had to go to 1/15


at F8 and 1/250 I had to boost ISO to 2500


But ... I would also guess that you have skipped some of the book and gone straight to the practical exercises, you are not understanding what effect the settings have

Also - understanding shutter speeds is too specific in my view, this was my favourite book to get started


Aperture mode (Aperture priority) means that you can change the aperture and the camera decides the shutter speed. Very simplistically this is so you can have control over the depth of field

Shutter mode (Shutter priority) means you control the shutter speed and the camera decides the aperture. Very simplistically this is so you can have control over how quick the shot is taken. Fast (1/250 and faster) for fast moving subjects like animals, sports or children, slower (1/80) if you can get away with it for static objects or very slow for long exposures for effect (1/4, etc)


In both of these your camera might be able to have 'Auto ISO' to be sure to get a good exposure - but you are letting the camera make decisions (Which is good for you at this point!)

I would suggest you set the camera to each of the above modes, setting the aperture and priority to the settings from the book respectively in each mode and take note of what it sets the rest to for a good exposure - so you can start to understand the relationship


But... if you are only just starting photography, just go out and shoot in Auto or in Shutter mode at 1/100 with Auto ISO (1/100 is a good shutter speed to use for hand held photography, it's difficult to hand hold slower than 1/80 - 1/100 without good stabilisation)


Why? Photography is about composition, just go and take some photos of things, in your back garden or around your town - go and photograph, the technical bits can come later

u/digiplay · 2 pointsr/photography

OP/TECH USA 9001132 Rainsleeve - Original, 2-Pack

Also Get a filter for the end of your lens. Don't buy the cheapest one going but you don't need a b+w either. You can get decent uv filters for reasonable money. There are pages dedicated to discussing filter clarity and options for size. I don't know what size your lens is but you can check this out. It will Give you any info you need I'd think l. Not only will it help rain stay out but it will allow you to wipe off the filter without concern of scratching the lens.

Here are the results of you just want to see which ones won and by what margin. Pay attention to the model numbers. Many manufacturers have a bunch of models

This is a modern filter that rates very well for 72mm lenses. And it's under $50

u/Mbellotti · 1 pointr/photography

For a starter set, I went with yongnuo speed lights and cheap stands and umbrellas from Amazon.

I bought the flash and trigger separate but since found this deal for two speed lights and the trigger, saves you a few bucks. They are quite good for the price. Keep in mind they are manual flashes

Also, there is a "frequently bought together" suggestion with the speed lights. You'll need the hot shoe adaptor to put onto the stands if you plan to do it that way. The little diffusers are helpful when I don't have an umbrella and can't bounce the flash off a wall or ceiling.

The stands are pretty cheap. But for the price I can't complain. The only real issue I have is if you are outside you will probably need something to hold them down as they are pretty light.

Hope that helps get you started.

u/DatAperture · 2 pointsr/photography

The best system for you is probably Nikon DSLRs. They have the best low light performance for your money in the DSLR world, and being a camera manufacturer pretty much exclusively, they have looooots of lenses.

My recommendation:

Refurb D7000 - $519. 1/320 flash sync speed, plenty good in low light, pro ergonomics, works with nikon's newer and older lenses.

Lens: 50mm f1.8G. You said portraits only, so here is your best bang for your buck lens for that. $215.

Lighting: Check out the strobist 101 lighting kit. $100ish.

Flash: YN 565 + radio triggers. $150ish.

With a memory card and whatnot, that comes to around $1000 and you have a great portrait setup. But, you're limited to one focal length (albeit a very useful one). Here are some tips if you wanna push it into the $1000-2000 range:

Nikon 80-200 f2.8D - crazy bang for your buck.

Sigma 18-35 f1.8 - the best wide/normal zoom lens for aps-c cameras. The quality out of it is nothing short of astounding.

85mm f1.8G. You want shallow depth of field? You've got it.

u/NuStone · 2 pointsr/photography

Hey, all.

I'm heading to Israel in a couple of months and have never been before. I'm extremely excited to do as much shooting as possible while there, but I'd like to make sure I have the gear to take the best advantage I can.

I own a Nikon D3400 camera with a kit lens I hardly use. I also own a Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G prime lens that I use for most of my shooting. I mostly do portraits and street photography, though I'd also like to do more architectural / landscape photography while in Israel. What I'm looking for is a recommendation on what kind of lens would be best for this kind of work, and perhaps even a specific lens that would fit what I'm looking for - budget is at most around $600.

This is what I'm looking at right now.

Thanks for any advice you can give!

u/hotpepperpowder · 1 pointr/photography

I am about to get into flash photography and, wanting to hit the ground running, I will buy three flashes and related equipment off the bat. I have decided to go with the cheap Yongnuo flashes.

The Yongnuo is up to version IV, but I can purchase some used version III's for a bit cheaper. The difference between them is that the IV has a transmitter built in that can communicate with the other flashes remotely. If I am understanding correctly, this would eliminate the need to buy a separate transmitter (called the TX for Yongnuo).

Is there any benefit to buying three IV's or is it fine to buy one IV and two III's? The latter seems fine to me, but as I am new to all this, I thought it best to ask the more experienced in case I am missing something. The savings are minimal, but as I am about to buy quite a lot of photography gear, it should contribute to substantial savings overall.

I may purchase from a similar cheap flash company if I can find a better deal. If anyone knows and even more cost-effective way to get into flash, please let me know.

Link to the IV

Link to the III

u/frostickle · 2 pointsr/photography


D3100 single lens kit for $499, then I'd try to get a 50mm f1.8 for about $100. I don't think you can get it off of Amazon for $100, so perhaps try craigslist or ebay or something for a second hand one. If you want to spend a bit more money, the 35mm f1.8 would be better.

For Canon:

You'll have to go for an older model T2i for $599.

In my opinion the Nikon is much better. It is preferable to get a prime lens (the 50mm f1.8 or 35mm f1.8) and a normal zoom lens (the kit lens).

I don't like twin lens kits, because they give you a normal zoom lens, and a long telephoto zoom lens. The telephoto lens is useless most of the time. It is mainly useful for taking photos of wild animals, birds, etc. or spying on people like a creep.

The prime lens is great because it is much sharper than a zoom lens, and you can use it in lower light. (It has a bigger opening, and lets more light in)
For $600, I would actually prefer to buy a mirrorless camera like an Olympus EPL-1 kit for $270 and then buy an extra 20mm f1.7 lens to go with it.

Or if you wanted a slightly bigger mirrorless camera, the Panasonic G3 is great and only $549.

Don't let anyone tell you that mirrorless cameras have worse quality. In daylight they'll be exactly as good, and even at night time micro four thirds cameras give excellent performance if you know what you're doing. I shot these photos on a Panasonic G2.

u/gamerlinkon · 1 pointr/photography

Which Budget Camera to buy for an absolute beginner ?

I'm planning to purchase a camera this Black Friday . This will be my first camera ever , did a lot of researching and finally it came down to two

Canon EOS 6D Mark II

Canon EOS RP Mirrorless

Finally decided to go with Canon EOS 6D Mark II for the battery life and also because RF lenses are comparatively expensive and I'm on a budget . Don't want to get the adapter either .

As for the lenses , I went for the budget wide and macro / telephoto lens

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens

As you can probably tell , I just based my search on the cheapest full frame sensors and lenses and ended up with this list .

Something about me , I am totally new to photography and don't even consider myself as an amateur . It's been almost 11/2 months since i started learning about the ins and outs of photography day in and day out , all i have right now is passion and theoretical knowledge but 0 practical skills . So this purchase is just to help better myself as a photographer ( If i can call myself that ) .

And all the Youtube videos are referring to APS-C Cameras when I search for "Best Camera under 1000$" . Not a single one of them talks about Full Frame Cameras , I know that the company would have to cut some corners to justify the full frame under 1000 but I can't think of how an APS-C can beat a Full Frame when it comes down to it .

If you could tell me what makes them so special than a full frame equivalent . It'll be helpful for me to weigh the pros and cons to finally make a educated decision . So please guide me in the ways of Photography , thank you all .

u/spisska · 3 pointsr/photography

I'd take your dad's camera down to the shop and get a repair estimate -- chances are all you need is a sensor cleaning, which is pretty cheap to get done.

Photography can be an absolute money sink, so it's worth making sure it's something you like before shelling out a ton of cash.

A 6.8 MP Nikon is still a better camera than 12 MP point-and-shoot, particularly when paired with a good lens. You'll be able to get images that blow up to about 16x10 without showing artifacts.

Given that this is a new hobby, I'd try to make do with the older body and invest in a good lens or two. Although price and quality are generally linked, you can find good lenses for very reasonable prices.

Also, get some books on photography or sign up for a class.

If you learn on what you have, you'll get a much better idea about what you need to invest in to get the pictures you're after. In two years, you can expect better electronics than these models for the same price.

u/bigpresh · 1 pointr/photography

For reference, I use the 18-55mm kit lens the D3100 came with, and also picked up the following lenses:

Tamron AF 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2 - I've found this to be a pretty damn reasonable telephoto & macro lens for the price. A couple of photos taken with it, for reference: wet flower (macro), WizzAir jet landing (full zoom), pigeon eating bread (full zoom).

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G - lovely fast prime - I couldn't really justify the extra cash to go for the 1.4 version, but this one has worked very well for me so far. 35mm on a crop sensor like the D3100/D3200 ends up about the same as a 50mm on a full-frame camera. A couple of sample shots: custom motorcycle engine, York gate emblem, Wilmot-Breeden calormeter.

I also grabbed an ancient used Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 prime for £30, but as a lens without a focus motor, it can only be used in full manual. However, it can also produce some good images, e.g. bacon roll, lily flower, laptop keyboard. If you're willing to play around in full manual mode (and I'd recommend it, if you want to learn the most you can about photography), starting with something like that could make a lot of sense.

Hope this helps somewhat.

u/filemeaway · 3 pointsr/photography

I'd say get the Canon t2i kit with the 18-135mm and a nifty fifty.

That's $970 so far, but he'll probably want a bag that can hold the camera and extra lens. Tamrac makes great bags.

So you've got a great kit with a lot of range and a sharp prime that rocks at low light.

Additional recommended purchases would be the book Understanding Exposure and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.

Edit: To be fair, maybe have him check out a Nikon DSLR (D5100 would be a comparable choice) along with a Canon to determine which one feels better. Both companies make great cameras of similar quality and performance—it really does come down to personal preference. And as a side note, I personally shoot a Nikon.

u/deejayqueue · 2 pointsr/photography

I've played with an SB800 and an SB900 with the camera (D7100) in commander mode. They work fine in a room where the light will reflect a bit, and they're ok behind white umbrellas, but I wouldn't push the issue much further than that.

For a mid-level solution, check out [These Guys.]
( They work on RF so you don't have to rely on line-of-sight. They're also pretty cheap, and as an added bonus can work as a wireless shutter release. I'm waiting to get paid, and then I'm gonna order a pair of them to play with, eventually I'd like 2 pair (you need 3 to trigger 2 flash heads, and one extra never hurt anyone.) But I want to make sure they're going to work properly first. The only downside to these is that they don't do TTL, so you have to dial the flash power in manually, which doesn't matter to most people anyway.

u/DrIblis · 2 pointsr/photography

I checked it out, and.. well, most of it is all beginner and clichéd. Lighting is atrocious is many of them, especially of fair skinned people where the flash harshly bounces off.

white balance is wrong in many of them

some of the pictures are not properly in-focus

framing isn't there

She needs to learn to photograph a discernible point where the viewer will focus (or subject) when actually photographing a certain thing.

In the majority of her pictures, i'm not really drawn to any one thing and my eye just rolls of the page. That makes a picture uninteresting (IMO). Along with that, the majority of pictures she took are already pictures I have seen many times before, and pictures I myself (and many many others!) have done in the past. They are beginner's subjects.

Something I also feel is that she is trying to make every single one (or at least a majority) of her pictures be good. This will simply never be the case. Not every picture, no matter how hard you try to make it good, will be good. Some photographers will take over 500 pictures, but only 5-10 will be truly good and worth publishing. For wedding photography, expect to take 500+ pictures, but only have 50 or so that are good.

Anyway, what she needs to do is get herself a proper flash and learn to bounce to create softer light. I also strongly suggest she picks up a book called Understanding Exposure to learn to properly expose things.

u/Niqulaz · 4 pointsr/photography

I can give you a few of the most important pieces of advice, and answer the most common questions right away.

  1. Yes, at the moment you'll do fine with the kit lens. You have no idea about what you're doing anyway at the moment. So you don't need anything else. By all means, if you get a deal that involves an extra lens at a reduced price, then go for it. But that's just about it for now.

  2. Understanding Exposure. Buy it. Read it. It is without a doubt one of the best books you can purchase when you're starting out with photography.

  3. Now that you have a basic understanding of what the knobs and dials and buttons do, you will discover that your equipment has limitations. So yes, you do need another lens. I recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.8 , also known as the "nifty fifty" or the "plastic fantastic". That should cover all your needs in low light. You could do well with a telezoom as well. Any cheap-ass lens will do as a start, until you learn to hold your camera steady and you know what you're doing wrong. Then, and only then is it time to upgrade.

  4. After getting what I mentioned above, you need to think a bit more about what you're gonna do, and what you really need. Gear Acquisition Syndrome is a serious problem, which can end up costing you thousands. There's a good chance you will need a monopod or tripod. You will probably find yourself wanting a flash. A polarizing filter is almost a necessity if you want to take pictures of nature.

  5. DO NOT THROW AWAY THE KIT LENS. People will be lining up around the block to tell you how terrible your canon EF-S 18-55mm is, should you end up buying a rebel. DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM.
    The time to throw out the kit-lens and replace it with a better standard lens, is when you understand for yourself why you need to throw out your kit lens and replace it with something better. You will eventually get to a point where it's your equipment and not your skill that's holding back the quality of your pictures. That time wont come around this year. Quite probably not next year either.

  6. Good luck. Welcome to a hobby that will cost you a lot of money, time and frustration. Remember, the only way to become a better photographer, is to take loads of pictures. Every mistake is a learning opportunity.
u/k_uger · 1 pointr/photography

I shoot Canon, but for that Budget Nikon has a much better selection. Body doesn't matter so much, but a faster frame rate and more AF points will be helpful for birds. If you can afford it, I would recommend a d7200. If not, go for the d5500. You could even go super cheap and buy a refurbed older body (d7000 etc.).

The d7200 has a faster frame rate, more AF points, more cross type AF points, and a more rugged build. The d5500 has a tilty touch screen, and is much lighter. Most other differences are trivial (sensor is exactly the same).

For a lens, I can personally recommend the 18-200mm VR II DX f/3.5-5.6 (~$600). It's a great zoom for just about anything. If you need to get tighter, consider the 70-300mm VR DX FX f/4.5-5.6 for a little less money. If you want to spend a little bit more, I also had a 28-300mm VR FX f/3.5-5.6 (~$1000), which is an absolutely fantastic, but extremely heavy lens. Also much more expensive.

If your dad's only going to be shooting birds and wildlife, I would say the tighter 70-300mm would be great. For a do-all zoom, I would go for the 18-200mm or the 28-300mm if I could afford it.

These are just my personal reccomendations, somebody might have some better suggestions.

Here are the amazon links:
Nikon d5500
Nikon d7200
Nikon 18-200mm VR II DX
Nikon 70-300mm VR DX FX
Nikon 28-300mm VR FX See edit below

Edit: mistakes

Edit 2: I just realized there's an 18-300mm VR DX for the same price as the 28-300mm VR FX, which would make much more sense if you plan on sticking with DX. Optics should be virtually the same, just better designed for DX.

u/tysn · 0 pointsr/photography

Do not worry about gear. As a new photographer you may get caught up in the "I need more gear" phase. That phase is expensive and not correct. You can take great pictures using whatever camera you have now and great lighting. I would suggest reading Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. People take great pictures with little to no gear. Check out this video by Chase Jarvis He is one of the best Commercial photographers in the world and talks all about how you dont need as much gear as you think. Good Luck.

u/yesimalex · 1 pointr/photography

Side by side of the cameras You can see the iso performance is slightly better in other models and this would help with low light performance. However, this could be offset by lens selection somewhat.

What lens do you currently have? Doing both landscapes and portraits I'm guessing a zoom lens would be the best fit. I tend to prefer primes but I mainly shoot portraits (of my kids). Low light you'll want a fast lens, maybe the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I would also highly suggest the nifty fifty for any portrait work, it'll net you pretty awesome pictures

Maybe just maybe the Sigma 30 1.4 as an all rounder, it's still a lil tight for landscape work but it's the best "in the middle" prime I can think of. It also would do much better in low light than any zoom.

As far as what you can do out of the box, well not a lot different. You will get better low light performance but that really depends on what glass you have on the body. Nothing wrong with the body choice, just because there are "better" bodies doesn't mean you need one. The only other thing I'm not familiar with is the AF on Nikon bodies, some lenses need an af motor in the body some are in the lens.. some bodies have motors some don't...


Offer still stands about the money though... ;)

u/d4m1en · 0 pointsr/photography

Artificial lighting is the best and easiest way to make great, professional-looking portraits.

Are you sure you can't afford a speedlite ? You don't need an expensive name-brand one. A basic speedlite is $35. Get two of those, a basic radio control, some flash brackets, one more basic umbrella and you have yourself a portrait lighting kit for $100.

The only limitations will be that this kit won't take heavy use, and the flash won't do TTL (you have to set the power manually, which you want to do for off-camera flash anyway).

Finally, read strobist tutorial and you are now good to go and make great portraits.

u/vwllss · 3 pointsr/photography

> Does the camera body have a built in wireless trigger that SB-600-700-800-910 respond to?

Yes, kind of. The main on the camera does a few special preflashes that the other ones can pick up. It's kind of like if I used a flashlight to send you a message in morse code -- except they do it much, much faster.

> Or do I have to mount a flash on the camera shoe, and use a wireless transmitter built into that flash to trigger a wireless receiver in another flash?

That's an option but not necessary on the newest models. However, I still often opt to buy cheap radio triggers because it's nice not having to deal with line of sight.

> Is the Nikon wireless system in SB-XXX capable with regards to range, i.e. 100meter range or more,

No, I wouldn't say so. Maybe in a pitch black environment. The range is very dependent on how bright it is since in a bright environment the bursts of light from your camera are harder to "see."

> and is it line of sight limited, or should I buy the $39 wireless radio trigger kits from eBay?

It is line of sight limited.. kind of. In a dark place if it bounces off a wall it will still trigger your flashes. It's hit or miss and depends, again, how much ambient light there is.

> Or does Nikon sell a wireless trigger kit/CLS that takes better advantage of integrated features (i-TTL via wireless triggers)?

Nikon might, but in this case the most common thing would be to buy something like Pocket Wizards. However then you're shelling out around $150-250 per transceiver which is over $300 just for one camera/flash pair. You can easily drop a thousand dollars just getting your flashes to be wireless.. which really sucks.

> What do I miss out on with cheap eBay remote flashes?

They have very long ranges and are quite reliable so you mostly only miss out on the TTL aspect. If you're fine with setting flashes manually they're very useful. I have a set of RF-602's by Yongnuo (cheap Chinese) but you'd now want to purchase the updated RF-603. They will probably be ever so slightly less reliable than a pocket wizard set, but by less reliable I mean you may miss one shot every 200-500 photos.

u/scienceblowsmymind · 1 pointr/photography

Newbie here! I'm ready to get into photography and am probably going to get the Nikon D5300 with the standard 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I'd like a second lens and my budget is 200ish - I'm okay with used ones and I'm okay waiting to save more money to up my budget.

I want to be able to photograph the night sky and the northern lights and I've read that there are slightly different recommendations for each. (I'll also like to use the camera for travel and landscapes and whatnot.) [This page] ( has a nice table toward the bottom for night sky photography and made me consider this 35mm f/1.8 lens. And I read on Dave Morrow's site that a wide angle f/2.4-4 is preferable for the northern lights. My understanding is that the standard lens fits this suggestion. I couldn't find a prime lens within my budget that fits that range.

Should I get the lens I linked above? Should I wait until I actually get the camera and have a better sense of what things are?


Edit: Added letters and changed other ones.

u/dshafik · 4 pointsr/photography

My fiancé buys me neat (and cheap!) camera gear every year for christmas, so far I've gotten:

  • Gary Fong Puffer $18.99 (a flash diffuser)
  • Targus Battery Grip $25.98 (this is somewhat camera specific)
  • Hot shoe spirit level $5 (this is cheap as hell and really cool!)
  • Canon Monopod $34.95 (I have the Monopod 100 but it's no longer available. These are great for when a tripod is too bulky and sturdy enough to use as a light walking stick)
  • Dolica Tripod $39.99 (Great prosumer tripod, not a pro tripod though)
  • Lens cap keeper $1.91 (sticks to any lens cap and then attaches to the lens body to stop the lens cap from falling off)

    All of these things are pretty awesome for me, a serious hobbyist with a Nikon D5000 DSLR.

    Having said that, what I want for Christmas is:

  • 52mm Neutral Density Filters ($31.99) and 62mm Neutral Density Filters ($42.99), these are the same set for both my lenses, they let you do longer exposures under brighter light conditions. I want them for a shoot in early December though so will probably buy them before that myself ;)
  • A gradiated ND filter ($11.99), for the same reasons as above but only for one half of the exposure, with a gradient transition
  • Panoramic Image tripod head ($16.95) for creating seamless panoramas

    Hopefully this helps!
u/skiman50289 · 2 pointsr/photography

I don't know much about any camera system besides Nikon, so that's what my answer is going to focus on.

If you've never owned a DSLR before, I would not buy a D7100 and cheap lenses. You'd be much better off getting a D3x00 or D5x00 and some better lenses/equipment. For about $750, you can get a Nikon D3200 with 18-55mm, 55-200mm, and 35mm f/1.8 lenses (all new). This is a great camera, and the lenses will be great for almost everything you need. This also leaves you $250-$750 left over for better lenses (once you know what kind your shooting style requires), photography books, classes, travel, filter sets, a tripod (also something you'll want to research), etc.

Don't get hung up on having the latest-and-greatest gear. Almost anything produced by any manufacturer in the past couple of years will give you amazing photos if you know how to use it to its fullest potential.

u/odd_affilliate_link · 17 pointsr/photography

I would say you can't go wrong with a D7000 body paired with a 35mm 1.8. That's exactly your budget and the D7000 allows you to use pretty much any old Nikon lens you can find. If you want more lenses, scout Craigslist (I've found some extremely good deals there). Kit 18-55s can be had for dirt cheap, as well as the ubiquitous 50mm. Depending on what you want to shoot, your lens preference my vary, though the 35mm is pretty much all-around fantastic especially for the price.

Others might say to use more of the budget on the lenses and less on the body but I find the handling of the D7000 to be so far superior to the 'lesser' models that it would be worth it (to me). I like having 2 dials and an LCD on the top of the camera. In addition, a D7000 + 35mm 1.8 is not a large kit as DSLRs go, so if you don't want to carry around a huge chunk of gear, that is a factor.

Edit: D90 is another decent choice, but I feel that sensor tech (particularly high ISO quality) has advanced enough between the D90 and D7000 that the D7000 is a much better (though more expensive) choice.

u/thatguyron · 1 pointr/photography

Cool, well it will certainly allow her to zoom in a lot more than her kit lens does!

To be honest it's not the usual recommendation around here because we tend to like lenses that do one thing and do it extremely well instead of a jack of all trades lens, but if you want one lens to do it all it's not a bad choice for the money. Also it's the simplest choice if she's the type of person who just wants to take pictures with a minimum of fussing with gear.

Just for your future information (maybe Christmas next year?), a common low-budget recommendation for someone who shoots Canon and only has the kit lens is the 50 mm f/1.8 II lens. It's a prime lens (which means you can't zoom in or out, it's just set permanently at a certain angle of view), but you can use it in lower light situations and also you can get that effect where the background is super blurry like this random example I found online. But that lens is definitely the kind of lens that you have to do a bit of learning and experimentation to use to its full potential.

u/the_philter · 1 pointr/photography

I'd recommend one of these suckas, especially if you think she might combine cooking & taking photos. Photography is all about light, and one of these speedlites is an awesome and affordable way to get a better understanding of that. Read the reviews to get an idea of how kickass these things can be.

Alternatively, I learned photography by taking pics of the night sky. It was the most interesting thing to me and is what drove me to learn more about taking photos. I bought one of these, which allowed me to take pics with crazy long shutters on my T2i and also do cool stuff with star trails. I remember being so damn pumped when I took that photo with my T2i, the stock lens and a $10 shutter release.

Coupling the release with the tripod is a nice combo. The flash is great for indoor stuff.

If you're feeling SUPER crazy, consider the famous "nifty fifty." My biggest frustration with the kit lens when I had my T2i was that it was practically useless handheld in low light, and it was hard to achieve any shallow depth of field, which are two pretty big draws to DSLR photography. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II changed that all.

It can be had for under $100 used on Amazon, but I'd check your local Craigslist. Everyone Canon shooter has owned this lens at one point, and I've seen them for as low as $50 on NYC CL.

I would go for the 50mm lens and a tripod, throw in the shutter release and flash if you're feeling super generous. It would set her up for a very long time if she is serious about photography. If all the stars align, you could probably get the lens + tripod + shutter release + flash for under $150 but it's not very likely.

u/finaleclipse · 3 pointsr/photography

I recommend a Canon/Nikon/Pentax with 18-55mm kit lens, then add on the 50mm "nifty fifty" after the fact. If you buy used or refurbished, you can definitely go under budget there. Canon Refurbished in particular I've had good experiences with, though their stock can vary. For used, KEH is an extremely reputable used vendor and personally I've had absolutely no issues with them. Here's a pretty simple Canon kit for under $500:

  • Canon T2i, body only for ~$250
  • Canon 18-55mm IS STM for ~$100
  • Canon 50mm f1.8 STM for ~$125

    You can upgrade to the T3i for ~$50 more. If you search, you'll be able to find a Nikon setup for pretty much the same price.

    Alternatively, Pentax has their K-50 deal of body + 18-55 for ~$400, and then you can pick up their 50mm f1.8 for ~$115. These are new, so if you go used you might be able to find them even cheaper.

    The kit is nice to have for its flexibility. I personally bought my first camera with only the 50mm f1.4, and while I was able to make it work, there are tons of situations when having the kit zoom would have been really nice.
u/Emily89 · 5 pointsr/photography

After a quick research I would say: yes, this one.

However, whatever you do, you should take a lens with fixed focal length. They offer much better sharpness and higher quality in general, also they usually have bigger apertures which is good for depth of field effects.

You might also consider taking a Nikon 50 mm which is really cheap but has awesome quality (I have it and I love it) and use it with extension tubes. Those cost around 80-100$ I think (look for some that support auto focus).

u/flamingllama33 · 1 pointr/photography

Awesome, yeah just play around and experiment! I learned a ton that way. I highly recommend this lens, it's a fantastic lens and let's you shoot at 1.8, and is nice for portraits and stuff.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens
Pm me if you ever have any questions, I'm happy to help! Btw your eye photo on Flickr is really cool!

u/HVPhoto · 1 pointr/photography

I have done about four of these with no ill side effects to my gear. But there is a lot of preparation involved.

  1. Get a camera rain coat. these work well for me. I usually use the lens hood and rubber bands going from the lens into the camera to ensure snugness.

  2. Plan on using one lens and use a UV filter. If you MUST switch lenses, make sure you have canned air or a blower and not to use it on the lens itself but rather to blow off all of the debris that you can. And of course, step off to the side.

  3. Use a camera bag that has a rain cover. Easier to clean.

  4. Expect some cleaning time for your camera. I use a DataVac ( to blow everything off and follow up with using a damp cloth to clean the outside of the camera.

    Its do-able and I always think its a lot of fun, but you have to be prepared. I used my D600 for the shoots and even switched lenses without negative outcomes.
u/XLK9 · 1 pointr/photography

I've accumulated sundry tripods over the years, mainly when they are deeply discounted. I'm wondering if I'm out of my league here. I would like to try and pick up some extra money doing family shots for friends and, eventually, small events like birthday parties. I'm pretty content with my XTi, and don't plan to upgrade until my skill level surpasses its capabilities.

I really like this one. It is within my budget and I think a good fit for my needs. I have this one which works okay, but I was looking to up my game a bit.

Your advice is very much appreciated. Hopefully, I'll be upgrading all my gear if I can make a little money shooting.

u/syl1350 · 3 pointsr/photography

I have the [Dolica 62 inch Proline] ( I'm a student so cost was my first concern. I got it for $40 but right now it's $50 on Amazon. It's lightweight which can make it feel not so sturdy but I haven't had any problems with it, and if you check out the Amazon reviews, they're mostly positive. Hope it helps. I don't recommend getting tripods for any cheaper than this, they're really easy to break/topple over.

u/jhigg · 4 pointsr/photography

Buy a reflector and bring a friend! Hold it high and shine the sun back onto one side of there face =) Lighting is what makes a photo amazing, this is an easy way to create great lighting =) If you buy a reflector also try to shoot somewhere in the shade and not in direct sunlight.

u/eoverline · 1 pointr/photography

Alright, I picked up a couple of the Neewer TT560 from Amazon ($37 each). Works AMAZING. I can't believe the quality of these for the price. They work perfect out of the box wirelessly with my SB-700 and D7000, and the photo quality is great!

Thanks for the recommendation!

Here's an Amazon link if anyone needs it.

u/bdfh · 1 pointr/photography

I put all my gear on a shelf and I installed a strip of LEDs to light it up, so I can see everything better. The accessories like filter cases and table-top tripods are in a box and rarely get used.

I have the AmazonBasics DSLR Backpack and it is amazingly good for the price. It doesn't offer as much protection as other backpacks, due to the softer padding, but it sure keeps your gear safe. I've been using one for years and I'm satisfied with it (although it's pretty ugly).

u/SilverKnight1337 · 1 pointr/photography

So I have the Amazon Basics DSLR Backpack currently. I love it because it holds everything I currently have.

My issue is that I really want a bag that is a bit smaller. I want something that can hold me Canon T3 with attached nifty fifty and old 35mm lenses and well as a flash. Budget is roughly <$75. I also like the vintage look for whats its worth.

I have been looking at the following cases but most of them seem to small for what I want to use them for.

u/lelumberjole · 1 pointr/photography

Awesome, thanks for this. Wasn't quite aware of what focusing screens were, but that looks exactly like what I want.

As for the feel of the lens, I figured that they wouldn't really design the stock lenses for manual focus. I've been looking at getting a fixed 50mm for the T2i, and I'm debating between Canon's f1.8 and f1.4. I like the price of the f1.8, but it looks like it has a similar focusing system to the stock lens. I need to get to a store where I can handle them side by side so I can decide myself, but has anyone out there had experience with these two lenses who has anything to say about them? I've looked up comparisons online and the 1.4 seems to produce better images, but does anyone know if it has a smoother focus?

u/6g72black · 1 pointr/photography

That is an excellent lens.

Nikon 50mm 1.8G is also extremely popular.

Both of these lenses are fast, and reasonably affordable. Additionally, shooting with prime lenses helps you grow as a photographer; it forces you to think more about every shot.

However, it sounds like you shoot sky and landscapes, so you might want to look for a slightly wider lens. The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is quite popular, and you can often find pancake lenses well price on /r/photomarket

The wiki in the sidebar is also an excellent resource!

u/vurt · 1 pointr/photography

Is it worth it to buy FX lenses for a DX/APS-C camera? I'm looking at picking up this Nikon 70-300mm as my first decent lens beyond my kit lens that came with my D3300. I was told by a fellow photographer that I should just save the extra money and get something like this instead. I don't believe I'll ever be purchasing a full frame camera as I cannot justify the cost for a simple hobby. I'm mostly getting into photography just to get myself outside and off my ass. I also really enjoy a creative outlet and the post-processing stuff is very helpful in that regard.

So long story short, does that Tamron lens really gain me anything other than a faster aperture and the ability to upgrade to a full frame body down the road, however unlikely that may be?

u/k4rp_nl · 2 pointsr/photography

Terrible translation on my part but I think the proper English term is reflector. Something like this.

It's great for the following (and I quote from their site):

1 Translucent surface for softening

2 Silver for the contrast you look for

3 Gold for warm tone and health

4 White to fill the shadow

5 Black to block out stray light

It's probably one of the most versatile products you can buy for such little money. Translucent is great for days with hard edged shadows. Gold gives you sunshine. Black can create shadows when there are none. (removing light is also shaping light)

Can do nothing but recommend it to you

u/Isvara · 8 pointsr/photography

> Seriously. Just go shooting like hell, try all the modes to know what to use when that particular once-in-a-lifetime shot will come to your eyes.

Sounds like today will be an ideal day to take my kid to the park :-)

> If you have a few bucks left, get a nice prime. I think canon has a pretty fast normal lens that is very affordable.

By that, do you mean the $100 50mm one that people are saying is great value?

u/nobody2008 · 1 pointr/photography

I use Nikon lenses whenever I need a long zoom or macro (2 of the Nikon mount lenses I have). Tamron 90mm macro for food photos, Sigma 70-300mm for city photos from far away. These are not top of the line lenses, but I already had them so why not utilize them. Those modern lenses do not have an aperture ring, so you should get an adapter with an aperture ring. There are tons of them on Amazon and on eBay. I got one with aperture ring AND a tripod mount so it's more secure and easier to handle when mounted on a tripod with a big lens. Fotodiox is one common brand, but there are many similar products under different brands. One I have says "NI G-NEX" on it with no brand.

For old manual lenses, you can pretty much get any adapter since the lens itself has the aperture ring. Just make sure it can focus on infinity (read the reviews if possible)

You will have to do manual focus with these adapter. As far as I know only some adapters for Sony Alpha and Canon mounts can have autofocus (slow). And they are at least $75 (cheapest one I found on amazon for Canon)

As for the flash, I got 2 of these. They are NOT TTL. You can either connect them to your camera, and let it fire whn you press shutter. Or, you can use them externally, and fire them with camera's internal flash (mode S2). Either way, it works fine. I am not a professional photographer, so I cannot compare these flashes with other brands, and tell you how good or bad they are. But they are #1 seller on Amazon, got very good reviews.

u/vandut · 1 pointr/photography

Hi Reddit!

Tripod. Oh man, it's tough to choose one. I thought about buying one for a long time, but could never decide which one is better.

Some time ago I came across this: Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Tripod and Ball Head... but cost of importing it to Poland is as much as tripod itself! (It would be around $85). So I looked into some local shops, but each got some weird tripods that cost more than $100 and didn't offer so much flexibility as Dolica. And they weighed a ton.

Today I'm looking at Hahnel Triad 40 Lite and I was thinking... should I import Dolica, which costs less (incl shipping) and is lighter, or go for Hahnel?

Or (and this is why I'm posting over here, to you, fellow Redditors)... Are there any good tripods under $100, available in Europe (preferable and that could do this: IMAGE?

EDIT: It doesn't need to support configuration form the last image, it would just be a nice bonus ;)

u/av4rice · 3 pointsr/photography

Shutter speed affects exposure and motion (freezing or blurring). Aperture affects exposure and depth of field (how much of the scene is in focus). ISO affects exposure and noise/grain. There are a lot of ways to get the exact same exposure in terms of brightness, but different combinations of the three main exposure controls result in different side effects in the photo.

Reddit photo class explains all that pretty well and in greater detail. I also like the explanations at Cambridge in Colour. If you're looking for a book, Understanding Exposure is highly recommended for the same kind of info. You also want to read your manual so you can connect the general SLR terms from those resources with the specific buttons on your camera.

u/kickstand · 2 pointsr/photography

K-5 is a great choice. To get those big skies, you will probably want to budget for a superwide lens, as well.

u/jcitme · 5 pointsr/photography

> So far the advice from everyone I have spoken to has been to get a cheap body and spend more money on lenses. Is this the correct approach for a newbie?


>I am thinking that I will pick up a canon 550d second hand if possible. How would this fare as an entry level camera?

Pretty good. Anything from the Canon 550D to the 700D would be a good pick, they're all pretty similar.

>Which lenses should I look at? The main types of photographs I'll be taking will be of people at parties and of scenery when out and about.

Get the camera without a lens, as the lens that normally comes with the camera sucks. Buy a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom lens, and the Canon nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. For the 17-50, the best option would be either the Tamron or the Sigma version, the latter costs more but is faster and better autofocus. Then get the 50mm prime.

u/PedobearsBloodyCock · 6 pointsr/photography

$13, with gold, silver, and white. I rarely use anything but the white, personally, but there are some occasions here and there where I've been very thankful to have the options. Not really a huge investment there, also folds up, and if you're a professional, well, it certainly helps you look the part. Perception is a huge part of the business.

u/wickedcold · 4 pointsr/photography

Just keep in mind that the principles of photography ie exposure and all that are universal. You'll be tempted to seek out info specific to/learn about the camera, and I'm not saying that you shouldn't - but it's kind of like if you got a new Ferrari with a six speed gated shifter (yeah I know they don't make 'em any more), you wouldn't be looking for a book on how to drive a Ferrari, you'd want to learn how to, I guess, "drive" at a new level. Same here.

Yeah there are all kinds of obscure settings buried deep in the menus but understanding how aperture, ISO etc all work together is what you want to learn about. Don't worry too much about the camera's specific quirks while you're busy mastering that stuff. One of the fun things with the Fujis is that they have physical controls so you can just look at them and see what you're at, vs checking a screen.

If you're into books, check out "Understanding Exposure". Best thing out there.

u/lowpockets · 1 pointr/photography

Maybe you could pick up a camera and start taking an interest in it with her? That way its something you could do together and you learing something.

A book that thought me an awful lot was,

From what I remember of it, I think it was pretty straight to the point, shouldnt be too much for an 11 year old, but you could fly through it yourself pretty quick and just explain it to her yourself.

As a few others have said too, the reddit photo class is fantastic.

Keep us updated on her (and yours?) progress.

u/ElementK · 5 pointsr/photography

I also have a 6000D and I actually loved the 55-250 before this issue I'm having. Everything was crisp and amazing value for the money. Check out these images that were apparently taken with this lens. With cheaper lenses like this, the some of the only things you'll be compromising are the amount of light you'll let in (or the widest available aperture), the focus speed (which was just fine on this one - you won't miss the speed if you haven't owned $1000+ lenses), and some clarity. But rust me, you won't regret buying this lens, you'll find yourself using it more often than the 18-55mm you own. Just so you know, the issue I'm having is likely due to dropping it, so don't worry about that.

u/ironic5589 · 3 pointsr/photography

So i'm in the exact same boat as you, i'm not a pro by any means and i love my D7000. My only gripe is they software limit of 3 frame bracketing, it bugs the crap out of me. However, i'm sure my next upgrade will be a FX body so i have tried to balance which lenses i buy. I would recommend looking on craigslist for some used fast glass. You have to be carefull but you can find someone decent every once and awhile.

This depends on your budget but these are the lenses i own currently and they seem to cover most of my needs.

50 1.8 AF-S FX - A must have i would say, super sharp a great lenses but can be a little tight indoors due to the crop factor

Nikon 70-300 FX - I really like this lens. I think it focuses faster than the 55-200 my girlfriend has and i find it to be fairly sharp. The only downside is that it not fast glass, so gett a 70-200 2.8 if you want top of the line and are willing to spend $1500 more.

Nikon 28-70 Fx 2.8 - This is the older version of the 24-70 2.8 and i picked it up used off of craigslist. This has been my GO TO lens. Its a little heavy but i have used it as a walk around. I will say the only downside is the 28 is not very wide on a dx body and you can really tell the difference between it and the 18mm kit lens.

I have a range of DX lenses as well but my girlfriend usually uses those on her d90 and i wouldn't recommend them if you have the budget and know that you will upgrade to FX at a later date. I would almost recommend buying a used kits lens off of craigslist, a 18-55 usually runs $100 bucks or so. The reason being that its hard and expensive to find FX glass below 24. There is the 14-24 but that will set you back. The 18mm on a kit lense will give you that wide side for when you need it for super cheap and decent sharpness.


u/soberto · 1 pointr/photography

I mainly use my camera (Canon 700d) to take pictures of people holding fish, i.e. short range portrait shots like these ( / In the day all is well but at night I need to use some sort of lighting. People have steered me away from using LED lighting like those lamps used for video and advised I use a flash. My question is, which of these flash would be best for my needs?


u/adphotog1 · 3 pointsr/photography

Aye carumba, you've got quite a task ahead of you! To improve your studio photo skills, you'll need a solid understanding of lighting. When I was first starting out, I found this book extremely helpful:

In particular, it explains the family of angles--something you'll need to get a good grasp on--as well as giving you a solid foundation of understanding for things like managing reflections and lighting ratios.

u/AcidUK · 1 pointr/photography

I don't know much about the canon side of things, but from a nikon perspective, your best option would be a 50mm lens and a used APS-C body.

The best 50mm lens would be a af-s 50mm 1.8g ( Used price isn't far off new (£150).

That won't leave much in the budget, so an alternative would be the older 50mm (slightly poorer quality) - the big drawback is that you will lose the autofocus. You can pick one of those up (called a D series rather than a G) for about £50 used on ebay.

Camera wise, I'd go for either a D3000 (£50 used on ebay for body only) or a D80 (£80).

As others have said, spend the money on the lens rather than the body if you want good quality pictures.

u/polylemma · 2 pointsr/photography

The Olympus 25mm (if that's what you have) is really, really great. I spent a year shooting almost exclusively with that for a 365 project, and came to love it (just wish they made a 17mm of the same quality).

There are two books I always recommend to anyone just starting out, as they really helped me: Understanding Exposure and The Photographer's Eye. Might be worth a look!

u/apollo5354 · 1 pointr/photography

I agree with that sentiment for a lot things but not so much for cameras.

The technology in camera bodies (sensors/chips) are advancing very quickly so you want to spend for what's good enough for your needs and no more. Once you outgrow it, you'll be glad you didn't lock yourself into the previous generation. Your mid range camera today will lag behind your entry level in several years.

Instead save the money on the difference for a good lens. E.g.
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

Also your entry-level DSLRs were designed with beginners in mind so they tend to have more user friendly menus.

[Edit: Wow. Someone downvoting all the posts/suggestions. Folks, remember downvote if off topic not to disagree.]

u/l4adventure · 1 pointr/photography

I'm a beginner. I have a rebel T5 camera and I have the 18-55mm lens that came with it.

I've struggled a bit with low light with this lens, and read a lot about how a 50mm can teach you better about positioning yourself and framing. I read up about how it's great to start off with these.

So, is this a good lens? Canon EF 50mm 1.8 STM lens. The price is perfect for me, and the reviews are crazy good on amazon. Would you recommend I spend slightly more money on something else? Actually, just saw this bundle, it's the same lens plus a bunch of stuff I don't have. Maybe Ill buy this instead.

Your advice is much appreciated

u/Yycdani · 1 pointr/photography

I want to get a new telephoto lens, I currently have a ancient Nikon 70-300 without image stabilization and it's crap, and I am looking at the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 SP Di VC USD XLD or the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR

Should I bother with either of these? I don't want to spend that much money on another disappointing lens, but a really good telephoto is way out of my budget at the moment. I couldn't spend more than around $800 CAD (so like $3.50 USD - jokes, more like 500-600USD) and alternatively I just wait and save and take photos with other lenses and of other things. I'm a hobbyist.

u/Bulldogg658 · 3 pointsr/photography

For newbies I suggest the Dolica a lot. It's not going to be your forever tripod, but it's got some features and if you're kind to it it shouldn't cause any problems. It'll give you something decent to use while you figure out exactly what you need in a longer term tripod.

If you want to spend more money and go with something probably longer term, I like this Vangaurd especially for occasional video. You can extend the center column and tilt it 90 degrees and swing it to do sweeping faux-slider shots. It's also much heavier, taller and sturdier. You'll also need a ballhead for it, this one is pretty impeccable. But I've read the cheaper ones aren't so bad either. This one used to be on amazon, but I can't find it right now.

But all in all, I'd go with the Dolica. Use it and figure out what it can't do that you wish it could, then pick your more costly tripod based on that.

u/cheezerman · 2 pointsr/photography

Your lenses are slow, but I wouldn't bother buying new lenses. Buy the 430EX, and learn how to bounce it, sync it, adjust it, etc. You're going to need an off camera flash eventually.

Don't bother with that package, just buy the straight flash from Amazon for cheaper and pick up batteries locally.

Eventually, I'd pick up the 50 1.8 lens. It's a very sharp, decently fast lens for $100. I have $1400 lenses and I still love this lens.

Please don't go buy $300 lenses right now. Your situation will be best served by getting a flash and learning to use it.

u/SevenDimensions · 1 pointr/photography

You are right, lenses are definitely more important, especially because it seems like most of your shots will be landscapes, and you'll have plenty of time to set up the composition. You won't need expensive bodies.

Get a Canon Rebel; they're good cameras and will give you as much functionality as you'll be able to use - as this is your first DSLR.

As lenses go, I would recommend a Tamron 17-50 non-VC, which is on par with the Canon 17-40 L lens. Also, you might want to consider a telephoto; my suggestion for this would be the Canon 55-250 IS, which is also a great lens.

u/uncleconker · 1 pointr/photography

Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Lens
I have one and although I hate prime lenses, I use it when I don't have my 24-70 2.8L available. It's not as fast as some of the other options listed here, but it's dirt cheap (Currently ~$140 on Amazon), small enough to fit in your pocket, and a great focal length for shooting the front members of the band. You'll need to switch lenses if you're gunning for the drummer or if the player you want to shoot moves away from the front of the stage, though. If you're using a camera with a good sensor which doesn't get too much noise when you pump up the ISO, I'd recommend this lens. It works well in low light on my 5D mkIII, but not so well on my T3i. Of course, using a flash would solve that problem. I use an old Speedlite 430-EZ and get incredible results. In the end, whether this lens is for you or not is based on the kit you currently have. If you have a camera with a good sensor, you're golden. If your camera has a lesser sensor but you pair it with a flash (even a pop up flash may suffice), then you should also be in the clear.

u/BillyTheRatKing · 2 pointsr/photography

Yeah, that'll come with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. That's a good zoom range and you'll come to find what focal lengths your like shooting at, then you can buy faster prime lenses like the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. If you want a long lens, the best affordable one is the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-6.3 VR (VR being Vibration Reduction, aka image stabilization), I wouldn't recommend the version without VR as it only save you $50 and it's well worth it.

For tripods, I'd definitely suggest spending a little more, and getting something like the Vanguard VEO 2 264AB for $160, which I personally have. You probably couldn't go wrong with any of their tripods, but heavier tripods tend to be more stable for longer exposures. I don't have any personal experience, but a lot of people suggest the Manfrotto brand.

If you absolutely can't wait to save up some money, the Dolica GX600B200 Proline will do a decent job at $50.

u/GIS-Rockstar · 1 pointr/photography

You can get that look with a wide aperture, and a unified color editing style in post. You can download film presets from various places around the Internets; or make your own edits, save them as a preset, and apply them to all the photos in your session.

Don't forget probably an assistant for reflector lighting and maybe huge strobes to balance the super bright midday sun. There are great big and cheap reflectors that will do just this! Sounds fun!

u/mathematical · 3 pointsr/photography
  1. For scenery, the kit lens should will do fine.

  2. For portraits, you really just need to pick up a prime. I'd say spend $100 on a thrifty fifty (50mm f/1.8), which gives you an effective focal length of 80mm (a good portrait focal length). If you end up liking the the 50mm lens, you could get the faster 50mm f/1.4, which would give you a more shallow depth of field, and really help to differentiate the subject and background. Those 50mm lenses have really high resale, so you could buy it for $100 and sell it back for $70+ without too much difficulty.

  3. As a side note, even though you didn't ask, you may consider picking up a 55-250mm for your telephoto instead of the 75-300. The 55-250 has IS to help when you're going hand-held and it has better IQ. I picked up a used copy for $130, and I've seen refurbished versions go for $150 or less.
u/DerPanzerfaust · 1 pointr/photography

I've been trying to improve my composition skills. I read [Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye"] ( and it opened up whole new worlds for me. The problem is that when I go out in the field to shoot, I forget every damn bit of it (well almost).

I started to re-read it taking notes, but can't find the time to do it justice and end up with long gaps between sessions, and again, I forget stuff.

So now, I've typed all my notes into a document, and I'm going through each section, taking pictures that illustrate each point. I should end up with a nice photo journal. Hopefully the concepts will be driven more deeply into my pea-brain, and some of it might even stick.

It might take a while to get through it all, but hopefully it'll help me to grow as a photographer.

u/Fracturedlens · 6 pointsr/photography

I have been shooting on Nikon for a while now. The D7000 is a solid camera. Going from my old D80 to the D7000 it was like stepping into the future. The full RGB meter and the 6400 ISO range make for some amazing shots.

Now as for lens that largely depends on your budget.

  • The standard starter 50mm f/1.8 $219.00

    The 50mm will give you razor sharp images work in low light and is a great lens to learn on. If you ever move to a FX (full frame) camera is will work on there as well. On your crop camera it will be 50mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 75mm lens. This is a little long for some folks which leads to our next lens.

  • Great starter just for DX Cameras 35mm f/1.8 $196.95

    The 35 is a DX lens (build just for your crop camera so it won't work well on a FX camera) but its a great place to start. This lens is a "normal" lens. Meaning it is close to what your eye sees. Its cheap and has many of the qualities of the 50mm.

  • If you have some money to burn the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 $594.00

    I just picked up this Sigma a few days ago from Amazon and I can confirm its sharp as a tack. I honestly like this lens better than the 17-55 Nikon which is 1500 ish dollars. It has optical stabilization and is lighter than the hulking Nikon lens.

    I have stayed away from lenses with, in my opinion, crappy f-stops. You can find cheaper lens out there but you will suffer from high f stops like 5.6 which will kill your ability to shoot in low light, and to isolate your subject and have real control over your depth of field. These lenses are great place to start and they will stay in your camera bag for years to come. There are more lenses out there from zooms to telephoto to macro if you give us some idea of what you want to shoot then we can help recommend a more specialized lens. Happy shooting.
u/tonberry · 1 pointr/photography

Well, I haven't read a lot of photography books, but two instructional/anecdotal books that have done a lot for me are The Photographer's Eye by Michael Freeman and The Hot Shoe Diaries by Joe McNally. None of them are strict, step-by-step instructables-style lectures, rather they cover various aspects of composition and technique. I'd say that the former one covers more of the basics if that's what you were looking for - it's kinda hard to help you when you don't provide any info apart from "photography books pls" ;)

And yeah, I am unable to recommend one photography book. I'd rather recommend two :D

u/SuperC142 · 3 pointsr/photography

If you're interested, there's a wonderful book called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Don't worry, it's not overly technical and it's a pretty smooth read. It will inspire you and make you feel like an expert on ISO, shutter speed, and aperture in just a couple of hours. Strongly recommended.

Edit: here's the book

u/moker · 2 pointsr/photography

I just got my 35mm f1.8 lens in the mail yesterday for my new D7000, and I have to say I love it. The narrow DOF you can get with it is pretty amazing.

I really want to get a flash next, but I am torn between buying an SB600 and saving up for an SB900. The SB700 is also in the process of being rolled out, and sounds like a nice compromise, but half way between the 600 and the 900.

I have been also considering getting a 50mm f1.8, but some of the comments here make it sound like it's not worth it.

Oh, and I really want to get a circular polarizing filter for my 18-200mm lens - I take a lot of pictures of fish in ponds/lakes/rivers, and that would be quite handy.

[edit: corrected f1.7 to f1.8]

u/coldcoffeecup · 1 pointr/photography

I just purchased a new lens, and I realize I have no real appreciative knowledge about lens filters. All I really know is that I have an inclination that it will protect the lens itself from damage. I usually shoot landscape (nature, parks), or nighttime (milkyway, stars). Is a lens filter like this one cheaping out? It seems to have positive reviews, but I thought I'd ask you all! I would like to protect the lens, but I don't want to degrade the quality of the lens. Thanks!

u/Blootster · 1 pointr/photography

Goal: Build indoor product photography lighting setup for <$200

Hey pros, I need your help badly.

Recently I have purchased a Nikon D5200, a mannequin, and really started to really step up my product selling game. As I have no large scale lighting or backdrop setup i'm forced to do this outside (See: Example 1 and Example 2 ).

Now these photos are great and all but I can't shoot them whenever I want or at any time that's convenient really. So i'm hoping to build an indoor setup.

Pieces I need:

  1. Infinite backdrop (Rather like the gray they use here)
  2. Umbrellas? (How do you choose size and what seperates a 40$ setup from multi thousand dollar ones? Terrible Examples Here
  3. High watt white lights, but which kind and wattage?
  4. Fill light?

    I'm just all around overwhelmed, hopefully a pro can point me in the right direction.
u/Praelium · 1 pointr/photography

Thank you for the reply.

I'm leaning towards the D5300 right now, since bracketing and intervalometer are features that I might want to play with in the future. But I'll be sure to ask the store owner to let me use the camera to make sure I like it.

You seem to know quite a bit about different camera models. Do you know if there are any major differences between the D5300 and T5i Rebel bodies?

Finally: Lens. This is the lens that the store owner recommended:

Nikon AF-S 50mm

Any thoughts on that? For reference, the camera I checked out from school included this lens:

Canon EF 35mm f/2

I really enjoyed it, especially exploring the close depth of field. However, it costs twice as much so I understand I'd be sacrificing some features.

u/nostrovia · 2 pointsr/photography

I agree with reading the manual, but I would recommend reading it in conjunction with something like Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Maybe manuals have gotten better (I have an older DSLR), but my manual explained the technical side of my camera's features without delving too much into the "why" aspect. This book (and there are others like it) will explain why you should be changing settings to get the most out of your camera.

u/Momgrapher · 2 pointsr/photography

I am looking at 3 inexpensive lenses and I think I may have found the one. Haven't yet checked BH for some reason....(just realizing this now) anyway here they are. I think the refurbished STM is the best option.

STM 55-250

USM 75-300


I am very new but really want to play with something with range. I currently have a 50mm fixed. I love the pictures I get but either skill or the lens isn't allowing me the shots I want. Maybe both.

u/thebringer84 · 8 pointsr/photography

There is a phenomenal book called "Light: Science and Magic" and I cannot stress the importance of reading it. There is so much information contained in this one volume, that it would take years to find it all on the internet. This will not only help you with your strobe photography, but it will also vastly improve the way you analyze natural lighting situations, the use of reflectors, how you control light spill, and even the angles you choose for your photographs.

Read Strobist. While it focuses on getting the speedlight off of your camera, it will still show you some invaluable lighting tricks that you can use all the time. There is some phenomenal work to be seen, and some great knowledge to be had here.

Finally, practice. Put yourself into some tricky lighting situations, put the speedlight on, and learn how to bounce the light off of objects around you to achieve the effect you desire. Remember that the zoom setting on the speedlight will control the spread, and the higher the millimeters of zoom on the strobe, the narrower the beam of light will be.

Go outside on a nice sunny day with your speedlight, practice using it at low power to provide fill for a backlit photo. Use the sun to light the back of your subject, and the flash to fill in the rest.

If you overpower your flash, you will lose all the subtle texture of your subject. It is irrelevant how small your aperture is at this point, the light just becomes too overpowering. It is about balance.

If you mess around with these basics, you can't lose. Just keep practicing.

u/ohgoodgracious · 1 pointr/photography

I love the Canon brand flashes, and will often rent them for larger events. However, for every day use and budgetary reasons, I carry a Yongnuo 600ex-rt

Honestly, for the price, the quality is quite good.

You can also save 40 or so dollars and go for the Yongnuo 560 III

u/desertsail912 · 1 pointr/photography

Let's see, there was Understanding Exposure, which is especially helpful for people who have only ever shot digital b/c it explains so much of the basic functions of the camera that most people take per granted and can improve your pictures dramatically, another one of Peterson's books, Learning to See Creatively is also really good, I also like The Photographer's Eye. Another really good book if you're into B&W is Black & White: Photographic Printing Workshop, which was written for using enlargers in a darkroom but can equally be used with basic Photoshop technique, shows how to convert blah pictures into really amazing imagery using basic dodging and burning techniques. I'll post some examples of his later when I get home.

u/Maydo87 · 2 pointsr/photography

Well if it is NOT a full frame lens then you don't apply the crop factor.. in other words, if it says "DX" on it, then it IS a 35mm on your camera not a "50-55" (52.5 actually)

The (x 1.5) crop factor would only be applied if you were using a full frame lens (nikon brand full frame lenses are marked "FX")

Some quick notes each type of lens in relation to your camera:

DX lenses: fit your camera with no crop factor involved, are lighter and less expensive

FX lenses: are designed for cameras with full frame sensors therefor a crop factor of x 1.5 is applied making the effective focal length longer, generally higher quality lenses, they are also usually heavier and larger, better coatings on lenses more likely to have better weather sealing, can be used with new camera if you decide to upgrade to a full frame body.

For what you're talking about landscape and nature without switching lenses I'd say 35mm is a pretty good focal length.. you may find yourself wishing you had something just a little wider for the landscapes.. 24mm or lower would be more ideal for that in my opinion.. you could also look into getting a zoom lens if you really didn't want to switch lenses at all.

u/voiceofid · 2 pointsr/photography

the Nikon 35 f1.8 is a great lens for the value

The prime will allow you to think on your feet and zoom with your feet

the f1.8 will offer better low light and dof, and the weight/size reduction of the overall camera mass is noticeable.

My friend bought my old D40 and picked up that lens, it's been on his camera 95% of the time now

Here's a shot he took with the Nikon 35mm

edit: before he committed to it, I told him to shoot on his kit lens with 35mm only and see can he live with it. Make sure you are willing to deal with a non-zoom before committing

u/papercraft_dildo · 10 pointsr/photography

I've taken perfectly capable shots with the Kit 18-55 lens that came with my old T3i. If you can swing it, you might want to spring for a 50mm 1.8 STM lens. They're dirt cheap, and take gorgeous pictures.

The zoom lens is made for versatility, not necessarily tack sharp pictures. That's why I like primes for portraits and things like that.

u/photothrow · 1 pointr/photography

One of the reviews on Amazon said that "...this book doesn't read easily, or fast. It forces the readers to engage both sides of their brain, since paying close attention to the images is as important here as carefully reading the words." Do you think this would be overwhelming for a beginner?

I'm also looking at another book posted in this thread, Understanding Exposure. Have you heard anything about that one? I feel like Understanding Exposure is more technical with some elements of design while The Photographer's Eye is more focused on purely design and composition (like the subtitle says :P). Maybe you could give me your opinion of which is more valuable for someone with not much "real" photography experience?

u/bracomadar · 2 pointsr/photography

I have the T3 and if she is starting out on DSLRs and just want to shoot portraits in well lit areas, I'd say it's a great starter camera. You get a basic DSLR for really cheap. However, I like to shoot wildlife. While I can often take some good shots with the T3, there are times where I really wish I could pump up the ISO without a lot of noise and it had more AF points for tracking. I try to not take it above 400 ISO. If yall have kids and want to shoot sports, you might run into similar problems I have with wildlife sometime. I personally haven't tried shooting sports with it, but you might be trying to follow fast moving players (maybe at a night game) and that could cause some frustration. There's also been times when I really wish I had a flip out LCD screen.

I think what a lot of people fail to realize when buying a new camera is all the starter gear that you'll want/need. You'll want a backpack, or case to store the camera and lenses. This is the backpack I got. I really like it and it's cheap. I haven't taken it out in the field much and just use it mainly for storage at home, or in the car. She'll want a few lenses. You'll need a cleaning kit. She'll also eventually want a tripod, flashes, filters. This stuff, especially the lenses, tripod, and flashes will run you into the hundreds of dollars. It will also probably be the longer investment than the camera.

It might sound strange, but I would suggest you figure what all that other stuff will cost you and figure out how much you have left to spend on the camera body. If you're just starting out and don't have thousands of dollars to spend, the T3 is still a good camera to start out on and learn the basics. If after figuring the cost of lenses and other things and you find you have enough to spend on the T3i, or some better model, I say get her that. You don't have to necessarily get her the lenses and could just get her the T3 kit that comes with the 18-55 lens and a camera backpack just to start her out. I'm just saying that you should put some money aside so she can get a few good lenses and gear and not spend all you can afford on just a camera.

u/code_and_coffee · 2 pointsr/photography

Keep your Canon T5. At this point you'd probably get much higher quality images if you were to invest in a better lens than if you were to just get a better camera body and it's also cheaper. I'm not sure what other lenses you have besides the kit lens but based on what you say you'd like to shoot I'd invest in a 50mm f/1.8 (which you can get for $110 new) and then get a better quality general purpose lens like a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 ($400 new).

The nice thing about this is that down the road once you do decide to upgrade your body the lenses will still be compatible so long as you stick with a Canon.

u/M_Core · 4 pointsr/photography

Can't beat the 40mm pancake for portability, decent image quality, and cheapness if it breaks.

It might be too wide for landscapes but if a 50mm was working well for you the 40mm should be perfect.

Amazon Link:

Edit: I actually did mean to say it might not be wide enough, not the other way around... but good to know some people prefer a longer lens for landscapes.

u/UndeadCaesar · 6 pointsr/photography

I've kept mine in this bag, which is perfect. Build quality has been really good so far, and it's big enough to hold my DSLR + kit lens, a 50mm prime, as well as two GoPros, their respective cases, multiple mounting solutions, a small GorillaPod tripod, and pockets for SD cards/readers, manuals, spare batteries, and chargers as well.

u/phototrist · 1 pointr/photography

Not sure for laptop, but I've been able to get quite some milage from an amazon bag link What I like most about it is it's good for hiking, but the zippers, by god the zippers are smooth and great to opperate. Only disadvantage is that it's a backpack

u/nroslm · 3 pointsr/photography

Shop lights from Home Depot... 37 bucks will get you 1,000 watts. They have cheaper configurations as well, put off a ton of heat tho.

As someone else has mentioned Yongnuo speed lights. I picked up three of the YN 560 III at 70 bucks a pop and have been very, very impressed with the quality and performance.

Those silver sunscreens for car windshields will work as a make shift reflector, then again so would white poster board.

I'm pretty sure rigging up a homemade snoot wouldn't take much imagination, or a homemade honeycomb style grid (straws perhaps? Google is showing me one with corrugated cardboard, clever).

It's getting to be the holidaes, LED christmas lights will be on shelves. Could use them to rig up a ring light perhaps.

This site covers some of what I touched on and more:

But at the end of the day nothing works as well as lighting and equipment designed for photography mostly do to how much light you really need to be effective. Just think that the sun throws roughly 1000 watts per square meter, achieving that kind of saturation while still remaining useful can be quite tricky.

u/NJDestino · 2 pointsr/photography

Hello! First of all I wanna say that english is not my first language so apologize if I make grammar mistakes!

I'm planning a vacation trip to Japan soon and I need a camera. I'm learning that the nikon d3300 with the kit lens is great for beginners like me! The think is that I wanna take shots on the "blue hour", which means low natural light, playing with the cars light etc, that kind of thing. I was told that I need a lens with at least f1.8 for better light input, so the question is if this is a good one for starting since is not very expensive I think...

Thanks in advance guys!

u/Eyemajeenyus · 1 pointr/photography

Hello r/photography!
I recently saved up enough money to buy my first serious camera. This Cannon EOS Rebel T3 caught my attention and I keep reading in the reviews that it is an excellent entry level camera. Is that a true statement? I would be willing to shell out some extra money for this T3i if it would be a better buy.
This Cannon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 or this Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 seem like good lenses to go along with them, but are they too much to soon?
Again, this would be my first major camera purchase. Would this be a solid purchase or is there another cheaper camera that would be just as good?

u/thebluehawk · 1 pointr/photography

This is the tripod I bought. I think I bought it for around 50 or 60, I've had it for a year and half. It works fine, but recently I've noticed some creep in the legs (you can't adjust the tightness of the quick-release leg clamps) on long shots. If I push down on the camera one of the legs will shorten because the clamp isn't tight enough. The whole thing works great, but isn't rock solid (not that I would expect it to be). All in all, it worked great as a starter tripod for me, but it's time for me to replace it.

u/Pepperpwni · 2 pointsr/photography

Renting a good camera doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to get good pictures; how good you are with a camera and how much you are willing to learn are the most important factors. If you're looking into a DSLR then you need to take time to learn the camera and what settings to use when before you depart. Additionally, you'll probably need to get a better lens for it as well (whether renting or buying).

I guess what im trying to say is if you want a DSLR you need atleast a few weeks learning it + $1000 entry cost if purchasing, if you go for the low end model (Rebel XS body and, lets say, Tamron 18-270mm 3.5-6.2 VC Lens with rebate) and Understanding Exposure ( ) is a highly recommended book for learning how to get started.

I don't know renting costs near you.

If you're looking for something less sophisticated but still want some power behind your punch look into something like the SX30IS ( or

u/themicahmachine · 1 pointr/photography

When you bounce off a wall, you're simulating a much larger light source (the whole wall). Outdoors where there is nothing to bounce off of, try putting something large and translucent (a scrim) between your flash and your subject. Look at and and

Or just make your own with some PVC pipe and white ripstop nylon. I'm sure you can find plans online for gratis.

The strobe illuminates the entire surface of the scrim, which then acts like a big sexy window light. This is what you want. If it's really sunny out, you can use one scrim to create portable open shade, and another to bounce the sun under it for fill light, and then you don't need a strobe at all. Just two or more minions to hold reflectors for you.

u/Christmasham2 · 2 pointsr/photography

Some people are going way over the top with their responses, probably just because they enjoy boasting about dream gear that costs thousands and is completely irrelevant to you.

Look at either the 35mm or the 50mm, they are both obvious choices for new photographers because they're so cheap, yet pack a huge punch in image quality.

35mm 1.8G

50mm 1.8G

Both are priced very similarly, neither is particularly better than the other, I would personally recommend the 35mm as it's slightly more versatile.

yes there are a lot of other lenses out there, but you really don't need to think about them right now, as they'll either be far out of your budget, or designed for specialty uses, just get one of these, they'll do you well, trust me.

u/Dotjiff · 2 pointsr/photography

First budget lens anyone should buy is the "nifty fifty" (Canon 50mm 1.8) as most people find the 50mm focal length to be the most versatile prime. It's also less than half the price of the lenses you are referring to and a great performer. I own the Canon L series 85mm and 24-70mm, which are top of the line, and the 50mm still holds its own among those in terms of performance. It is very lightweight and portable as well.

People who use multiple DSLRS love the 50mm as well as a video lens because of its price, focal length, and performance. Highly suggest you check it out.

u/feral2112 · 7 pointsr/photography

The single best way to get better at anything: practice! In your case, take your camera and walk out the door. Go to a park, the mall, walk through your neighborhood.... and just shoot. Take pictures of anything and everything. And don't wait for something to shoot... go out and find something to shoot. You'll take a lot of crappy pictures at first but eventually you'll start finding diamonds in the rough.
As far as educating yourself, make sure you read your manual at least once from front to back. Knowing how to use your gear properly is essential. Secondly, pick up a copy of Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure It's a great read for the beginner and helps you understand the basic mechanics of photography. Here are a few other links for you to check out: Kelby Training | Digital Photography School |

u/abdulatwork · 2 pointsr/photography

I preface by saying I know almost nothing about photography.

My gf has a Canon Rebel T2i and recently we went on vacation to Iceland where she commented she wasn't taking the best pictures because she only had a kit lens.

I wanted to get her something around the $300-400. What would be the best bang for my buck? She likes doing wildlife and landscape photography.

I see these two lenses, are both of them together a good deal?

Zoom lens

Landscape Lens

Is there another lens in that price range that would be better than both of these combined?
Also, is it worth it getting a lens for a T2i, she was commenting that it was a beginner camera.

u/aybrah · 3 pointsr/photography

I've used these for several shoots with great success. for 20 dollars build quality is great and i dont see them falling apart anytime soon. Unless youre going to be shooting a loooooot of portraits i wouldnt spend more.

u/thedailynathan · 1 pointr/photography

You don't state a budget, but one of the cheapest will be Canon's 55-250 IS:

It'll be pretty effective, and lightweight. The only way you could do better for a similar size range is to go for the Canon 70-300 IS - it gets you slightly more range but is definitely bigger and more expensive.

If you really, really want to go compact, the smallest I know of is Sigma's 55-200. Be aware that it doesn't have IS though, so keeping the camera steady enough may be difficult:

Also you might want to check with the particular venue about what kinds of cameras they will allow. Many of them have restrictions such as no lenses longer than 3 inches, or no SLRs entirely.

u/Moaks · 4 pointsr/photography
This is the bag I just got, it is great at storing my Canon 6D along with a lens and several filter pouches, I am not 100% sure, but I think it will have enough room for a second standard lens. Also the back is SUPER padded, feels like I'm carrying a cloud.

u/yum_yum_wonton · 2 pointsr/photography

By no means am I a landscape photographer but I do enjoy an occasional long exposure picture. I've went and picked up this after some recommendations. It's light, I've traveled via airline with it, simple enough for my needs and has been sturdy enough for my D90 with 17-55 and 50mm. It's not top of the line nor do I expect it to survive 20 mph winds with little shake. I've used it for about 2 years now when time calls for it and I'm pretty happy for it.

u/ANiceSunset · 1 pointr/photography

I have a Nikon D5300. I have the kit lens it came with and I would like some suggestion on which lens I should go for.
What I'm looking for is a lens that will put more focus on the model (like zoomed in on the model ish) and less of the background. I noticed that in most of my photos I've gotten a lot of the background and the model/cosplayer. I would like some assistance on knowing which lens (if any) that can focus more on the model/cosplayer.

I looked online for the next lens people recommended and asked around stores like Best Buy. I read online that typically people would get the 50mm prime lense but the people at Best Buy recommended the 35mm prime due to tight corners situations, which, would've been handy at times when I was at Anime Expo. I also was told that the one in the link was an FX and since the camera i have is a DX, it gets cropped as if it were 70mm or so.

Is it safe to say that 35mm prime is better for group photos shots but the 50mm is better if you're up close? Has the cropped part of putting a FX lens on a DX camera body ever helped anyone?

u/jaexlee · 10 pointsr/photography

Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers

This is a good video that I found through another comment on this sub.

But since you asked for a book, this one is pretty good: The Photographer's Eye

Have fun!

u/bastiano-precioso · 2 pointsr/photography

Okay, here is a better list, sorry for the mess:

Flash -- around $65.

Transmitter --around $35

Light stand + umbrella + flash bracket // around $30. I got this one used for $20 on Amazon. There are different ones and with different quality.

Canon 24mm f/2.8 -- around $150

Canon 50mm f/1.8 -- around $110.

Also, Yongnuo makes their version of the 50mm ($50), the 35mm ($88) and some others. I can only vouch for the 50mm, I either got a great copy or it is just great.

u/selvamon · 1 pointr/photography

This is fantastic. Thanks for all your help.

If you don't mind me asking more questions, since you seem so knowledgeable, how would you compare the Pentax (SMC) primes to those of Canon?

For instance, is the Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.8 really that much better than the Canon 50mm f/1.8? Or is this mainly a case of supply vs. demand?

u/whiskeysnowcone · 5 pointsr/photography

That's a shame. I did find some 10mm and 18mm lenses for the D5500 but the prices are just outrageous. Looks like my kit lens will have to do for wide angles. I still might invest in the 35mm prime. seems to be a good price for a great lens.

Thanks for the input!

u/bluesedge · 1 pointr/photography

Will this light kit be adequate for small product photography for creating that seamless white background effect? Specifically fishing lures for a web store. I would get one of those soft box kits but I would like to use these lights for other things. Like setting up a green screen studio for my young nieces and nephews. Thanks

u/Terryfrankkratos2 · 1 pointr/photography

Most people will recommend a 50mm 1.8 but honestly its too long for a crop sensor camera like the t6i in my opinion, I recommend a 24mm or 40mm instead.

u/nal1200 · 5 pointsr/photography

The lens is easy - get a new/used Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

The body will be somewhat subjective. This is the first one I had, and I'd recommend it. Used is around $250-300. Nikon D5100

Edit: Instead of the 35mm lens, you can get the FX 50mm 1.8g, which is about $50 more, which will be better for portraits. The 35mm will give you more versatility. Neither will be all that great for landscape. I recommend the 35mm since it's the equivalent focal length of 53mm, which is pretty close to the 'standard' focal length.

u/svuori · 1 pointr/photography

There are a lot of good reading around, on the internet and books as well, like

Also, this guy has pretty informative videos about basic stuff you can SEE what happens when focal length, aperture, distance change..

I must add that shooting a lot, experimenting, asking questions, thinking is something you should do too :)

u/TheMeiguoren · 2 pointsr/photography

Hi! I know nothing about photography, but my sister is learning and playing around with it, and I wanted to get her some film & accessories for Christmas. She has a Minolta x700 that used to be my mother's. Any pointers on good things to get that would go with that? Thanks!

Edit: Decided to get her an entry-level umbrella lighting kit. Figured she'll get a lot of mileage out of playing with lighting.