(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best camcorder & camera lenses

> I've looked at shots taken from the Fujifilm FinePix X100 and honestly, I find they are jaw dropping. But then I see similar shots from say a Canon EOS550D and I look at them, and they are nice, they are clear, but they just don't have that 'thing'. That I see in photos from a Fujifilm FinePix X100. I'm sure a newer DSLR has more 'flexibility' but that's not generally what I am looking for I think.
> Now I'm not talking about any 1 camera brand in particular. But I know for example that people who've owned rare and expensive cameras can agree. Some cameras just take shots that can make anything look incredible. I've never really seen that in a DSLR camera... the photos look detailed, clear and colour is well reproduced. But I feel like there's no 'essence' in the photos.
> Look at these shots from the Leica M7 for example:

You, my friend, are cursed. Before you even start taking photos you've realized that you can see the differences in how lenses render, and you know that to you the use of better lenses will make a difference in the satisfaction you feel when you get everything else right.

I have a few pieces of advice:

• For you, the lenses matter more than the bodies. You should be able to get a 16x20" print from any ("obsolete") 6 megapixel camera on the used market, but you need to buy into a system with the sort of lenses that you like.
  
• The Fuji line-up has some outstanding lenses. You will be happy with the prime lenses (those of only one focal length); you may be happy with the higher-end zooms.
  
• Other line-ups will work for you as well. If you buy a system made to mount third-party manual-focus lenses you will be really happy with old Leica lenses made for film cameras, though you won't like the prices (even used.) Contax RF lenses are nice as well, as are most Zeiss lenses. The Leica photo you linked above was shot with a Voigtlander lens, which is actually made by Cosina (if I remember correctly) - a high-end lens from a company with a rather low-end reputation at the time.
  
• I'd avoid DSLRs and look at mirrorless: Fuji (with their own lenses), Olympus/Panasonic with the higher-end primes (this one would be a good lens to start with, though used would be fine as well), or something comparable.
  
• Folks say photographers have affairs with cameras, but they marry lenses. This is correct. The number one thing you should be looking at is the quality and variety of lenses currently available. Promises don't matter as much as what you can get right now.
  
  If you wanted to go new the Fuji X-Pro-1 is available in kits with 35mm and 18mm lenses for cheap right now, because the X-Pro-2 has been announced. Any of the X-cameras will work for you, and if you can wait a few months you may find some really good deals out there. The Olympus OM-D is a very capable camera as well that can support some really good lenses. Lots and lots of good, usable cameras in the used market. Just make sure you're looking at the sorts of cameras that take the sorts of lenses you like.
  
  Don't get caught up in the megapixel debates. Full Frame > APC-C (Fuji) > m4/3 (Olympus/Panasonic) as far as objective performance is concerned, but people nowadays are really picking nits here. Wall prints from any of these systems aren't hard once you learn proper technique and the capabilities of your camera, but some lenses draw images in a very special way. If you can see that, and you value it, then that really limits the systems you'll likely be happy with.
  
  And that's a good thing.
  
  (Another thought: before you buy, or as you get discouraged, go a a site like Flickr and filter based on the equipment you're considering, or that you're not making perform to its max. See what photographers better than you can produce, and use that as inspiration. You'll find that all camera platforms are capable of outstanding results, but they all offer different trade-offs. The goal is to find the trade-offs that work best for your situation).
  
  Edit: Wow - thanks for the gold.
  

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! :)

My 2 cents as a long time hobby photographer with somewhat similar interests (I shoot nature, at macro and telephoto distances).

Just about any modern DSLR body will be able to do what you are asking for, but you will need very different lenses for both purposes.

Sensor size is the main factor to consider in modern DSLRs.

Full Frame bodies have a sensor inside that is equal in size to one frame of a photographic film. APS-C or crop bodies have a sensor that is smaller than photographic film, therefore you have a "crop factor" (1.5 or 1.6) which represents the part of the image produced by the lens that is captured by the sensor. In effect, this is equivalent to cropping out the edges from a full frame image. Micro four thirds is a sensor standard that is roughly half the size of a full frame sensor and cameras featuring this standard are very compact (this is related to flange distance [distance from sensor to the lens], not sensor size, but that is not important here). Pentax, Canon, Nikon and Sony make both full frame and APS-C bodies, Fuji makes APS-C bodies and Olympus & Panasonic make M4/3 bodies. I'll stick to Canon and Nikon in my recommendations here because other manufacturers are not well represented in India.

Macro

There are 4 ways to shoot macro images;

(i) The easiest way is to use a dedicated macro lens. These are lenses optimised to focus at very close distances. A "true" macro lens produces 1:1 or life-size images. What this means is that at the closest focusing distance, an object the size of the sensor will produce an image that fills the complete image frame. The Nikon 60, 105 and 200mm, the Canon 100 and 180mm, the Tamron 90mm, Tokina 100mm, Sigma 105 & 150mm are all excellent lenses. These are all moderately to very expensive, so I recommend looking in the used camera market. Most macro photography is done with manual focus, so you may be better off purchasing an older manual focus lens for 8-15k, than a newer auto focus model for 20k and up.

Pros: Excellent image quality, lenses are all built to high standards.

Cons: Cost.

(ii) Reverse mounting a zoom lens. The use of an adapter allows you to attach a lens (such as a standard 18-55 kit lens) the wrong way around and take magnified images.

Pros: Inexpensive.

Cons: Learning curve, lot of trial and error. Image quality not as good as a dedicated macro lens.

(iii) High quality close-up diopters (such as a Raynox DCR-250, Canon 250/500D, Nikon 4/6T) can be attached to the front of just about any lens to provide magnified images. You can also get cheap "close up lenses", but these will provide poor image quality. The diopters mentioned above are doublet or triplet (made of 2 or 3 lenses) assemblies that will not affect image quality to a great extent.

Pros: Pocket friendly.

Cons: None really, unless you want to nitpick.

(iv) Extension tubes are hollow tubes you place between the lens and body which magnify the image produced by the lens thanks to simple physics.

Pros: Inexpensive.

Cons: Take a bit of getting used to.

Sports

Taking pictures of fast moving objects at distances requires the use of long "telephoto" lenses. I would recommend a 300mm lens as the very minimum if you want to take pictures at cricket distances (assuming you're sitting in the stands of a stadium and trying to photograph the batsman). As telephoto prime lenses are rather large, heavy and expensive, you're better off going with a zoom lens right now.

Keeping your budget in mind, the best deal right now might be the Nikon D5300+18-55+70-300 for 48,000. The 70-300 AF-P is a pretty good lens that focuses down to about 2 feet and gives you a magnification of 1:4. Add a Raynox DCR-250 for about 7k and you have a pretty nifty macro set-up that will do a decent job with sports as well.

If you want something a bit more rugged, I'd suggest a used Nikon D7100 for about 25,000 coupled with the 70-300 AF-P for 17,000. A Raynox diopter and an 18-55 will add 10,000 to the cost.

The Canon equivalent of the AF-P 70-300 costs 36,000 (although the 55-250 can be had at that price), unfortunately. Which does not leave much for a body. There is an inexpensive Canon 70-300, along with Tamron/Tokina/Sigma variants in both Canon & Nikon mounts, however none of them offer Vibration Reduction (which the AF-P does). VR corrects for "lens shakiness" and is quite useful for beginners. Entry level Canon bodies also offer a somewhat less featured auto focus implementation compared to nikon.

If you want to go with Canon, I'd recommend the 750D+18-55 combo for 47,000 combined with the 55-250 IS for 12,000. Or, you could go with a used 7D (a 10 year old body, but still quite capable) for about 32,000 and couple it with the 55-250.

There are additional options if you'd like to restrict yourself to one form of photography. You'll also get lots of useful information if you ask this question on the photography & camera sub-reddits, as well as Indian photography focused sites such as the JJ Mehta forums.

A few assumptions need to be made to make this post not 10 pages long. I assume you have approximately $500+ dollars to get started. If you don't it'll be clear where you can cut back, but lose out on quality.


In order to do what Duncan does, you need a few items:

1. Camera: The best bang for the buck "no" budget camera right now for solo shooters who film themselves is the a5100. The a6000 is also nice but doesn't have a flip out monitor which helps when making sure you're in focus and also filming yourself, and also loses out on some other video features. This camera depletes our budget immediately but starting out strong is good. You can always save up money for more stuff later down the road. If that's too expensive you can look into a used a5100, or a Sony NEX-5N. You lose out on fast auto focus, a higher quality codec, and a flip out monitor. Could you get a DSLR? Sure. But anything that would come close to competing with the a5100 in terms of video specs would be well over $1,000.
   
   
   
2. Tripod: You don't really need a tripod. You could stack up a bunch of books and put your camera on that. Unfortunately you wouldn't have pan/tilt capabilities but it'd work. However, filming "b-roll" of your completed minis to add supplementary footage may be difficult handheld. So, if I were to buy a "no" budget tripod, it'd be this one. I personally used this. It's great for beginners, pretty rigid, but suffers when exposed to elements like water/sand. It also only has 2 axes of motion as opposed to all 3 (not the biggest deal for video, more so photography).
   
   
   
3. SD Card: Your camera probably comes with one (unless you buy used or some other deal). If you need one, seeing as how you'll be filming to a 50 mbit codec (XAVC, higher the number, better the quality of the footage), you'll need a card with at least a 50 mbit read/write rate to keep up with that codec. Here's one.
   
   
   
4. Microphone: Duncan's voice is nice and clear. The mic on your camera is absolutely terrible. You will sound like you're talking into a tin can. This isn't a problem with the camera either, it's a problem with all on-camera microphones. There's a few solutions to this. You could pick up a lavaliere system. One interesting one is the Rode Smart Lav. You plug it into your smart phone, click record on your smart phone, record on your camera, sync it with a clap, and you're off. Most cameras come with a 3.5mm jack to plug in an external microphone, but this one does not (kind of good and bad, bad for "no" budget film making). This forces us to look for an external recorder to capture our audio (in the case of the smart lav, your phone acts as the external recorder). A good external recorder and mic combo with be a Tascam DR-05 and a Rode VideoMic Go plus some accessories like a cold shoe mount + mic stand. Out of these set ups, I prefer the smart lav. When/if you look into getting a recorder/microphone solution, spending more money garnishes much better equipment to a certain degree.
   
   
   Bonus 5: Lenses. As usual, lenses that come with the camera are not the best in terms of sharpness. So I have 2 recommendations to supplement your camera. An incredibly sharp (in terms of detail) lens but it only can take advantage of Sony's slower auto focus, or a less sharp lens that can auto focus very quickly. Combining sharpness + capability to utilize Sony's new fast auto focus features costs $$$. It does exist, but I'm hesitant to link it.
   
   
   My recommendation: If you know you want to get into this, buy the a5100 and an SD card (if you need it). Play around with the camera, its settings, different set ups, etc. Once you're familiar, buy the tripod, film test tutorial of you painting something, edit it and render/publish it. Once you're certain you are enjoying the process or the outcome, buy a better mic set up, and then finally a better lens.
   /u/RamenProfitable

Way back when I first started, my fingers liked Canons more too - which is why I have them now. This is the biggest decision really, you can easily get a new body, but switching systems is tough. That said, there is really no wrong choice here. Certainly, I have no regrets.

The 70D is seriously sweet. It's a little cheaper on Amazon but not by much. If you want to go with a cheaper body that is also awesome try looking at a 7D - it's about half the price on Amazon. You go back a generation in sensor tech (not a huge deal at all imo) and lose the fold out screen - but you keep the great AF system and get a magnesium and weather sealed body with a bigger viewfinder. If your hands liked the 70D, they just might like 7D even more, and you'd save enough money to get a couple of primes.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-discontinued-manufacturer/dp/B002NEGTTW/

I am a little hesitant about the superzoom. It's an enormous range, and not especially fast. But that seems like a decent price, and certainly a good way to test out a lot of focal lengths. A whole lot of focal lengths. It's not a good lens for someone like me who likes a lot of bokeh and tends to shoot indoors - for boudoir, portraiture, etc I'd recommend something faster without the super-tele end, perhaps like my Tamron. But if you're shooting outdoors in strong light, I suspect it would do really well with obviously enormous focal flexibility. And hell, you're buying it used, can always resell for roughly the same.

An awesome EF-S lens is the pancake 35mm equivalent, turns your DSLR into a great portable X100-sorta :) Awesome for street photography, shooting people indoors, hiking, etc. This one's a Canon luxury, Nikon doesn't seem to have any good pancakes available.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-S-24mm-2-8-Lens/dp/B00NI3BZ5K/

It's so cheap you actually don't save any money buying it used - one of the only times I'll say that :)

In general, I'd get EF lenses where possible over EF-S, in case you want to jump to full frame later - but the cheap superzoom and the pancake are good EF-S lenses to have.

It's a good video. Very interesting subject matter and the story is present. Pacing and overall time was good. Music choice was excellent. Sound design was good for a web video (a little forced here and there, but any effort is better than no effort).

I didn't like the cut to blacks early on. Simple cuts would have sufficed. It felt more like a mistake than a choice. If it is a choice, maybe hold on black a bit longer to really make it hit.

I think this would have been much better shot in 24fps for the entire piece. The only time 60FPS felt cool was at the closeups of the fire. Otherwise, to me, 24fps is a much more pleasing look for documentary/narratives.

You could have great benefited from more closeups. It's almost as if you were limited to a wide angle lens on your camera. I personally would have made sure to bring this lens along with me to compliment my wide angle shots... it's a beautiful lens that's super stable and one can snipe some incredible moments from afar with it. It's practically made for shoots like these!

My favorite shot was the lady with the camera/umbrella early on. Not sure why, perhaps because faces were in view and it was a candid moment.

Also, thank you for NOT doing unnecessary 'travel video' whip pans and unnecessary transitions. People forget that simple cuts are more than enough when telling a story.

Overall it's a good video, you should be proud. Next time strive for even more shot diversity, and really try to get some closeups on faces. A telephoto option is the best way to accomplish this... you can keep distance and let people be themselves and 'steal' moments from afar. Faces tell stories better than anything.

MFT system has some really good lenses. Olympus 17mm f1.8 is nice prime if you like wide standard lenses. It is quite sharp and good general purpose lens. It has this amazing manual snap focus system which is really handy for streetphotography if you prefer pre focusing. 17mm is the one that is always on my camera. There is also Olympus 25mm if you prefer 50mm kino eq. more, but it does not have snap focus system. For these, you might also want to check Panasonic equivalents if they have something you prefer more.


One of the must have lenses for MFT is Olympus 45mm 1.8. It is dirt cheap and quality of it is really good. Especially great for portraits but works on else too. I carry it with me everywhere.

The best MFT lens in terms of image quality, sharpness is Olympus 75mm F1.8. This is insanely sharp. It is great for portraits. 150mm film eq. is quite hefty, but if you appreciate sharpness and technical quality this is absolutely the best one out there.

For general use Zoom Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35 mm F2.8 ASPH is the obvious choice. It is quite pricy, but it has great built quality and image quality. It is also water and dust resistant like your body. Some of my friends only use this lens.

If you want dedicated wildlife lens there is Panasonic Lumix G Vario 100-300mm F/4.0-5.6 OIS Lens. This is pretty much only option if you want long telephoto lens. Olympus has similar lenses, but they suck. This one is good and will do the job.

Edit: If you ever need really compact lens, there is really cheap pancake lenses. Image quality is not great, but if you require discreet lens they are good enough. E-M1 is quite large compared to PEN series for example, so these pancakes might not work as well for E-M1 than Pen. It probably would be just better to use normal sized prime.

1. Not necessarily. A 50 mm f/1.8 and a little cropping would be fine, at least to start for a moderate price
   
   
2. You have a good eye and a solid style, and that's the hard part. A wide aperture to blur the fore/background naturally would help with that 50/1.8 lens. Look into making a DIY lightbox to get some softer, more controlled light with softer shadows and fewer harsh reflections
   
   
3. Lighting is definitely hard, but technically it should be a little easier at the scale of board games. The geometry works out such that cheaper and smaller softboxes, umbrellas, reflectors, and other equipment will be easier to buy and easier to control than much larger gear for larger subjects. A small umbrella over a tiny board game piece is effectively enormous (good). Look into a full video course on studio lighting, and flash photography over on Lynda or Skillshare - it'll be like an hour or two long in total. If you go to college, they may hook you up with free Lynda account like FSU does for students and alumni. Your local library may also give you access.
   
   
4. I'm most comfortable with Canon because I have one, and there seems to be a wider selection of lenses, but I think you're fine here. That's a great camera and Sonys are known to work really well indoors in low light. Definitely not a misstep, but there's a lot more to photography than just buying a nice camera. Check out YouTube for LOTS of tutorials on post processing.
   
   P.S. Lightroom/Photoshop are the industry leaders in post processing, but I am cheap and I like RawTherapee/Gimp which are the free, open source alternatives. Editing is just as important. Take the skills you learned on your iPhone editing software and continue doing the same kinds of things on desktop (or mobile) but with a bit more control. Good luck.

Yes, you can make a [£2,595 URSA Mini 4K EF] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B017A3PRBG/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B017A3PRBG&linkCode=as2&tag=hybrcamerevo-21) [Referral Link] work for corporate or run and gun - and get image quality no standard camcorder can match (as seen [here] (https://vimeo.com/149554465) and [here] (https://vimeo.com/152219074)), but by the time you buy a [£194.41 CFAST 2.0 card] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00LL4QUTE/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00LL4QUTE&linkCode=as2&tag=hybrcamerevo-21), a [£196.94 SDI viewfinder] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0177CB50W/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B0177CB50W&linkCode=as2&tag=hybrcamerevo-21), a [£348.45 shoulder mount] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53481-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=391324098531&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229508&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) and a [£595.53 fast lens] (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00DBL0NLQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=B00DBL0NLQ&linkCode=as2&tag=hybrcamerevo-21) [Referral Links], you will be well over your £3,000 limit.

If you want a large sensor, run and gun 4K camcorder in your price range, you might want to consider the [£2,917.17 JVC GY-LS300] (http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53481-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5575034783&toolid=10001&campid=5337235943&customid=&icep_item=301510090765&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229508&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg) [Referral Link].

Like a conventional camcorder (such as the EX3), the LS300 has built-in NDs, XLRs, dual card slots, a top handle and camcorder ergonomics - but unlike camcorders such as the EX3, it has a Hollywood-sized sensor and 4096x2160p true 4K image resolution - plus it can use its power zoom rocker and variable scan sensor mapping for lossless 1080p digital zoom with prime lenses (as seen [here] (https://youtu.be/0Eq4_hPzQPc)).

It also records to 3840x2160 Ultra High Definition (UHD), 2048x1080 DCI 2K and 1920x1080p HD (up to 60fps).

In addition, it has a flat LOG profile, which increases its dynamic range.

This is an 8-bit camera, but it has 4:2:2 color subsampling and will stand up to grading pretty well.

Here's a UHD file shot with cine gamma (before the J LOG release):

• [“Honmonji Temple” in GY-LS300 by moribun] (https://vimeo.com/139214323) (downloadable if you're a Vimeo Plus or Pro member [if you're not, you can sign up [here] (http://vimeo.com/pro/new?utm_source=affiliate&utm_medium=prosubscribe-cj-vimeo-bizlander-300x250-20130424&utm_campaign=7696)])
  
  Here's a nice J-LOG piece from Dan Chung at newssshooter.com:
  
  
• [JVC GY-LS300 4K J-Log Vision] (https://vimeo.com/138523082) (not downloadable)
  
  And here's a very quick J-LOG camera shelf test at 4096x2160 Cinema 4K resolution from Gert Tetzner at avmediafactory:
  
  
• [JVC GY-LS300 Firmware 2.0 J-log ungraded] (https://vimeo.com/140984524) (downloadable for Vimeo Plus and Pro)
  
  A few more examples of the image quality this camera can produce:
  
  
• [GY-LS300 UHD 4K w/ Canon 70-200 and 85mm lenses] (https://youtu.be/QYCdxMrvAoA)
  
  
• [EVS’s test footage for the JVC GY-LS300 4K super 35 Cinema camera] (https://youtu.be/S47dceBcuJI)
  
  ...and 1080p on Vimeo:
  
  
• [JVC GY-LS300 Camera Test] (http://vimeo.com/122736335)
  
  
• [Breathing in New Life] (http://vimeo.com/120445118)
  
  A very nice overview from Zacuto:
  
  
• [First Look at JVC's GY-LS300] (http://vimeo.com/121192570)
  
  A couple of useful reviews from Rick Young's Movie Machine:
  
  
• [One of a kind - shooting with the JVC GY-LS300] (http://vimeo.com/133929950)
  
  
• [Shooting with the JVC GY-LS300 & Micro Four Thirds Lenses] (http://vimeo.com/136918105)
  
  And two recent reviews of the new features introduced with firmware update v2.0:
  
  
• [Fred Blurton Reviews JVC’s GY-LS300 Firmware Upgrades Version 2.0 by Fred Blurton Productions] (https://vimeo.com/142907613)
  
  
• [JVC LS300 Firmware v2 by Philip Johnston] (https://vimeo.com/150304533)
  
  I have shot with this camera - it is an easy-to-use, very high quality Super 35mm camcorder and a very good value for your money.
  
  Hope this is helpful and good luck with your upgrade!

Purely speaking on brands:

• Canon - Best of the best for Canon cameras. L series means it's more rugged. Also very pricey!
  
  
• Sigma - Great brand - my second choice. Save money here.
  
  
• Tamron - Interesting brand - I own a 70-200 F/2.8 lens and it works fantastic - there are some issues with slower focusing but you don't notice it unless you're trying to capture sports or moving objects (I tried it on motorcycles on a track and I couldn't track my focus as well!)
  
  I recently did a lot of research into starting lenses and here are my suggestions :)
  
  
• 50MM 1.4 Canon (Save money - get a used 1.8 - this is a must buy, it's cheap)
  
  
• Canon EF S 17-55MM - This lens is a bit pricey, see below to save money. Totally worth it. Remember your crop ratio on lenses, I'll assume you have 1.6 like I do on my 550D which would bring this lens to a '20-70' (not stopping to do math lol)
  
  This lens is used for 'walking around' you can get some wide angle and some good portraits with it. It's very flexible.
  
  
  
• Cheaper Tamron alternative to the Canon above
  
  
• The baddest mo-fo, the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 IS L II
  
  This lens is very pricey. Look at Tamron to save the most money (I vouch for it) or Sigma for a little more, but less than the Canon.
  
  Remember with crop ratio that changes the FL of a lens! Figure out if yo have one or not.
  
  Simple rules of thumb? Save money. Wherever possible. But, always get the best glass you can afford. Glass is greater than body.
  
  Hope this helps - if it does please pay this comment forward, it took a lot of typing so feel free to share with other people in similar questions :D

I'm no expert when it comes to DSLR's, but as someone who started with a 700D then moved up to a 70D after three years learning the basics, go for the 70D first. The auto-focus is phenomenally better, higher megapixel count and wifi connectivity. In terms of quality they're all pretty much the same and a beginner such as yourself wouldn't really be able to notice many of the main differences, but if you're going to throw some cash at a starting line I'd make sure you're in the perfect place rather than wanting to upgrade later down the road. :)

Another pointer from my experience would be to get a variety of glass, best quality you can afford. It doesn't really matter which camera you go with when you're starting out if you have some decent lenses to mix up your shots. Get yourself a wide angle, a prime and a zoom; 10-18mm, 50mm/35mm & 75-300mm. That's your starter kit, then upgrade to better quality lenses and cameras as you go - worth noting that the ones I linked are all the lowest quality (except the 35mm) considering you're probably on a tight budget, but you'll still get some sweet footage. It simply means you'll be able to get a wider variety of shots and you'll be prepared for most occasions - the beautiful city skyline scene, the crispy portrait with a bokehed out background, and the "Oh! There's a deer 50ft away! Let's capture it on video rather than running up to it and being kicked in the balls!".

One other thing that might be worth mentioning is that I always carry a point-and-shoot with me. My choice is the Sony RX100 IV - shoots in 4k, incredible slow motion (up to 1000fps), slog2 recording (higher dynamic range to make your scenes look incredible after colour grading), no hassle with interchangeable lenses and in my opinion is generally more convenient than lugging a DSLR around with you when you're on holiday somewhere.

Throw me a message if you have any questions, or just leave a reply and I'll check it when I can. Here're a few video samples for you to compare your possibilities: Canon 70D Auto-Focus, Sony RX100 IV Sample.


EDIT: Fixed up some grammar & wanted to throw you a few accessories incase you hadn't thought that far ahead:
• Gorillapod: Your trusty ol' wrap-around-a-tree tripod. Way more versatile than your traditional kit and easier to travel with.
• Røde Shotgun Microphone: The best quality microphone you're going to be able to find for the price. Canon's default mic sucks balls, so grab one of those if you run with the DSLR.
• Class 10, 64GB SD Card: If you decide to grab the Sony RX100 IV, you'll want one of these to shoot in 4K otherwise your camera will just give up after a few seconds. If you run with the Canon, grab this anyway for faster transfer speeds, but it's really not necessary.

I would have recommend the GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens.

It is the reason for this: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/

Photos taken by a Panasonic camera were by far the most attractive. This is because they sold the camera with a prime lens as the "kit lens" (the first lens you get with the camera).

Prime lenses usually have a smaller f-number, which means they have a larger physical aperture.

The largeness of your aperture is directly proportional to what is in focus. The larger the aperture... the less stuff is in focus. Which is what you want in the photos that you described.

You can still buy a Panasonic or Olympus camera, and throw on the 20mm f1.7 lens, but none of their new cameras does not come pre-packaged with that lens anymore, and I don't think they're making any more GF1s.

The new kit lens is a 14mm f2.5 lens, which is still good, but won't have as blurry a background.

You can also get a compact camera to do it... but it will be more fiddly for you to do. (Whereas with the Lumix GF1 setup, almost all your photos will have that nice blurred background, without any fuss).

This is the successor to the GF1 - the GX1. It is the camera that I use to take photos like this.

The lens that you want is the 20mm f1.7 - The price fluctuates, but the cheapest you'll find it is for $300 used. It is a very popular lens because it is small, sharp, and fast (it lets light more light in).

If you can't find a cheap 20mm f1.7, the Leica 25mm f1.4 would be even better, and for not much more money. Leica is the Porsche of cameras. They're expensive, well made, and you don't see them on the street. (Nikon and Canon would be more like ford and toyota)

If you don't plan on processing your photos on your computer, Olympus Pens are better to use. They have better in-camera JPG processing. (I process my photos on my computer, so in-body processing does not matter to me)

There are wide variety of olympus micro four thirds cameras, from the cheapest interchangeable lens camera on the market - the E-PL1 ($270) to the semi-professional OMD EM-5 ($1300). I say semi-professional because it is not supported by professional services. (Canon and Nikon let you pay money for a service to get your lenses repaired faster and have loaner cameras etc. if you break your camera just before a job)

I recommend you get the E-PL1 with the kit zoom, and a 20mm f1.7 lens, or 25mm f1.4 lens. It is good to spend more money on your lenses than on your body, because after a few years, the body gets old and superseded by newer ones, but the lenses will always be good to use on your new cameras and can often be sold for close to the price you bought them for. The 20mm f1.7 lens was $300 a few years ago when it first came out, and it is still that price on the second hand market.

TL;DR, the features you're looking for is a large mm and low f-number. (25mm is better than 20mm AND f1.4 is better than f1.7).

Compact cameras are usually about 8mm f3.5

You could also get a canon or nikon dslr and throw on a 50mm f1.8 (costs about $120 for this lens)

u/pastramiswissrye is totally right in that lights, sound, lenses, and media are all more important than the best camera.

My personal favorite camera in that price range is the Panasonic G7 and a good 12-35 lens. The G7 is like the little brother to the GH4 as it does 4k and just is missing some of the more pro features and is $600 for the camera. The lens is another $600 but you could just use the kit lens and upgrade your lens later.

Continuing with what Pastrami said, you should have good audio, lights, and media storage, in addition to the camera and lens. For audio, the rode videomic pro is a good all-around shotgun mic that you can put on a boom pole for good short film on location sound, however you will need someone to help hold your boom pole.

For lights, a good reflector will help you use the sun as a light when shooting outside on location for a short film. If you are in a studio, this four socket CFL light kit will go a long way to help. I personally use one of them and they are great for the price. Just pop in four cfl bulbs and you are good to go. If you would prefer LED lights which are smaller and don't heat up as much, but are pricer, you can get this LED studio light kit.

On the media storage side of things, you are going to want to pick up a few of these 64GB U3 SD cards for use with your G7 or any other new camera you get. Especially if you plan on shooting in 4K.

If you are going to shoot in 4K, your file sizes are going to go way up and you are definitely going to need to get more hard drive space on your computer. You may even have to upgrade your computer to handle 4K video editing. It all depends on what you have and what you want to do.

On the editing side, I personally use Final Cut Pro X on my Mac. It is $300 but a great piece of editing software, used by pros. If you are on a mac but don't want to spend money, just use iMovie, it will probably do what you need it to do unless you edit in 4K. On the windows side, some people use sony vegas, some people use AVID, some people use premiere pro, there is a bunch of them out there and you kind of just have to choose one. (I have never used any of them)

Like he said, there is no canon r6i. I assume you mean T6i, but you still need to do some more research. I hope this helps!

> I forgot to mention in my comment that I shoot a sports in terrible light a lot of the time.

In that case, a 7D Mark II might be another good option. Its high ISO performance is pretty damn close to the 5D2, bests the 80D, and it boasts a massively improved AF system compared to the old one that the 5D2 has (I believe it's the same AF system as the original 5D which is over a decade old at this point); you won't see a higher ISO improvement until you go another generation up to the 5D Mark III. Even if the 5D2 gave a tiny bit better high ISO performance, you'll likely want the superior AF system and burst rate that the 7D2 has: it's literally built for action and should be able to capture moments that the 5D2 can't.

It would be a great upgrade to what you have and will give much better high ISO performance than your T5, so it could be a nice stopgap while you save up more to upgrade your lenses at a later date. The body alone would be up there close to your budget at ~$1200-1300 used, but you'd have pretty much the best Canon sports body that isn't a 1D-series.

> it would be hard to find a good lens that covers everything from wide angle to a good sharp zoom for sport, like the 24-105

The 24-105 is a good zoom for flexibility, but it has its flaws. Many people experience zoom creep as the lens gets up there in age (if you tilt the lens down, it zooms in) and it's not super sharp wide open. If you're going with such a fast shutter speed for sports as well, you don't really need IS and could probably find a copy of a 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS for ~$1k which will help you keep your ISO down better than a 70-200mm f4L IS or 24-105mm f4L IS would, and you'll save money by not getting the IS which you wouldn't be using much anyways.

> but the 55-250 I simply cannot afford

Are we looking at the same lens? It's $300 new, and $240 refurbished by Canon.

You really need to define "something cheap" for this crowd.

For example the 70-200 F4L is described as "cheap" (and it totally is cheap.... relatively), but $600 for a lens ($470ish used) if the $300 body is a stretch may not seem "cheap" to you.

As other's have said the 50mm is your best bang for buck. If every $$ is critical you may save an a bit on a used older MK II version which isn't as good or as quiet but on the 5D may be just as fine. If you want to go really cheap YONGNUO has a 50mm F1.8 for $50 new. Going with a name like Yongnuo can be scary (compared to canon) but the 50mm (unlike the other yongnuo knock offs) gets good reviews by users on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QEXM4YC/

If you want some more flexibility, a bit more reach, and a cheap price, something like the much derided, gets no respect, 70-300 can be had for $100ish used/refurbished or you can get tamron/sigma version for $100-$200. You'll get the flexibility of a zoom and you can get some decent pictures (in good light) with the 5D.

Other lens to consider are the 85mm F1.8 ($350ish new) and the 100mm F2.8 USM ($600 new but $300ish used). These may be a bit better for traditional portraits as the 50mm is a bit wide for that use. Like the 50mm they both deliver a lot of bang for the $$.

Unfortunately on the wide end it's a bit more challenging: The 40mm is not much wider than the 50 and goes for $200ish. Even at that price and the slower speed it's a fine alternative to the 50mm . The old version of the 35mm/F2 still goes for $200 used as does the 24mm F2.8. YONGNUO has a 35mm F2 knockoff that sells for $90 but reviews are fairly meh. For a wide/normal zoom the 28-70 F35-45 for $100ish is probably the best bang for your buck but here are a slew of other options in that range (35-80, 30-80 etc) that may be worth researching:
http://www.opticallimits.com/Reviews/187-canon-ef-28-70mm-f35-45-ii-test-report--review

Consider adding a flash to your kit. The low-light AF/performance on the 5D is abysmal but with a flash equipped with an AF assist lamp/beam it improves greatly. I use a 580EX (Version 1 sells used for $100ish) but there are some 3rd party knock offs that may work just as well for a few less $$. The 580EX AF asssit lamp is really.... gentle. It paints your target with faint red stripes that are so great compared to the blinding white light or blinding strobe used for AF assist on other cameras.

The 5D is fun but it can be really challenging. One thing I did not realize when I first started using the camera is that there are two different "on" positions and the camera behaves differently depending on which one is selected. I was driving myself crazy, thinking I had a defective model "It just worked a few minutes ago!"

Also check on the status of the mirror repair for the 5D you are buying. It's a known issue and if it has not been repaired using the original canon repair kit (no longer available) it may fail. Mine failed after a month and the vendor fixed it but for me and since then has been fine. (knock on wood) but as it's not the genuine canon repair with the re-enforced mount I figure it will fail again, hopefully not before I get my $300 worth out of the camera.

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/13/canon-warns-the-original-5d-may-suffer-from-mirror-separation/

If you're just getting into it, I would consider a camera body that costs $500 USD or less. My own personal recommendation is the Sony A6000. The body and kit lens is small and compact compared to a traditional DSLR like the Canon T6i and performs just as well. It also has the option of being able to mount vintage lenses on it due to it's smaller form factor and the lens mount being closer to the sensor. This means you can get good but cheap manual lenses from back in the day for often times $100 USD or less plus a $18 USD converter mount.

If you have any questions about this camera system (i own the A6000) or in general, please feel free to ask either through comments or pm me. Shameless plug (https://instagram.com/snappedbyandy for example photos)

Also. It sounds like you want to take a lot of landscapes, and for that you want a lens with a low focal length. Now, the kit lens that comes with cameras is nice and all, but if you want some real stunning pictures, you'll get a better quality prime wide-angle lens. "Prime" meaning the lens can't zoom and "wide-angle" meaning you have a wider field of view. Since it doesn't need to move, there's less glass needed, and the quality of the picture is better. Something that's 12mm to 20mm should do the trick. I'll link a personal recommendation below should you choose to go with the A6000.

Again, i want to emphasize to buy used if possible. Especially on lenses. You'll get severe discounts compared to buying something brand new. Typically people take good care of their lenses, and if you can meet the person before buying, a little legwork can save you a bundle of money.

Camera with kit lens (i recommend buying used/refurb locally if possible)

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-Mirrorless-Digitial-3-0-Inch-16-50mm/dp/B00I8BICB2/ref=sr_1_5?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180473&sr=1-5&keywords=a6000&dpID=41AEqhgdLtL&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch

Recommended wide angle lens for landscape with the A6000:

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1539180938&sr=8-1&keywords=rokinon+12+e+mount

an example of a good vintage lens:

https://www.amazon.com/Minolta-MD-50mm-Japan-Mount/dp/B008QFXYYU/ref=sr_1_16?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180558&sr=1-16&keywords=minolta+rokkor

an example of a converter to convert the mount of a vintage lens to the Sony E-mount

https://www.amazon.com/Fotasy-NEX-VG30-NEX-VG900-NEX-FS100-NEX-FS700/dp/B00E5T5BJW/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539180630&sr=1-3&keywords=md+to+e+mount&dpID=41RFJ6J3P1L&preST=_SX300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


Guy with a dedicated blog to attaching vintage lenses to the Sony E mount system (he uses a Sony A7, which is more expensive, but the A6000 uses the same mount system, so it still all applies):

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/affordable-manual-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-77r7ii7rii-and-7s/

I started off with the Olympus E-PL5 to test the mirrorless waters then jumped to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 after about a couple years. So take this advice for what it's worth /u/CarlyleCasper . I'll throw some links to Amazon for you as references.

First figure out your budget. Your camera body and lenses should be two separate decisions on how you're going to spend your money. You can blow through a lot of $$$ trying to figure out what works for you because there are tons of bodies & lenses to choose from.

For the camera..... I suggest you go to a physical store where you can fingerbang a couple different cameras that you're considering. Play with the controls, see how easy it is to work the settings, etc. Depending on where you're located, that could range from easy to difficult to downright impossible (if you're in a rural area). I ended up going with the E-M10 not based on the specs of the camera, but how it ended up feeling & ease of use. In my opinion, unless you're after certain capabilities in a body, the minutiae on the specs of all the cameras tend to all blur into one another.

For the lens/lenses..... Again, your budget may come into play here. You've got a choice between zoom or primes. Everyone will tell you different things: zooms are more versatile, primes are sharper, zooms let you carry one lens for all sorts of shots you could run into, primes force you to concentrate on composition, etc etc etc. All those arguments are valid, and yet they all carry different weight with different people.

If you don't want to spend a lot of $$$ on lenses right away, I'd say get kit lenses like the Olympus 14-42mm and the Olympus 40-150mm then shoot with them for a while so you can figure out what focal lengths you use the most. That way if you decide to try some prime lenses later, you already have a reference of what focal lengths you've shot with most often as a way to figure out which primes you may be interested in.

Me personally, I have a good zoom Panasonic Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 that is just about permanently attached to my E-M10. It probably gets the most use out of all the lenses I owned the past several years and it's a great little "walk-about" lens for me. And believe me, I went through lenses (mostly primes, buying & selling used to save $$$) playing around to see which I liked the best. Along with the 12-35mm zoom, I have a Bower 7.5mm f/2.8 fisheye lens and a Panasonic Lumix45-150mm telephoto zoom in my camera bag all the time. I also still have the E-PL5 but I mostly use it with all the retro legacy lenses (manual focus stuff) that I like to play around with.

Hopefully this was helpful and not overwhelming. :-)

I was in a similar position about 3 years ago. But then it was either the D3100 or the D5100. I chose the D5100. I chose it due to the higher ISO capability. I loved my decision. It was a much better camera than the 3100. I tried my buddy's 3100 and my 5100 side by side and mine outperformed 3100 significantly. The location was a dinner party at a restaurant. I was able to easily pull of images in low light he was not able to get. Also, the additional features helped me learn photography better. To me the 3100 seems like an advanced point and shoot camera with SLR capability. The 5100 gave me very good pictures, kept me interested, and kept me growing in photography for the last 3 years where the 3100 would have bored and disappointed me with photography in couple of months. Honestly, today, I am disappointed I just didn't go for a D7000. If I would have gotten the D7000, I believe I would have been satisfied for another year or two before upgrading. But it was my first DSLR and I wanted to learn how to shoot manual. I wanted to tip my toes in the water first before spending lots of $$$.

Yesterday, I just upgraded my 5100 to a D750. I was between the D7100, D610 and the D750. I figured why the heck not... I wanted something that can keep me satisfied for the next 5 years. Rather than constantly have my body go out of date then wanting to upgrade again.


To see what kind of pictures the D5100 can take, look here. http://imgur.com/a/kZxC2. http://imgur.com/a/1eOv5#9.
I am sure the D5300 will perform much better.

I highly recommend getting the Tamron 2.8 28-75 lens and skipping the kit lense. The Tamron 2.8 was my first lens purchase. All pictures you see above was taken with it. It will be the lense you may need for a while, unless you need a super zoom.
You can get it new for $500 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05
or used < $400. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/284402?gclid=CjwKEAiAtNujBRDMmoCN46aB8noSJAC7SYv7mf2IsbdzMWfDQ6PQ7TP8v3RtWwojn7S83gSJnLjSkhoCGhfw_wcB

It is an FX lens and you can still use if if you decide to make the jump to FX later like I did. Even if you buy DX now, I suggest you still by FX lenses. I have only purchased 2 lenses over the last 3 years, but they have been very good lenses. They will serve me much longer than the bodies. If you do not want to spent that much on new lenses right now and want to get the kit lense (which I highly don't recommend), wait few months and get the 50mm prime lense. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417144124&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+50+mm. Its an excellent lense and you can use it on FX camera's as well. I am planning on this to be my next purchase after I get over the D750 sticker shock.

Edit: I also jumped from a Canon Powershot to Nikon DSLR. I have really enjoyed Nikon as they just felt better in my hands. Also D7000+ bodies has a built in motor so you can buy older lenses much cheaper.

Edit 2: Best Buy has a great deal going on now for a D7000 and a zoom lens for $800 bucks. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/nikon-d7000-dslr-camera-with-18-140mm-vr-lens-black/2071002.p?id=1219068635598&skuId=2071002.

Edit 3: Scratch that. You may want to take a look at this... http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00POQ8B74/ref=twister_B005MX9OSE?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

As a Youtuber who's invested in the wrong gear before the right gear, here's a quality list that I've found works for my needs and will likely be great for you.


Camera

Panasonic GH4: This is a great camera that shoots 4K. If you are shoot in 4K, downscale to 1080p, you have the option to reframe and zoom into a closer shot without losing quality. It has a flip out screen so you can see yourself, focus peaking to show you on screen if you're in focus, and can record longer clips (in select modes) than the Canon T3i to make syncing easier. This camera is also great for when you want to deliver in 4K one day.
$1699


AC Power adapter: No worrying about batteries for the indoor shooting. $20


Lens

Panasonic 12-35mm: Versatile lens that gives you great range. $1000


14-42 kit lens: Cheaper alternative. $120


Audio

Zoom H4N: Great recorder for your mics. Monitor each mic's level independently. $250


Rode NTG-2: Shotgun mic. $270


Sennheiser Wireless Lav: Expensive, but great quality. $640


Audio Technica ATR-3350s: Cheap corded lavs with long wires. $30


You'll need one long XLR cable, a light stand to use for the boom, and some kind of shotgun mic shock mount. $60 for all.


Lighting

3-light softbox kit: Great kit, been using it for a year with no issues. I don't use the over head light, as I don't have the space. I can use the light stand to boom or for another light. $170


Neewer CN-160: Small LED light to help light certain situations or to use as a hair light. $30


Tripod

Manfrotto Tripod w/Fluid Head: Great set up, worth the investment, but there are cheaper alternatives. $350


Memory Card

64GB Sandisk Extreme Pro: Great card which will allow for smooth 4K recording. $100


____



If you have any questions about any of this gear, let me know and good luck with everything!

Sigma have been at it for a while. They realized they could make a lens that Canon/Nikon wouldn't want to make, and then sell it in just about every mount they could.

Mid-range primes are a great example. Nikon won't make them because they undercut the high-end stuff. Sigma are more than happy to put out a 150mm f/2.8, or a 30mm f/1.4 -- both of those lenses are like eight years old but really good.

Then they have the super high end stuff that Nikon or Canon just can't afford to make for one lens mount. Stuff like the 200-500mm f/2.8 that costs upwards of $25,000.

Even their "low quality" stuff is good. I have the 50-500mm f/4-6.3 and I love it, you're not going to get a lens like that from Nikon or Canon any time soon. It cost me $600 used.

Sigma have been putting out really interesting stuff for a while. The only true "budget" lens manufacturer these days are Tamron, they are putting out perfectly adequate products in the same focal length range as the big guys, only for cheaper. Sigma & Tokina have been innovating for a while.

A single lens for a novice, I would recommend a zoom lens rather than a fixed.

If you have the money to pick of a collection of prime lenses that might be a different option if you want to go that way. You might want to pick up a set with the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm... yeah, it adds up.

The kit lens for the rebel series is the one mentioned earlier (EF-S 18-55) and older editions can be found for cheap. Looking over ebay I see them for $11.50, $8.50, $13.00, $10.61, ... The range of 18-55 is not terrific and many people ditch their kit lenses as soon as possible, but many others never move on from their initial kit lens. They are not that bad, and the market is flooded with them, so they can be had for cheap.

If you're willing to go off-brand and on a tight budget for a better zoom, better both in terms of better glass and more versatile midrange zoom, this Tameron lens is one of the best ranked among the 'cheap' category. 28-75 f/2.8 for $315 used like new. It is missing a lot of expensive features, no image stabilization, slow noisy motors, but the glass is good for a midrange zoom lens.

If you do have a little bit of money for a lens, my absolute favorite "inexpensive" canon lens for regular walkabout use is their 24-105 f/4 L-series lens for about $650 used. Excellent glass (it is an L-series) good mid range zoom, fast quiet motors, image stabalization, full-time manual focus. True it isn't the very similar f/2.8 flagship that sells for 4x the cost, which I would recommend if you had the money. It is a mighty fine mid-range lens.

Hey, I took a quick look at that video and it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to match that style of production. It looks like he might be using two cameras to film (one wide shot for him speaking to the camera, one lowered and tighter shot focused on the action on the table) but you could replicate this by using one camera with a zoom lens and a tripod that tilts down.

Affiliate links below

As for budget camera that fits this niche, I would recommend getting a refurbished Canon 80D (https://amzn.to/2EiB0OP). There's nothing flashy about this camera but it is very user friendly and offers a lot of good video features in an affordable body. It's over your $700 camera budget but not by far. If that budget is a hard limit then I would recommend going down to the Canon SL2 (https://amzn.to/2ElJ40Z) which offers similar features but generally lower quality and one area that it really lacks compared to the 80D is the autofocus.

For both of these you would want to upgrade out of the kit lens to something that opens to a wider aperture because the style you are emulating uses a lot of out of focus elements. I would suggest eventually going to the Sigma 18-35 1.8 (https://amzn.to/2SyGZE6) but try to find a used one because buying used lenses is a great way to save money.

For lighting, I recommend just getting one good light to start, a reflector/bounce board kit and watching some tutorials. You can do a lot with 1 light and a good understanding of the basics.

Something like this for the light: (https://amzn.to/2SyGZE6)
Cheap light stand: (https://amzn.to/2H7nnoy)
Reflector kit: (https://amzn.to/2Syi6si)

So all in to start you would be looking at about $1100-1200 and if you want to upgrade down the road the best place to do that would be in high quality lenses

Oh no, not at all... $800 is fairly high for a 'nifty fifty'. The price is because the Sigma Art 50 is pretty much the sharpest lens on earth (which makes it a bargain when you compare to, say, a Zeiss Otus

Actually, on the subject of those Sigma's... I got the 50mm first, but I found 50mm on a crop sensor camera is kind of an awkward focal length. You can't go wide enough to capture, say... a building across the street, or the head+shoulders of a friend sitting across from you at a small table. But you can't zoom in either.

Later I got the 18-35, and now the 50mm basically gathers dust. The zoom range of the 18-35 is limited, but it's just 100% more useful than 50mm. It's kind of my default lens now. It's a great lens.

But anyway, if you don't wanna spend a ton and you want a 50ish mm, and below f/2, there's a bunch of options.

The basic Canon 50mm 1.4 is $300 and is pretty sharp.

The Canon pancake lens is really well loved, surprisingly sharp and so small that it weighs nothing. A sigma art is quadruple the weight lol.

This Sigma Art 30mm seems to be on sale right now. $130 off. That's an outstanding deal, and you might find 30mm more useful than 50. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F1-4-Lens-Canon/dp/B00BQXL8BU/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=50mm+1.4+lens&qid=1568732777&refinements=p_n_feature_three_browse-bin%3A3130996011%2Cp_89%3ASigma&rnid=2528832011&s=photo&sr=1-1

I just recently bought a canon 1200D with an 18-55 mm IS II kit lens. I have found that I mostly shoot portraits and some macro and now I am looking to upgrade my lens but still want the flexibility of a wide range zoom lens. I found that in my price range for an EF-S mount that canon recommends their 18-135 USM lens. I like the looks of it as it still looks flexible. I have also found 18-135 mm lenses by Canon and now I am picking between these three
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-135mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Digital/dp/B002NEGTT2 standard IS

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008UGMLWQ/ref=psdc_173565_t2_B002NEGTT2 STM

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01BUYJYOW/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=P4YF3DBC2FWW&coliid=I131NWQFIHP74Z USM

I think the cheap standard IS looks to be just like my current lens in terms of quality while having a larger zoom range. It looks like the STM has a step up for shooting movies (but I think I would only be able to appreciate it with Canon's 'i' series of rebel cameras, I only have a base t5) and I think the USM is like the STM but has a faster auto focus. Is any of that true? I really was hoping that there would be a difference between the STM and base model in terms of image quality, is that the case? I want to start shooting some video soon and I was hoping the USM would be worth it if it has a better auto focus as I will also use auto focus for taking quick shots of moving subjects. What are the advantages between them? Also, what do the abbreviations mean?

Well it's not really my career, it's just something I wanted to do so I decided to do it and did it. Honestly, I'd recommend you do the same. These days, the equipment is very good and very cheap (compared to even 10 years ago) and there are tons of free resources online.

Honestly, I just bought a camera and started making little mini-docs about random stuff just for practice. For example, my brother graduated from high school, so I went back and made a little mini-documentary about that, with interviews with my parents and such. I didn't do anything with it; the whole thing was just for practice. Once I got to the point where I felt like I was good enough to make something watchable given a little funding and a lot of time, then we started working on Living with Dead Hearts.

If you want to get into making documentaries as a career, you should know that you're sort of taking a vow of poverty (it's very rare that a documentary does the Michael Moore thing and plays in major theaters or rakes in much money). Especially given that, I'd say avoid film school; take some film classes at your college if you can while majoring in something else, and mostly just buy a camera and learn by doing.

You can buy a Canon 60D body, a couple good lenses (the 50mm 1.4 is great for interviews, Tokina 11-16 is wonderful for wider stuff and handheld shooting), a Zoom H4N and a mic or two for well under $3,000, especially if you buy used (and you should as long as the goods are still OK). But honestly even if you're just shooting with an iPhone, the best advice is just to go start shooting mini-docs and learning about how to tell stories and communicate best in that form. Also watch docs and see what you like and don't like, what you think works and what doesn't. I don't know if my film is any good, but anything good in it is probably something I stole from other docs.

I found these two books to be very helpful, if you can only afford two:

Shut up and Shoot Documentary Guide - great basic overview of a lot of the basics, with illustrations. How to mic someone correctly, how to frame a shot properly, etc. All the practical skills you need to get started are here.

Directing the documentary - A film school textbook that covers EVERYTHING, from this history of documentary filmmaking to the practical stuff and, probably most importantly, the conceptual and ethical stuff. It's written as though you'll be directing a film with a real crew (you won't) and it's full of homework-style exercises like a textbook (some useful) but it's very worthwhile for the ethics stuff alone. As I've touched on elsewhere in this thread, shooting a doc can put you in some ethically tough positions, and you want to be sure you've thought out where you stand before you're sitting in someone's living room realizing you've just ruined their life.

I don't think it all looks like crap, it just looks like DSLR footage shot during a live event. That will mean shaky, mostly out of focus, and grainy.

These camera really aren't designed for live event shooting, but you can work around some of those issues.

First, the shaky-ness. What were you using to stabilize the camera? Do you have a shoulder mount, or a monopod that you can run and gun with? The last thing you want to do is hand-hold these cameras. If you HAVE to hand hold it without any kind of support, my advice would be to flip it into 720p/60 frames mode. You can then slow that footage down loss-less and it tends to take the bite out of shaky CMOS stuff. I use this trick for weddings all the time. The slow-motion makes boring activies (like make-up) look more dramatic, and smoothes the shot out.

Concerning the out-of-focus shots, that all comes down to your lens and how you approach your shots. It looks like you had poor lighting in there, and so you probably opened that 50mm up to get an exposure. I know that seems like the right thing to do, but for live-event keep that lens stopped down as much as you can. F5.6 to F8 would help keep most of the shots sharp(er). Compensate the light lost with a higher ISO. You can fix grain in post way easier then fixing an out of focus shot. For my money, these cameras are acceptable way up to 1600 ISO.

With the DSLR at 1600 or so, a more traditional 3 chip live event style camera would probably exhibit the same amount of grain around 12db of gain, and that's still perfectly acceptable. I assume you are delivering in SD on disc, or upload HD to the web, which would smooth a lot of the grain out anyway.

I might recommend this shoulder mount. It's plastic-fantastic but for $23 bucks you really can't beat it. Unless you break it, like I did, but for such a low price to replace, who cares?

A sharper, constant aperture kit lens might help with some of your out-of-focus shots. I think the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a great lens for Canon DSLRs and can be usually be caught as a deal of the day cheap, or for around $325 used and in good condition.

Just keep shooting, you'll get there.

So I have a Canon T3i and a 50mm f/1.8 II. In the near future, I will be purchasing a new lens. I'm still a newbie, so I don't really have a specific style and I just shoot what's in front of me. I've been doing predominantly street photography and auto photography, but i'm also looking to branch out. It's come to my attention that I should have a wide angle lens in my arsenal as I was begging for a wider perspective when I went to my first auto show a couple weeks ago. It made framing weird, and I had to move back which was quite inconvenient in a packed show like that. I also love landscapes and views so I want something wide to capture those as well.
Here are some of the choices I'm considering.
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens

Tamron AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 SP Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens

There are also a couple lenses that I have stumbled upon that are not as wide, but have a longer focal length which may double as more than just a wide-angle.

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens (really have my eye on this one!)

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens

This is all a bit confusing for a noob like me, so any help is appreciated it. If you feel like there is a better option, please do recommend it to me! And also, i'm on a working-class student budget.

One last question, how do you feel about used lenses. Just curious towards your experiences as i feel like they can be bargains. Lenses are built to last a long time if they're taken care of right? Sorry for the long post but thanks in advanced!

1. It all really depends on your budget, but for Macro: EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro, or the EF 100mm F/2.8 Macro. For portrait, I'd say to start of with the EF 50mm 1.8
   
   
2. Your T5 is compatible with all Canon EF and EF-S lenses.
   
   
3. Buying used is a great way to save some money on quality lenses. Like most things, it depends on the reputation of the person selling. Private sellers, make sure you do your research on them if buying on Ebay or Amazon or something. KEH.com, B&H Used and Adorama Used are great places to buy used and inspected equipment with a decent warranty. Also the Canon USA Refurbished store is an excellent place to buy. They have stuff that Canon has officially looked over and comes with the same 1 year warranty as their new stuff. I've bought a lot from them and have been very happy with it.
   
   Hope this helps!

This lens or this lens are great all-round and good in lowlight. Half of my album is with an equivalent lens like this.

If you're into ultra-wides (the other half of the album is an ultra-wide), then this lens is great, and this lens is even better but more expensive.

Those two focal lengths have carried me for the past 4 years without me ever feeling the need to get anything else. That being said, this lens I think is a must have for all Canon users. At just over $100, it will deliver great results in lowlight. Honestly it might be the best bang for buck lens in all of photography. And because it's so cheap, plus you're getting the camera free, I might even recommend getting all three, if that's in the budget.

If you want to be a little more conservative, here's what I would do: Get one of the first two I linked, shoot and play around with that for a while, and see what you find you need next. Do you want something a little more zoomed in for shallow depth of field and delicious bokeh? Get the 50mm. Do you crave getting some sweet wide shots? Get one of the ultra-wides. Let your needs decide what your second lens is, because it's a very personal choice and no one can know what you want to shoot until you try it out for yourself.

Software: Adobe Lightroom is all I use really, and it's all you need. It's designed as an all-in-one management, editing, and publishing platform.

Good luck!

Hi everybody.

At the moment I'm shooting pictures with a Canon EOS 450D (EOS Rebel XSi) togheter with Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. I've been pretty happy with this so far. But I feel the need to upgrade because of the following reason:

• The 50mm (which for crop sensor is effectively 80mm, right?) gives me a too narrow FOV when shooting inside. The FOV is also too narrow for landscapes and often also for street photography. It surely works, but it's subpar for my needs.
  
  So. I'd like one lens that is good for the following:
  
  
• Landscapes
  
• Shooting indoors
  
• Street photography
  
• Portraits (although, the 50mm is rather good for this one)
  
• Be able to get a good looking bokeh and separate the foreground and background
  
  I know that's a lot of different areas but I believe I could manage find one single lens that would work alright for all of those purposes.
  
  What I've been looking at:
  
  
• Sigma 20/1,4 DG HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 24/1,4 DG HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 30/1,4 DC HSM Art for Canon
  
• Sigma 18-35/1,8 DC HSM Art for Canon
  
• Canon EF-S 24/2,8 STM
  
  
  Which one would be the most logical for me to buy? Zoom is really not that important for me (at least I don't think so). The first two ones also fit full format cameras and it's not impossible that I'd like to upgrade the camera body too sometime during the following years.
  
  
  I'd really appreciate any kind of advice, thanks! :)

I honestly don't think new lenses are going to solve your problem. I'd be willing to bet money that the "lack of quality" you find in your images stems from a lack of technical knowledge or experience on your part, and you want to compensate for that thing you are lacking by spending money. This is a pitfall that many photographers fall into, including myself. When I am in a slump and wonder if I should buy new gear, I go to flickr first and do a search for my camera body and the lens I'm using and see what results other people are getting. Here's what those results give for your camera/zoom lens: https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=canon%20t2i%2055-250

Look at them, compare them with your own pictures and then ponder about whether you need new lenses or not. If you still think you do, I think that you would be better off having a set of lenses that is flexible for most situations rather than just buying one very expensive lens. Here is what I recommend:


Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 EX DC HSM ($449)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM ($449)

If you think you will need to take portraits, then the obvious lens to balance out your kit is a telephoto lens and by far the best budget/performance one is the one you mentioned, the nifty fifty:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens ($110)

All of those added up are within your budget.

The 10-20 becomes your normal walk-around lens. If you are a wedding or some social event, it has a decent amount of range to quickly zoom in and out and since the focal length remains the same you don't need to adjust your camera settings while you do so because of its fixed aperture, which is something your current zooms don't have.

The 30mm which is a bit tighter (it renders somewhere around a 45mm perspective on an APS-C sensor camera) will be great for pictures where you want to isolate backgrounds but flexible enough to be used on other subjects. Although the Sigma zoom is more flexible, this is the lens that should live in your camera as having a fixed focal length is a great exercise for photographers to learn more about composition and dealing with limitations.

And finally, the nifty fifty will be your go-to portrait lens. If I was making a professional kit of lenses with your budget these are the lenses I'd go for. I'd also strongly recommend at some point getting some light equipment if you don't have so already. Start off with a flash and some way to trigger it remotely, via IR, or cable, and work up from there.

Edit: On another note, here's another reason why I don't recommend the 35mm f1.4 Canon L lens on the camera you have: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F14L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-550D__645 - That's how that lens performs on your camera body, has a score of 21



http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-30mm-F14-DC-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-550D__645 - The sigma has a DXO score of 20.

You'd be spending almost your entire budget for a marginal performance improvement.

If you buy a much better camera, the Canon will easily start outperforming the Sigma, but until then its performance would be bottlenecked by your camera body.

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/jeffster888 pretty much already covered everything I was going to say. It is indeed the "Nifty Fifty" and it's a lens I decided was a great value after doing a lot of research into it.

I don't actually own the stock lens. Somehow my camera body didn't come with it. The lens I normally use is a Canon 18-135 mm lens (pretty sure it's this one), and it's great because it has a huge range of zoom. IMO it far surpasses the stock lens. :P I only got my 50mm one pretty recently but I absolutely love shallow depth of field so I'm still playing around and learning how to work with it.

IMO, lens is more important than the body (as long as your body is at least decent) because you can do a lot more with different lens than you can with a different body. Also, lens are interchangeable, which makes them really handy in different situations. You definitely should consider some other lens. The stock one I've heard is decent (never personally used it though as I don't own one), but if you want to get a little deeper, definitely look for other lens. I highly recommend both lenses I have. :)

Just to compare, here is a selection from the Canon side of things with Amazon used prices:
Canon 7d - $990
Tamron 17-50 2.8 - $340
These two are a great basis to work off off and get you to $1330.

If you want to spend some more you could add the following:
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - 100
Canon Speedlite 430EX - 235

But to be honest, if your wife is just starting out and money is a bit tight, don't go out spending $900 or more on a body. As most people will tell you, picture quality is mostly due to lenses. Canon t3i, Canon t4i or 60D as well as Nikon 3200 and 5100 are all excellent bodies and have more than enough features to keep her happy. If you get either of those bodies and a decent 17-50mm lens as well as a 50mm prime she will have great tools to learn on with space to grow.

Just like daegon I would recommend to buy used. Most Photographers look out for their things quite well and most of these lenses and bodies are made at quite good quality levels. I hope this helps.

Oh man, that'll be such a great move! You're going to have so many great photo subjects! I did some research and it looks like this lens is supposed to be a great one for the E mount. It has very solid reviews. I think your 19mm will be good for town photography, but I'd have a lot of confidence in a 12 being able to get everything you want in a shot for big landscapes, like all the mountains and fields and lakes. It looks like the Rokinon in particular handles low light well, which was always my favourite thing about my 50mm 1.4f (RIP). Hope this helps a little! One of my friends purchased an E mount right before moving to Japan and she LOVES it.

There are a lot of things wrong with this post.

The 50mm/1.8 is one of the cheapest lenses out there. Because it is a prime (instead of a zoom) they can have fairly good image quality and still offer it at a decent price.

There aren't any wide angle prime lenses in this range I'm aware of (there is a 28mm prime for $400+ but that's really not very wide on an crop sensor body). For wide angle shots your best bet is using your kit lens wide open (assuming it's something like 18mm or 28mm) and saving for a true wide angle.

Saying I want a cheap wide angle lens with good quality is like saying I want a cheap computer that can play Battlefield 3 with max settings on at full resolution. You can buy a cheap lens that might be sort of a wide angle but it's not going to perform very well.

The cheapest wide angle for a Canon that's nice is probably the Sigma 10-22mm zoom lens for close to $500.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320951022&sr=8-1

If you are looking for a good all around lens that can go fairly wide open I'd look at something like this Tamron for $500

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50mm-Aspherical-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000EXR0SI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1320951205&sr=1-1

18-135mm f/3.5 is not bad at all - this one, I assume? That's a decent starter lens, it's definitely not cheap.

It's a great jack-of-all-trades lens for walking around, but where it falls short will be in specializing on certain things.

Pro: good wide angle at 18mm which is great for landscapes, decent closeup at 135mm, f/3.5 will be fine for close portrait photos.

Con: f/3.5 is not a good aperture for night photos unless you have a flash engaged or it's stable enough to take a longer exposure, if you want to zoom further than 135mm focal length, you'll need a separate lens, and if you want soft 'bokeh' you'll want a bigger aperture.

So all in all, it's a great lens to learn with, and I think you'll do fine with it for now, but if you want your photos to stand out more for the gear used, or you want to do more night photography (which is heavily dependent on big apertures and/or good flashes) then start looking at larger apertures and more expensive lenses :P

Tokina 11-16 is a good choice.

You are being downvoted because you make the same mistakes as everyone else starting out. Good move getting the 35mm prime, it's a great lens. Most people would have preferred to get a 17-50 f/2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 zoom you got, however. Superzooms lenses like that one (which can zoom waaay in and out) have horrible image quality. Sure, they're convenient: everything in one package. But spending so much money on a camera to get images that are somewhat blurry isn't the best move.

The 35mm lens is a great lens, made even better at its low price at $200. The 18-200 superzoom is around $650. The Tokina is around $600. You could probably switch out the superzoom for the Tamron 17-50 and a 50mm f/1.8G, which is another great lens.

All the previous lenses mentioned are a great starter kit, very general-usage based, and suitable for everyone. In that senario, instead of buying the Tokina 11-16 now, you have a choice: Get a super wide angle lens (The Tokina 11-16) or get a nice telephoto lens, such as the Nikon 70-300, or lastly, some macro lens. Your choice depends on your style: whether you like to zoom in, take ultrawide shots, or come in close to your subject. Either way, you end up with a nice set of lenses that you will enjoy using.

Hello everyone!
Just got the a6000 recently with some christmas money and I freaking love it already. I've been doing some research and I want to try out an upgraded lens. The kit is fine, but I'm definitely seeing the benefits of a lower aperture prime (more bokeh effect, better in low light, etc.)

I've narrowed down my search to the Sony SEL35F18, SEL50F18, and the Sigma 30mm F2.8

The SEL35F18 definitely seems best to me overall, and I'm thinking it probably makes sense to just suck it up and go straight for that. However the Sigma is also attractive because it seems like a great budget alternative. The SEL50F18 is probably last on my list because at ~$300 currently, its just not a significant enough difference in price from the 35... Any advice is appreciated!

Alright, on my desktop now so I can fix this up a bit.


Tamaron 28-75 2.8 is an increddibly good lens. It has a good zoom range, constant aperture, is parfocal, and very sharp. The only downsides are that the front of the barrel extends quite a bit when zooming (makes it difficult to use with a mattebox, and the focus throw is like 10 degrees or something. It also has auto focus, if you want to use it for stills, or you like watching the lens refocus in the middle of your video. If it's in your price range, I strongly suggest this lens.


This olympus 50mm 1.8 is a great lens. It's sharper than the cannon 50mm, and has much better manual focusing. I own the 1.4 version, and it's likely the sharpest lens I've ever owned. The cannon 1.8 does have autofocus, and flares alot less, but it also costs over 2x the amount.


This Tokina 35-105 3.5-5.6 is an amazing lens, considering the price. It's not very sharp until f5.6, but it still looks amazing. The bokeh is amazingly creamy, especially when using the close focusing function, and it can start to go swirly. By 5.6 it is also incredibly sharp. This lens can definitely give a very "cinematic" look. The best thing about it is it can be found online for as little as 13 dollars. Beware however, it is a push zoom style lens, and it is not parfocal.


Nikon 3.5-70 3.5 is an incredible deal. I haven't owned one myself, but here is an incredibly detailed review by Ken Rockwell.


If you want wide or tele primes, especially fast ones, its gonna cost you quite a bit more. Even vintage ones rarely sell for under $100.

The Panny 12-35 f2.8 is by far my most used lens, and it compliments your friend's 35-100 f2.8 nicely.

I also have the Panasonic 25mm f1.4 which is a great lens - there's no OIS, which is a downside for a lot of people but if you have a steady hand or a tripod you're ok. I use this a lot on weddings. You could by the 25mm f1.7 for sightly less.

The next lense I'll be buying is the Voightlander 10.5mm f0.95 - it's pricey but a fast wide lens is something I've been looking for for awhile on the m43 system. Voightlander has a variety of f0.95 prime lenses compatable with your sytem - I think a 25, 35, 50 and 80mm IIRC. Had I not alreaday had those focal lengths covered I may have picked one of those up too.

for only $80ish bucks this 9mm BLC (body lens cap) fisheye lens is awesome. Lot of people overlooking it. It's locked at f7 but that's not an issue since I am ususally shooting with it during the day or timelapsing with it in low light with a slowshutter (great for wedding or even timelapses - like this one of mine). I keep it on my camera instead of normal lens caps.

Similar I'd recommend looking into some older lenses and using an adapter. To cover my longer focal lengths I use an older Zeis 50mm f1.4 prime from my analog photography days - it's effectly 110mm with the crop factor.

For extremely cheap ($10-$50 bucks on ebay) you can buy c mount tv lenses. Almost all are f1.4 and have a real milky dream like look to them. They can be cool - check this video out for an example HERE. 16mm lenses can be converted aswell but they'll be way more money.


All my suggestions by the first two are fully manual lenses. That's not everyone's thing sometimes FYI, but I feel like those people are more from the photography side of things. I basically shoot the same stuff you do from the sounds of it - concerts, music vids, commercial stuff, weddings. etc.

Got one, love it, really like DSLR form factor though so make sure to get your hands on one before buying. Also yeah you can pretty much adapt anything and ive just been using the 10-15$ adapters. Kinda hard to beat a 50mm 1.7 for 5 bucks, and like you I don't shoot sports or portraits and find I enjoy hand focusing, if you're pressed for time focus peaking is pretty helpful. I was shooting with someone and as I was driving I asked them the get a shot, them being unfamiliar with full manual asked , "how? And how do I know what to focus to?" So without looking I reached across gave the focus ring a spin and the shot came in perfect, moral of the story is manual will become second nature after a while. Youll just get a feel for what you need. I would Def keep the 7100 as a backup if able, I still find myself reaching for my Canon at certain times.

Edit: Just buy extra batteries off the bat, number one complaint of mine is those things run dry quick especially for long exposure. Also get a standalone charger, charging in camera is miserably slow.
And this Lens is fantastic,
Rokinon 12mm https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_yGVkybXA6XTJZ or the 14mm Roky, I use it all the time

I do have the 100mm 2.8L macro lens BUT if I could redo the purchase I wouldn't get the L series. It's a beautiful lens but it was just shy of a grand. I could have gotten the 100mm non L lens for half the price. I am a fan of the STM lenses and of course the USM lenses but I do shop with price considered now. The L isn't my first reason to look at a lens. Plus there are lots of lens rental websites so you can try before you buy or for using a lens once for vacation or something.

If you want to talk macro, PM me. I live macro photography. I'm no professional but I love seeing the details you miss all the time on small things. Super macro is also fun and quite challenging. http://digital-photography-school.com/super-macro-photography/

The prices have gone up a bit but still a decent price for what you get. I use my 100L fit family portraits too.

Non L is 600. Not cheap but not terribly expensive. It's an achievable goal if you really want it.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?cache=a0071f54bb81555881641ed403b15faf&pi=SX200_QL40&qid=1407817888&sr=8-2#ref=mp_s_a_1_2

> Hey guys, I am posting this on behalf of my sister who is too stubborn to make a reddit account.

tell your sister that in order to give proper advice, we really require her presence, because:

> As a new photographer, how much should she charge for prom pictures?

this is kind of a hard question to answer. as a new photographer, and with some questions like these, i'm inclined to answer that she shouldn't be doing it at all. every pro has to start somewhere, granted, but there should generally be something of a gap between "picking up a camera" and "starting a professional career in photography". that gap allows for practice, experience, skills, knowledge and personal style develop, and gives you exposure to what real paying jobs can be like, as you kind of progress up the ladder of job legitimacy.

frankly, i doubt i could do a similar job that cheap at cost. gas to the job costs money. prints and CDs cost money.

> She has a canon T2I with various lenses.

so... what lenses?

frankly, this is an amateur camera from three generations ago. it's not really a professional tool. you may not need it for what she's trying to do, but there are definite reasons that professionals use professional tools and not just the cheapest thing that gets the job done.

> What is the best mode for taking pictures in the outdoors(for prom pictures)? She believes it is portrait but is a bit unsure.

if you're using the scene modes, you're doing it wrong. who knows how those things work? why the make the choices they make. if you're taking pictures for pay, you'd better know why you camera is set the way it's set, and not leave those choices up to some program in its firmware that's trying to guess what you're taking a picture of.

you want to, at the very least, be in a priority mode (probably aperture), or even manual. you want to decide what exposure setting is more important and set that, even if you let the camera set everything else accordingly.

> What is the best website/store for purchasing prints? We are thinking costco will be the cheapest

costco definitely makes pretty good prints for a fast turnaround. for websites, i like adoramapix.

> Which lens would be better for an outdoor prom picture shoot? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-55mm-3-5-5-6-Select-Digital/dp/B0002Y5WXY or http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EF-70-300mm-4-5-6-USM/dp/B0007Y794O

this is one of those kind of things you should know before taking jobs professionally. the answer is "you should probably have a 17-55 (or 24-70 on full frame) and a 70-200, and not these junky kit zooms." truthfully, there isn't a right answer to this: i have and will continue to shoot groups with telephoto lenses. it's a mater of what you're shooting and how you want to shoot it.

> Can anyone provide a link for learning how to calibrate the Canon T2I ISO settings for outdoor pictures?

again, this is the kind of thing you should know before taking pay for jobs. and it depends on the light.

Sooo,
I have had a T3i for a few years now along side a this:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1398346452&sr=8-2&keywords=usm+300+canon

and also this:
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE14M-C-Ultra-Canon-Black/dp/B003VSGQPG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398346666&sr=8-1&keywords=wide+14+mm+canon

I don't know exactly why, but I can definitely take really superb pictures with with the 300mm lens... and also quite good ones with the Rokinon one...
The kit lens takes normal or average pictures...

My only assumptions are that the kit lens is made with lower quality stuff or is someone less powerful... The 300mm lens is "made in japan" so I guess it is higher quality...

Anyway, all this has been said only to ask suggestions on higher quality lenses to take closer up pictures. For example, with the 300mm lens I can get really cool blurring effects and sometimes bokeh... but the close up lense is just meh.....

I don't want to break the bank getting another lens either, so maybe you can help me finding a standard zoom lens or a prime lense that is for close ups that will be better than my current kit lens... If you think I can find a good deal on this used, you can let me know..

Thank you

Look at prime lenses my friend.

• You could pick up a couple fast (large aperture) prime lenses for $800. If you buy them used you can get three of them. Take a look at this page to see what Canon lenses are available. For example, I have used the EF 35mm f/2 (~$350) and EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (~$500) and they are both nice lenses.
  
  
• Even though the 50mm f/1.8 II is a great lens for the cost, the EF 50mm f1.4 USM (~$400) is a worthwhile upgrade. Faster, less CA, sharper, higher quality build, smoother focusing, etc. I love it for both photos and video.
  
  
• I do not own this lens, but the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (~$800) is a wonderful portrait and landscape photography lens. And because it's fast it can be used for action and event photography, however it is limiting because of its long reach.
  
  
• The EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (~$600) is also a good lens. Great for both macro and portrait photography. There is also the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM. L class glass with IS for $300-$400 more.
  
  Regarding your Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8: If you're shooting wider than 15mm make sure you take off the hood, otherwise you'll end up with some funky vignetting. :)

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!

From reading the other comments I'm guessing you don't so I would either get a used camera or use your phone. The budget of yours is quite limiting to fit in audio, lighting and a decent camera however it may work if you get a slightly older camera.

I would get the t3i body only which you can get at an average of $300. This has an articulating screen, good for interviews, and is still a good beginner camera years on from when it was released. The lens I would get is the YONGYUO YN50mm f.18 which is an cheap autofocus lens at a fixed distance to achieve the best quality.

For microphones I would reccommend the Takstar SGC-598 which is really cheap and surprisingly good. You can put this on a mic stand and get it as close to both the interviewer and the interviewee for the best sound. You will then need a wire to connect it to the camera. However if you have extra money you can save up for a Zoom h1 which you plug the mic into and it records seperately for better audio.

All in all this kit will cost you $500 for just the audio and no lighting. This would cost you about $50 extra for softboxes however if you shoot in daylight it will be much easier and require less lighting.

Another kit you could try is using your phone for video and then buying just audio and lighting. For this I would get the Rode Videomic Pro, the Zoom h1, a mic stand, a softbox lighting kit (2 lights) and any other things like memory cards etc. This would cost you around $400.

I would say look on used B&H and KEH.com for lenses

Full frame I would say a used 24-70mm 2.8 L is great (this lens has been a great help to me over the years)

For a asp-c sensor (rebel/7d ect) I would really say look at the Tokina 11-16mm. http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC Great lens for the money! So good that companies rehouse them and sell/rent them to cinematographers for almost 3 grand http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/281263585281?lpid=82&chn=ps

All the best!!

Also there is nothing wrong with getting the 450 dollar Tokina and a few old soviet lenses http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1311.R1.TR3.TRC1.A0.H0.XMIR+len.TRS0&_nkw=mir+lens&ghostText=&_sacat=0

they are a ton of fun to shoot with

If you're just starting out, learning to "zoom with your feet" while using a prime is some of the best advice I can give. You'll be a better photographer for it. You'll also appreciate the wide f1.8 aperture for low light.

I can't speak to the quality of the 55-210mm, but I've never been a big fan of the cheap telezooms with variable max apertures (f6.3 in this case when zoomed in at 210mm is disgusting). I can appreciate that it would be important if you want to get kid action shots, though. Just know that you'll need really bright conditions to be able to use a fast shutter speed at a reasonable ISO while zoomed all the way in.

Would also recommend comparing the Sony 35mm/1.8 to the Sigma 30mm/1.4 before you buy. I just got the Sigma a few weeks ago and have been floored by the sharpness. It's about $60 cheaper, too.

If I were in your situation, I'd go for your second option (16-50mm kit + a prime). I have the 16-50mm and very rarely reach for it, but understand that it's nice when you start out to have a range of focal lengths to play with.

Alternatively, just get the a6000 body only + a prime, and once you get a feel for what you type of shooting you do most, rent a wide prime or a better quality telephoto to help decide what to buy next. I wish someone had told me not to waste money on the low-end kit lenses early on. If you get serious about photography, these will just clutter your bag, and camera shops will only quote you insulting offers when you try to sell them.

A DSLR at your budget is still an option as well - in fact, more so, if you want to look for telephoto (long range/large focal length) lenses. You can find really good deals on telephoto lenses in store, at amazon or at sites like craiglist - probably because these lenses don't have much use everyday, except maybe if you go to the zoo. For example, for your budget, you can pick up an entry-level DSLR, Canon 1200D - 2014 model - £250 new - includes 18-55mm kit lens (that's the focal length you will be using most of the time), and pair it with a Canon 55-250mm lens for £140. Also, bear in mind, a 55-250mm lens for a Canon really equates to 88mm-400mm in "35mm focal length". As all cameras see things differently, they have been standardised to its '35mm/full frame' equivalent. Now, off course, you can go for the Nikon equivalent, which would be the Nikon D3300 (widely acknowledged to be the best entry level DSLR), which goes for £320 with 18-55 kit lens. And pair it with one of many zoom lenses, such as this one from Tamron, 70-300mm, new for 80£. Also note that when looking at lenses for DSLRs, apart from looking at whether it's the correct mount, also check whether it has autofocus or not. You probably will want autofocus, especially if you haven't come from using manual focus before, and that you will be taking a lot of photos, not just one or two carefully composed pics!

Now, the reason why I didn't mention DSLRs previously is because they are pretty big! So keep that in mind. Also, the telephoto lens from Canon and Nikon are really cheap, even new. Quality wise, the're not 'wedding lenses' which are typically telephoto lenses with a really large aperture. But... they will be completely fine, and exceed, at taking pictures in normal lighting conditions. Given that both Canon and Nikon DSLRs have a large sensor, these budget telephoto lens will be able to take nice photos even in the evening. Also, you can switch out to the kit lenses which should be more than sufficient.

Both of those are APS-C Crop lenses and would end up making your image quality suffer because of an auto crop.

Its hard to tell what focal length exactly the photographer is shooting just from pictures but you probably want a 50mm or maybe even an 85mm.

The options for this kind of setup are fairly wide, even for sonys smaller selection of lenses:

28mm 2 FE $450

50mm 1.8 FE $250

85mm 1.8 FE $600

Now for pricey options:

35mm 2.8 FE $800

35mm 1.4 FE $1600

55mm 1.8 FE $1000 (this is actually a really nice portait lens, a good medium length, and is considered by many to be one of the sharpest for the money)

50mm 1.4 FE $1500

85mm 1.4 FE $1800

Then there is a whole lineup of Zeiss Batis, Otus, and etc lenses in various focal lengths you can look into if you have more money.

But honestly If you are just looking for a good working portait lens i think Id suggest a zoom like the new Tamron so you can get more options.

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 $800

Or if you are loaded:

Sony 24-70mm F2.8 GM $2200

I personally only own the 50mm 1.8 FE out of these and it works alright but I notice it not to be very sharp under F2.2 and seems to gain a lot of Chromatic Aberration. But it doesnt mean its not a good prime to just have on the camera most of the time.

How wide? If you're looking at something in the sub-20mm range you're better off with a zoom lens. There's a number of great prime lenses in the range but really they don't offer anything for a canon user that makes them worth it over a zoom. Two of your best options are the Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS ($300) or for a bit more the Tokina 11-16mm ($490).

If you want something longer (20-50mm) there's an absolute glut of options from a bunch of different lens makers. But, once again, given the quality of some of the zoom lenses in the range it's hard to recommend a fixed lens. Something like the Sigma 18-35 f1.8($800) is expensive but for what you get it's an absolute steal.

But like I said there's a ton of options in the range and this site is a great resource for reviews.

So I bought the Sony a6000 body only and went and bought a SEL50F18/B 50mm f/1.8 Lens off Amazon, as I saw that was the recommended first lens to buy. I like the lens, but everything seems zoomed in, and I just want a regular lens as if I were looking through my eyes. I tried playing in the settings and the lens comes built in with magnification(I guess???) Here are two images I took to show how zoomed in the lens is. I'm such a fucking noob and just want to get the stock lens that comes with the camera :-) thx for any help! and my hand was pretty far from the camera and it just looks so zoomed in??

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.

SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | G85 vs A6500 - Best option for film making? Max Talks EP#4
Description | Which camera is the right fit for you? Filmmaking, Vlogging, and Videography G85 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/jEyA76A A6500 Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA If you enjoy our content please consider supporting us on Patreon. Even $2 a month helps us make more and better content for you! https://www.patreon.com/MaxYuryev -------------------------------------------------------------------- This Review was Shot using: Camera on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/bffB4nA Lens on Amazon➡ http://geni.us/dmcMpa Mic on...
Length | 0:10:14


SECTION | CONTENT

--|:--
Title | Panasonic G85 OWNS the Sony a6500 in almost every way...except one
Description | This is just a quick update after shooting my first ever video on the Sony a6500 since deciding to try and switch to it from my Panasonic G85/G7/GH4. I'll just keep walking you guys through what I'm learning as it happens if that's cool with you! New Sony camera & lens: http://amzn.to/2owhmEU Must-have other lens for new camera: http://amzn.to/2pJlBiv Mic I use on my vlogging rig: http://amzn.to/2oQcvBU My bendy-tripod: http://amzn.to/2pkAJ8R Old main Panasonic camera: http://amzn.to/2pJl5AU F...
Length | 0:07:41






****

^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply | )^Info ^| ^Feedback ^| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)

1.) Something that is grey.

2.) Something reminiscent of rain. (It sprinkles all over you!)

3.) I've heard these are delicious

4.) For my best friend because birthdays! Also he loves superheroes!

5.) You must read this because I mean... V for Vendetta. The movie was fantastic, this will blow you away


6.) Well, it can be... ;)


7.) I am the crazy cat lady, so...

8.) I mean... It's beautiful


9.) Not the actual movie
But seriously, everyone needs to see this movie. It changed my life, really. I mean, it changes how you perceive things. Even your littlest actions. Not to mention, fantastic movie score... 10/10 would recommend.

10.) May not be real, but it still shoots...


11.) Definitely this or this but they're wicked expensive. The lens would absolutely change my photography career so much because photography is a lot more about equipment than people like to admit. The Macbook would help me with my photo editing, music mixing, and even my coding and programming. These things would open up so many possibilities for me...

12.) Ugh, stupid add-on... I just want to cure my chapped lips! :(

13.) This is the most expensive and I'd love it for photography... The MacBook, my second dream item, is only $100 less...

14.) Definitely bigger than a bread box...

15.) Earring are small.

16.) This smells glorious


17.) Because neurology <3

18.) This would be extremely helpful!

19.) I CAN'T STOP. I also may or may not have already finished the second volume...

20.) THIS COMIC OMFG but seriously, it is one of the best comics ever (according to statistics)


Thank you for the contest! :) <3


EDIT: Bonuses

1. I'm sorry, this is hilarious.
   
   
2. Hm, this sounds good!
   
   fear cuts deeper than swords.... muahahahahaa!

• You aren't going to be able to buy all of this gear with $2000-3000.
  
  
• Watch this video. This is the mother of all travel videos.
  
  • This video was shot with a Lumix GH3, a 12-35 f/2.8, a cheap telephoto zoom (14-140 I think?) and a Nocticron 42.5mm. No Ronin, no drone, no IBIS, etc.
    
    
• A Ronin is a hassle to set up, really cumbersome, and not suitable for the run and gun type of style that Kolder and Alveraz make. The closest thing that I can think of which would be run and gun-ish (but you still don't need) is the Zhiyun Crane which goes for around $600.
  
  
• Personally: I see that you have $3000 available, so my first inclination is to say get the GH5 with a 12-35 f/2.8 I (the $600 version). The dual-IS doesn't make a huge difference, the GH5's IBIS is good enough. Then buy a nice Tiffen variable ND filter, step-up ring, maybe one of those Tascam audio recorders for nat sound, and save up for the 35-100 f/2.8.
  
  Broken down:
  
  
• GH5 - $1997.99
  
  
• Lumix 12-35 f/2.8 I - $699
  
  
• Tiffen ND filter - $129.99
  
  
• Step up ring - $9.95
  
  
• Tascam portable audio recorder - $99
  
  
• Total: $2935.93
  
  I will end on this note: You like these videos because they are well shot, well composed, and well edited. I could hand you the best camera system in the world and you're going to make a shitty video if you don't know how to use it. Whereas I could hand a great cinematographer a crappy camera and he'd make something awesome. It's more about what you shoot than what you shoot with. With that in mind, the GH5 is fucking awesome (I just got mine) and it's a great tool to learn on and grow with.

That is a nice lens and does exactly what I want but I just found these two lenses that I really like. Are you familiar with them?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1418439271&sr=8-1&keywords=sigma+10-20mm+f%2F4-5.6+ex+d+hsm&pebp=1418439276830

http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-11-16mm-AT-X116-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0014Z3XMC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1418439061&sr=8-2&keywords=tokina+11-16mm+f%2F2+at-x116+pro+dx&pebp=1418439086107


which one would you recommend? DO you think the extra cash is worth getting the Tokina 11-16mm? Again I really appreciate you helping me out thanks :D

Thanks for your answer !

GH4 is definitely the way to go.
I forgot to say that i also owned this speedbooster-like that i used for my GH2.
The main concern that i have is witch lens is good for landscape, i saw some people said that the SLR MAGIC 12mm T1.6​ is very good, and i'm also afraid that a non-zoom lens is not versatile when you are hiking in the moutains or climbing.

I'm not against buying a Metabones Speedbooster XL, my travel friend use a 6D for photography, if we can share lens. I saw the SIGMA ART 18-35 F1.8​.

It's giving me headaches !

Actually it's Bonne chance ! (or you are a huge fan of Taken)

As someone who moved from a 5DMk2 to a Sony A7rii (ducks!), perhaps I can shine some light (so to speak).

The lens adapters that you can buy which'll allow you use Canon lenses on a Sony body work within limitations. e.g. My Canon 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 focuses well up to 135mm focal lengths, but was confused with the metabones adapter I got for longer focal lengths. The Canon 24-70 f2.8 focused throughout the zoom range.

That said, native Sony lenses always were always more snappier and responsive than going through an adapter. That's no surprise, however, what did surprise me is how f'ing expensive Sony glass was compared to the equivalent Canon glass. You'll be paying a pretty high premium.

Sony Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens is $2,598 US

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is $1,899 US

In hindsight, I still love the Sony sensor that came with the a7rii (incredible dynamic range and color) and the compact body, but I do miss the choice of Canon lenses.

Just my 2 cents.

Hey welcome to the sub-reddit, can you give some more information on what you want to do with the photos that you will take? Will you go on to sell them or are they to be printed out for family members etc.

If this is just for a hobby or to get some nice pictures you can go with a cheaper camera/setup.

I have the Canon 1100D and have used it in a wide range of situations and it's been perfect for what I wanted.

Paired with this lens you can get some cracking shots from a great distance away.

If you are shooting cars I assume they will be going fast, the 1100D does a great job of freezing them while keeping all the detail. This is an image I shot of a multi-copter which has blades that spin way faster then a real helicopter but it makes them appear frozen.

Also paired with that lens you can do some awesome long distance shots which may be perfect for landscape shot from afar.

The stock lens isn't the best in the world but if you just starting out and don't plan on selling your photos it's fine. You get some barrel distortion which is noticeable when taking texture shots.

You are probably the most helpful person I have ever encountered on the internet. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond with such eloquence and clarity! It is a graduation gift, and due to some hinting about a camera store sale this weekend I think I may be ending up with a t3i. I will check out the Canon loyalty program just in case.

I would love a 100-400mm, but it looks like that lens starts at about $1400, which will be out of my price range for likely a few years. What do you think of this 70-300 mm with f 4-5.6 and image stabilitation? That would be reasonable for me to save up to.

Thank you again for being so helpful!

Also, what is your opinion of tele-converters?

After going stargazing with my girlfriend in Tennessee in a somewhat darker part of the state and taking some pics (can see a few here) with my Son a6500, I really want to start getting more into astrophotography. My main lens is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but I have a few others at my disposal as well (including a 50mm f/1.1 manual lens and the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8). I plan to pick up the Rokinon 12mm f/2.0 at some point soon.

​

Without buying tons of new equipment (like a new camera, I know that Sony is now known as the "star eater", and I'm considering picking up another Canon camera but I don't want to buy tons of new lenses) what would you guys recommend for me? I'm wanting to start capturing the Milky Way and eventually start taking pictures of planets and galaxies. I currently live in NE FL, but don't mind doing a little travel every now and then for better shots. I plan to move to middle TN in the next few months.

​

I want to eventually invest in a good starter telescope as well, because I know that can vastly help with capturing planets, and galaxies too, from what I've heard?

The 18-105 http://amzn.to/2iyRkxU is a considerably better option as long as you can do without 200mm. The 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 http://amzn.to/2jQMqND is longer and good for outdoors. The 70-200 f4 is a little shorter but has excellent image quality and bigger aperture http://amzn.to/2iyS5a1 . The 24-70 f2.8 http://amzn.to/2iyUdPn and 70-200 f2.8 http://amzn.to/2j0VKib are the top of the game, but also insanely expensive.

If money is tighter, the 18-105 is an easy recommendation - it gives you a lot for a reasonable price. If you need that extra reach and don't mind paying for it... either of the 70-200's are quite excellent.

Hi /u/joshwoodward - I agree with /u/1timer - the situation with Sony native lenses is not very good. The only lenses that meet your requirements are the two Sony system primes - the [$798 Sony Sonnar T FE 35mm F2.8 ZA] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FSB79KU/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00FSB79KU&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) and the [$998 Sony Sony Sonnar T FE 35mm F2.8 ZA] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00FSB799Q/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00FSB799Q&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) - but buying both of them will take you well over your $1000 budget limit.

If you want a 4K camera, a [$1698 Panasonic GH4] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00I9GYG8O/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00I9GYG8O&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) plus a [$1000 Panasonic 12-35mm (24-70mm equivalent) constant f2.8 lens] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00843ERMW/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00843ERMW&linkCode=as2&tag=battleforthew-20) might be a better value for your money.

Good luck!

Bill

I have had a T1i for about a year now. some thoughts.

If you're looking at telephoto lenses be sure to get one with IS (image stabilization). If you are zoomed all the way in on something, any movement in the camera will be that much more noticeable without some sort of stabilization. I think most of the two lens kits include the 18-55mm IS and the 70-250mm IS. Both are ok.

The only substantial difference between the T1i and the T2i is that the T2i can record 1080p video at up to 60fps. The T1i can only do 720p at 24fps. The T2i also has a jack for an external microphone, which is really only handy if you plan to hook up a shotgun mic or a lavaliere mic for interviews, etc.

The main thing I'd suggest is to think about how you plan to use it as well as your budget. You can get a Canon Xsi (no video) that takes great pics for much less than a T1i or T2i. Spend that extra cash on a good lens (http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/B0000A1G05) for sharper pics. If you really want video, spring for the T2i.

Another important thing to keep in mind about the video... neither of these can autofocus while recording. You can manual focus, of course, but that's not always easy and the camera will shake while you do it. The Nikon D3100 is pretty new and it can do video while autofocusing... the first to handle that, I think.

Nikon and Canon are pretty comparable on all their features. Some people are die-hard in one direction, but for the novice (like me) it's really impossible to tell the difference in the pics. The only thing about choosing a brand is that you're committing to buy those lenses in the future, so it's like getting married to your camera maker.

All that said, if creative picture-taking isn't high on the agenda, just get a good point and shoot. They're more portable, obviously.

I don't know if you'd be interested, but I'm actually selling this exact lens! For less than this. I'll attach the amazon link. This probably sounds super sketchy since I just joined Reddit and this is my first comment. Yikes. But i figured it was worth a shot.

But yes, you can buy this lens cheaper refurbished or even new.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/ol/B00EFILVQU/ref=mw_dp_olp?ie=UTF8&condition=all

^thats the list of 3rd party sellers selling that lens on amazon.

This isn't a great lens, nor is it anything amazing but I own a canon version of it and it is a decent zoom.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374621730&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+70-300+macro+nikon

at 135 used, it's not going to give you any award winning shots, but I found it fun to play around with.

I like that they don't use tape and are more affordable. You can get more creative with the ability to switch lenses also. If you're on a budget, something like the nifty fifty (~$125) is good to start off with. When you have a better budget, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 (~$800) will be available soon and may be worth saving up for.

The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (version 1) might just be a hair outside your budget, but it's easily one of the best wide-angle landscape lenses there is. If you really can't make that price point work, the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8 works just as well, except it's manual focus and doesn't take filters. If you don't care about the f/2.8 aperture, the Canon 10-18 is another option.

A good wildlife lens could be the Canon 55-250 STM, only $150 for a certified refurbished version. Not all landscape photos need wide angle lenses (in fact, many of the best photos are taken with telephotos like the 55-250), but sometimes it is a little hard to get used to searching for landscape compositions in a telephoto manner.

In terms of "waterproof" bags, there isn't going to be something that withstands being tossed into the ocean other than perhaps an adaptive dry bag that you can somehow throw all of your gear in. The Peak Design Everyday Backpack gets recommended a lot - it is water resistant so it can withstand a rain shower. For added protection, just buy a raincover for your backpack. I generally don't like bags that scream "camera bag! steal me!", so a lot options over at Lowepro don't appeal to me, but they may to you. I use an Arc'teryx Brize 32 backpack for hiking - it's fairly water resistant.

I just sold my DSLR gear to transition to M43 for size and convenience.

I picked up an Oly OMD-EM5 on the used market for a great deal. I think I will have up to $1200 remaining to spend on lenses (or keep). I'm considering the Panasonic 25mm 1.4 and Olympus 12-40mm 2.8.

I'll be doing general all around shooting. Nothing specific.

Does it seem like a solid starting point or should I look into different lenses?

Is there a 'holy trinity' of lenses that are considered the best? As you can tell, I'm one of those noobs that like really nice lenses that surpass my skills.

Landscape and portraiture are completely different with respect to lens needs. Here's some thoughts, but get ready to open your wallet.

Landscapes will be the Sigma 16mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0783J5BWP/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XKeHDbA4H058S

Portraiture would be good with with the 50mm F1. 8 OSS Sony https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_6MeHDbSH3FX9K

You'll be served well with the excellent Sony 24-105 G PZ OSS if you want a single travel companion. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ENZRQH8/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_bIeHDbD47B6XM

if both pictures and photos are important to you, I would probably go with the A7iii and pair it with a good all rounder lens like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 referral links included throughout. If you want to save a little you could buy the sony 24-70 f4 it's not as fast or sharp, but it does have a little bit extra on the wide angle.

If pics are important but not overly so i'd also look at the pansonic G9 with the new firmware it's now extremely capable for video and better stabilised than the GH5. You could then buy a couple of lenses like the 12-35 f2.8 and the 25mm f1.4 and still have a load of budget for audio/lighting

Save a little and get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 its £380, but totally fantastic, its 4 stops faster than the kit lens. Its got great subject seperation and is generally really fun. Its honestly my desert island, lens, if i could have only one, it be the 30 1.4! I can PM you some video samples if you want?

Edit: I actually have the previous (non art) version, you can get it a little cheaper on ebay and its 99% the same.

From one of my earlier comments:

I purchased a refurb from Amazon of the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for $280: http://smile.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451844612&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+28-75

The first one I got was a dud and I had to return it. The second one is amazing though, reasonably light, very sharp, good depth of field. Some slight vignetting when using with my full-frame 6D. Also about 1k cheaper than Canon's 24-70.

If you have Amazon prime, its pretty easy to test what Lenses you want and you can return the ones you don't want. I dont have one but this could be a good place to start: http://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B004FLJVXM/sr=8-1/qid=1451844871/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1451844871&sr=8-1 It'll get you super wide shoots of landscapes, or you can zoom in to capture a distant object (ie birds), and anything in between.

Well Canon is the best way to go for video. You can adapt some of your nikon lenses to canon too with super cheap adapters. You can get a t3i right now for 350$ plus a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for $570 a rode video mic for around 100$ or a zoom h1 for the same price then you can get either a sigma 30mm f/1.4 for about 500$ or a Canon 50mm 1.4 for about 350$ A decent tripod of your choosing plus either a glidecam/shoulderrig/crane or other rigs. And that should come to around 3k. But if you want a better quality camera and full frame which is better for low light then you can get a refurb 5dmkII for 1500$ plus a 24-105mm f/4 for 780$ and a the canon 50mm 1.4 for 350$ and rode video mic for 110$ which leaves you about 300$ for other accessories like a tripod or a rig

Edit: I am a digital filmmaking student and am very knowledgeable about gear so if you have questions I could probably help a lot.

Edit2: or if you want something more automatic with autofocusing and a built in mic and view finder but also great video quality you could check out the Sony Nex vg30

Questions at end is the important part, context first in case you're interested

I’m growing out of my kit lens and looking for a replacement walk-around lens for general usage (holidays, family gatherings, nights with friends). The two main choices are the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS or the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Both have tracked to similar prices on amazon UK (£650 for either today).

I like the extra 1.5 stops of the Sigma, although that is partly balanced by the 3-stop compensation claimed by the Canon. However, I’m worried about the reduced reach of the 18-35.

I already have the Canon 50mm so that would be a replacement for any portraits and I’d keep my current 18-55 kit lens but I wouldn’t want to switch too much from a walk-around lens. Shorter and longer focal lengths are covered by other lenses I already have.

In an attempt to answer my own question I reviewed 835 recent photos from similar events to where I’d use the new lens. I collated the focal length of each shot and charted the results. In short, I shoot a lot at either end of my focal length range and should never buy a 40mm lens! The analysis shows that the 18-35 focal range excludes 28% of the photos I’ve previously shot. But half of those are just “get as close as possible” shots. I know that focal length is not the same as zoom and that I can crop photos instead to make the subject bigger in the frame. This is where the questions come in:

• How many extra mm of focal length can I ‘steal’ by cropping with an 18MP camera?
  
  
• Are there any unintended consequences of cropping for zoom versus changing focal length?
  
  
• Does anyone actually have both of these lenses? Or have any thoughts on comparing lower f-stops with IS?
  
  
• Some people suggest trying lenses out, but how do I actually do that? If I walk in a camera shop will they just give me a lens to try out?
  
  Thanks in advance, and please feel free to laugh at the fact that nearly half my photos on a zoom lens are at the min and max lengths!

I'm doing well! How bout yourself? I know this isn't exactly the range you are looking for but I've always liked the Canon 18-135 its pretty sharp, relatively fast and I find it to be a good zoom range. Because if you are looking to fit an entire building in a frame, especially assuming you have a crop sensor camera, 75mm is going to be tight

50mm is very nice for portrait-style photography on an APS-C camera--shallow depth of field with great bokeh. It can feel rather 'zoomed in', though, especially indoors. A 24mm lens is pretty versatile indoors, and the Canon STM lets you get in real close if you want. Bear in mind, you can buy a third party 50mm for only $53 if you're feeling noncommittal. I own it and it's quite nice for the price.

OK, I now see the lens in this image is a Panasonic Lumix Leica lens with a smaller thread, no doubt set up to perfectly fit this rectangular Leica lens hood which (which I now think this is), but there's something about this lens hood that I like, as I'll be shooting video, and I'd love to get one to fit my Panasonic Lumix G V Vario 12-35 lens attached to my soon to be acquired GH3.

If you wan't to take photos without a flash, especially of action, you're going to want a larger aperture (smaller F number). Defiantly not a pro myself, but the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens for $100. The large aperture will allow you to capture more light allowing you to use a faster shutter speed (and freeze motion, reducing blur). For about the same price as the lens you have selected, you can get a 2.8 zoom, the [Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8] (http://www.amazon.ca/Tamron-28-75mm-Canon-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1395673544&sr=8-2&keywords=tamron+28-75mm+f28). That will give you some room to zoom, but will not be able to go as wide as the 18-55 kit lens I assume you use currently. Hope that helps!

It all depends on how close you can get to the action. There aren't many great telephoto lens for the E-Mount system so you'll have to look at third party lenses. Since the a6000 is APS-C, you can take good photos with this 50mm f/1.8 if they're close enough but you definitely won't be able to get tight shots unless they're literally right in front of you. You could definitely use this 15-105 f/4 if the field is lit well, but you'd have to bump your ISO up a bit. But sports at f/4 with a APS-C sensor is definitely pushing it.

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.

I guess it's a matter of preference. What most zooms lack is the speed that primes have. For instance, that Sigma 30mm is a very fast lens at f1.4. Will you ever use 1.4? Maybe, it's kind of tricky in itself since there such shallow depth of field. The zooms on the other hand are fairly slower (f3.5 vs f1.4) but are more convenient when it comes to being able to frame shots. I know a fairly solid DP who uses one zoom lens and her work is fantastic (granted, it's nice glass and currently is ~$2000 on Amazon)

I'm a prime guy myself. My kit is nothing but primes save for a couple of zooms (I guess you can count the Tokina 11-16 as a zoom too, if you'd like). If you're set on a zoom, consider getting the t3i body and perhaps this lens...it's pretty fast for a zoom and gives you a fairly solid range.

Yeah, when my skills are confident enough (say, in the year 2020) I'll probably go for an FF body. My 18mm is f/3.5 (close enough) and the 24mm I suggested is f/2.8, which should give me a rather minor boost to shutter speed if I want it. I'll sit on the idea for now. As it stands, apart from the "studio" work I do, most of my work tends to sit as either the night club shoots and cosplay at conventions. The later I try to shoot with the expectation of "everyone else except my subject should be blurry". So, a lower f should be the ticket to those without too much effort, right? If what's in my head is right, I could solve two problems at once. This is the Sigma you refer to? Monopods have come up to me before, but I basically just not extend the tripod I use and carry anyway.

But speaking of me, the fact that you found me IN A MIRROR made me spend 20 minutes going through the gallery like "Where?" and then I did and was like "Silly me." To answer the other "Where" question, Denver, Colorado. Renting kits here probably isn't that hard, just need to find a good place for it.

I see a lot of talk about getting a 17-55mm f/2.8 but you might want to also consider the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I value the slight telephoto a little bit more than I do the 18mm wide end, so it ended up being my most recent purchase and I love it.

I also own the 50mm f/1.8 (albeit Nikon) and it remains my favorite lens ever, but that's because I do mostly portraiture sessions.

Metabones' Speed Booster is not compatible with Canon EF-S lenses (due to an extended protrusion at the rear of the lens), but it is completely compatible with third-party APS-C lenses (e.g. Sigma, Tokina, etc.).

Here are a few wide-angle options:

• [Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8](http://amzn.to/2cKMP23 "Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8") (Boosted: 7.8-14.2mm f/2.0)
  
• [Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II](http://amzn.to/1z02lz0 "Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 II") (Boosted: 7.8-11.4mm f/2.0)
  
• [Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8](http://amzn.to/1r8xVUj "Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8") (12.8-24.9mm f/1.2) - Not as wide as the Rokinon 12mm, but a good deal faster, which may be a worthwhile trade-off.
  
  You may also be interested in native wide-angle lenses for astrophotography purposes. They may not be fast, but they may provide better quality at these ultra-wide angles, especially compared to non-Metabones focal reducers. Here are a couple options:
  
  
• [Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8](http://amzn.to/1AUqH9G "Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8")
  
• [Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2](https://bhpho.to/2qV02zA "Venus Laowa 7.5mm f/2")

Thanks for the tip, do you have any lens you would recommend?
The lens included above would be good for?

And would this be a good low light lens? and is there anything cheaper ... (T_T)

The best bet would be a zoom lens and a fixed f1.8 lens for versatility?

Just bought a GH2. I got this lens, used. It's (comparatively) expensive, but covers a lot of bases. The Crop factor of the Tamron means that that each lens is actually a double. A 20-60 becomes a 40-120, which isn't wide angle at all. Any smaller than 17 (which is 34) though, and you have distortion. Of course, most other cameras in this price range do this too, just 1.6 times instead of 2 times. I haven't gotten the lens in yet but it seems really solid. Other than that I was primarily going to use FDs. I didn't want anything slower than 3.0, as the best feature of the GH2 is probably it's sharpness. I would be very interested in what everybody else recommends.

I've booked 2 vacations for this year, Peru (machu pichu) and California (Yosmite, Nappa Valley). As such, I've decided that I'd like to purchase a camera to photograph my adventures. After a ton of reading, I've narrowed down my choice to Sony a6000 (due to its compact size, i'll be doing a ton of hiking) with the 16-55m kit lens. In order to take advantage of all the landscapes, I'm also looking to purchase a wide lens, the rokinon 12mm. If its possible, I'd appreciate the any feedback on these choices, if there are better alternatives etc. My budget is around is capped out at $1,000. Also, is there any difference between these two lenses besides the prices?

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-E-Mount-RK12M-E/dp/B00JD4TAWI/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1493678699&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=rokinon+12mm+e+mount

https://www.amazon.com/Samyang-SY12M-E-BK-Ultra-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00KT0UH72/ref=pd_pgd_B00JD4TAWI_B00KT0UH72?pf_rd_p=2971640562&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00JD4TAWI&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=E46TJNBVKRFH54V4T49T

From my understanding these are identical, just branded different for whatever reason.

Thanks!

Might I suggest the Tamron 18-55 as a nice lens upgrade? This has a constant f/2.8 aperture, lovely bokeh, and marvelous colour.

I've used mine for 4 years now and loved it on an older Rebel XTi.

Hmm... not a very easy question. If you've got a good manual focus game, you might wanna look at old canon FD lenses or Nikon AI(s) lenses along with an adapter. I do the same with M42 lenses, but those really are a hit or miss, so that's only if you wanna risk getting some good and some shitty lenses. There are some notoriously bad M42 lenses, while the Canikon family is almost guaranteed smooth and sharp enough for video.

If you want a modern lens, you can look at something like the G vario 14-42mm or if you want to spend more, the 14-140mm is a real do-it-all. Be sure to get the non-power zoom version for the first lens (it has an X in the name), and if you get the 14-140mm, the second version (f/3.5-5.6) is a whole lot better than the first (f/4-5.8). I've always underestimated kit zooms until I got a chance to use mft kit lenses. There are some really good ones.

I've fucked about with the 20mm 1.7 longer than necessary, great for pictures, borderline masochism for video. I'm selling it and getting the glorious 12-35mm 2.8 second hand.

That would give you an advantage! 😃

I would recommend either the 70-300mm or 55-200mm. There's a price difference of course, but both great choices. Naturally a benefit of having an extra 100mm. Though make sure to get the lens with IS because it will make a difference. They do sell a 70-300mm lens without IS but I'd avoid.

https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-70-300mm-4-5-6-Lens-Cameras/dp/B0007Y794O

https://www.amazon.ca/Canon-55-250mm-Telephoto-Stabilized-2044B002/dp/B0011NVMO8

I just got the 17-50 non-VC a couple days ago. Autofocus is loud, it really surprised me. I have used other Tamron lenses before and have the 28-75, but the 17-50 is definitely noticeable. This may actually play to your favor, subtly causing your baby to look at the camera.

FYI, Even though its noisy I'm keeping mine. Oh and its $400 on Amazon right now (as opposed to $460).

Amazon &
Rebate

Gift One: This lens. I want it I have just the kit lens and I really want an OK telephoto. This one is really nice for the price from what I've seen.

Off this list


Gift Two: This. Same WL I just don't want a neck strap and this is cheap :)

C'mon...gimme

Also, Damn gurl! You look nice today!

The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Lens is very well liked for wide angle landscape shots. Though it's an ultra wide - so maybe the Canon EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM Lens is better for you. Both of these lenses are very sharp for the price, and the STM autofocus will make it nice and quiet.

Take a look at sample images for both. And check out Keh.com for used copies of the lenses. They have an excellent reputation.

Sony A6000. Out performs everything in its price range. Hands down a great buy. I would also recommend the 50 1.8 a phenomenal lens for the money. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-SEL50F18-Mount-Cameras-Black/dp/B00EPWC30O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419806517&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+50+1.8

Don't just write Sony off, they are the king of mirrorless. I have been super impressed with my A6000. It does things no other camera can do for the price. Steller value.

>Well, I finally decided to spring for the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. For under $30,000 I couldn't pass up the deal. I know, carrying a 37lb lens around may seem like a chore, but the savings in gas to drive to photo shoots more than compensates for it. I actually do most of my Florida and Georgia area outdoor wedding and landscape shoots from my rooftop now. The IQ is tack-sharp even wide open at 1000mm (w/ 2x converter, obviously) The issue I had, was when the FBI and Homeland security showed up at my house. I was shooting a wedding in downtown Orlando, which is only about 30 miles away, from my roof. The house was surrounded and guns drawn on me. You see, I live near enough to a major airport that the neighbors mistook it's green color and imposing size as some sort of ground to air missile launcher. I would strongly consider coloring it a light color to minimize thermal expansion during the day, and marking the side "Not A Stinger Missile". Also, it is a nice walk around lens for family trips to the zoo. Low light performance is superb. Most photos can be taken without flash, on a moonless night, following a massive power outage, by simply lighting a fart during the exposure. Experiment with differing brands of beans, as it affects the color temperature of the raw shot.

>Macro is one of the most technical sides of photography, a good starter lens is the 100mm macro from canon http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00004XOM3?pc_redir=1410422622&robot_redir=1

This lens, my god. This lens is one of the best purchases you'll ever make in the lens department. It's phenomenal for portraits, excellent for macro, and it's fast! It's nearly identical to the L version except without IS. Buy this lens, you'll keep it forever!

But also, Canon makes both a 50mm and a 60mm macro. You can look into those as they will be cheaper and more versatile for everyday 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?

If you want a nice shallow DOF similar to the 35mm range you'll be wanting to look at the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 as the closest equivalent (30mm).

If you want 50mm, go for the Leica 25mm f/1.4.

The thing is that the GH5 has the 5 Axis IBIS like the GX85 / G85 series which means you can get some good footage on these lenses which have no stabilization on them.

If you want a full duty zoom go for the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 II as the original version does have issues with aperture flickering while zooming.

The Leica lenses are notably sharp and provide a great amount of bokeh given how hard it is to get shallow depth of field on MFT.

I owned the Nikon 70-300mm f/4~5.6 ED until I bounced it off of a sidewalk after getting brushed by an in-line skater. Eventually I replaced it with a 70-300mm VR. The newer lens is better in almost every aspect.

All xx-300mm f/5.6 lenses I've seen share the same challenge. For best results, you want to stop down to at least f/8, and when using these lenses handheld wthout VR you want to keep the shutter speed at 1/500th or faster to minimize the effects of camera shake. Depending on the light and the dSLR, that can mean cranking up the ISO to where noise begins to intrude. The result is a small "shooting envelope" where one can get the best result. For stationary subjects, VR can extend that envelope considerably, but as filyr points out, it does nothing for subject motion.

If you're still interested in a non-stabilized 70-300mm, I'd recommend this Tamron over either of the ones you list:

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-A17NII/dp/B0012UUP02

> I was planning on getting the kit lens and then buying a cheap non electronic adapter for Canon lenses, is this a good idea or would it just be cheaper to go m4/3?

The electronic features in the lens, like aperture control and focus, won't work without that electronic connection, so it's pretty much worthless. You can buy a not as dumb adapter with manual iris adjustment, but as someone who bought one, waste of money and not efficient. If you don't even have a camera that will let you adjust the canon lenses apertures as wide open as possible in the first place, then you're completely wasting your time and money. The trick is to set them as wide open as possible and then use the dumb adapters adjustment abilities.

You pretty much have to buy the metabones adapter if you want the functionality of the ef lenses on a m/43 mount. They currently retail for around $650 for the adapter. I know they are awesome and people will swear by them, but the price is more than most lenses available for m/43 systems.

I agree with u/CameraRollSoundSpeed in regards to ef lenses being more useful in the long run, but budget restrictions are very really. I still stand by my recommendation of the Panasonic 2.8 12-35mm as the best overall lens you can get for for m/43 cameras for the price.

https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12-35mm-Professional-Mirrorless-H-HS12035/dp/B00843ERMW

Dig on ebay and you can probably pay around $500 for the lens.

Seems like the Kamlan would fit. Is 50mm the best lens for you? Most of the photos on here are with a wide-ish angle lens.

I can recommend the Samyang/Rokinon 12mm F2.0

https://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-Ultra-Angle-Mount-RK12M/dp/B00JD4TAWI

Relatively cheap and it lets in so much more light compared to the F3.5 kit lens. I like a wide angle shot though. My Fuji is APS-C.