Post your camera equipment/setup!

[StarHalo]

+1 for a speedlight; did my Christmas pictures this year with a ceiling-bounced Yongnuo 560IV on a tripod moved around the room as needed, got studio-clear pics in a space that usually has only a camera-unfriendly trickle of warm light. Very pleased with my $60 investment.

[BVH]

Thanks for all the tips and suggestions. In playing around in the last two days, I have noticed that when in max zoom, the Auto focus is not providing the sharpest focus. I determined this by taking identical shots first when the auto focus finishes its adjustment, snapping the shot and then by switching to manual focus, moving the ring more towards its' max infinity stop and taking the same shot. To describe how much, - in auto focus, there are about 8 knurls of the ring travel left before the stop. When taking over from that position in manual, I have to move the ring about 3 knurls towards the stop for the sharpest focus. Any further movement seems to net the same sharp result. (There are 27 knurls in 90 degrees of circular movement so I'm having to adjust about 10 more degrees) For both shots, I'm mounted to the beefy tripod and pan/tilt head with all locks secured. I'm using the wired remote to snap the shot and I wait about 15 seconds after touching the camera before I shoot so all vibrations are settled. The Pismo Beach Pier target is approx 4,200 feet distant. I have the auto focus set to focus at the central dot/zone only, no peripheral focus points. (Although similar tests with more focus zones enabled netted the same result) The camera mode is in full automatic. In the frame, there are no closer objects to mis-focus on. I know the lens makes the adjustments but is it the camera that determines the adjustment necessary or is that also done in the lens? I've tried this 4 times with the same result. It's consistent.

I have not tried the same experiment with lesser zooms on this lens or with the 50mm lens. I will do that to see the result. I'm having fun tinkering!

A side question on zoom numbers: If my target is 5000 feet distant and I am using a 12X's zoom, is the "apparent" camera position 416 feet away from the target as portrayed in the resulting photo? (5000 / 12) I think the "12" means that the target is magnified 12 times but does that mean the distance is divided by 12 also?

[StarHalo]

Auto focusing objects at infinity is a mixed bag; the camera determines the focus, but as focal distance goes up, the amount of light available and thus contrast goes down, which can confuse the AF. Your best bet for anything still at a distance is manual focus, especially if your camera has the Focus Peaking feature, which will give you best results.

I have no clue about magnification numbers, camera folk use 35mm-equivalent focal range numbers.

[BVH]

ok, that lets me know there's probably nothing wrong with the camera, which was my concern. I completely understand how the loss of light, contrast and resolution as magnification is increased can make it more difficult for the camera to focus.

[StarHalo]

Somebody on a camera forum answered a question that was similar to yours regarding magnification numbers, so I'm apologizing if that was you; The magnification number listed on any device is only relative to what its base/shortest focal length is - if it's listed as "10x" and the base zoom is 35mm, then it maxes out at 350mm. So the x number can't be used to compare actual max zoom capability between devices, it only gives you an idea of the total telephoto range of the lens used.

You can create your own objective, comparable magnification number by extrapolating from the focal length of the human eye, 50mm: a lens that zooms to 150mm is 3x the magnification of your vision. But again you have to factor in the sensor size/if the lens numbers are "35mm equivalent." The 400mm lens mentioned above is indeed 8x on a full frame camera, but that's with 1.6 times the sensor area of your camera - you're cropping to 640mm, or 12.8x.

[StarHalo]

If the crop sensor/multiplication business is confusing, this video from the Northrups explains things plainly with a simple demonstration, they explain it much better than I do:

[StarHalo]

My RX on the Dolica tripod with Opteka trigger ball head:

[pralfred]

I currently shoot using a Nikon D3000 with an 18-55mm kit lens. It has worked quite well for me, and has been to multiple countries (including combat zones while I was in the military) and has held up far better than I'd expected. I am finally getting around to purchasing a new bit of equipment, though it will be March sometime before I get it. I am purchasing a Nikon D3300 (still old, I know, but it IS an upgrade for me) along with a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 lens.

[NoNotAgain]

Don't do the Sigma lens. Go with Tamron or Tokina. Sigma doesn't have a good rep.

If you can squeeze together the money, a 7000 series camera will allow you to use many D series Nikon lenses that are screw drive verses in lens motors.

[Jay Brara]

Hello Guys,

I own Canon 700D with screen size 7.62cm.

Below are the specs:

Lens:
Lens Mount EF / EF-S
Lens 1 Name EF S18 - 55 mm IS II
Lens 1: Focal Length 18 - 55 mm

Sensor
Resolution	18 Megapixels
Sensor Type	CMOS
Sensor Size	22.3 x 14.9 mm

Full HD video recording with 1920X1080 resolution.
It saves the video in MPEG or MOV formats.

I have it since 2 years now and planning to upgrade.
Can anyone suggest me what to consider while going for an upgrade.

Thank you,
Jay Brara

[NoNotAgain]

Deals can be found on Canon 5DmkIII.

The 5D mkIV is close to $3,000 USD while the mkIII can be found for $2200 or less.

If I were a Canon shooter, I'd go for the mkIII as I don't do video.

Never understood purchasing a DSLR to use for video.

[angerdan]

Don't do the Sigma lens. Go with Tamron or Tokina. Sigma doesn't have a good rep.

Sigma build better lenses than Tamron/Tokina.
The 35mm 1.4 Art is the sharpest 35mm ever, like the 85mm Art.
Even the 18-35mm is sharper than the primes from canikon.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sig...-art-for-canon

I own Canon 700D with screen size 7.62cm.
I have it since 2 years now and planning to upgrade.
Can anyone suggest me what to consider while going for an upgrade.

• Learn more about photography
• Learn about image compostion
• practise
• Visit photo exhibitions
• practise
• get a good lens (17-50mm 2.8)
• get a better lens (70-200mm 2.8)
• get a prime lens (50mm)
• practise

[NoNotAgain]

Sigma build better lenses than Tamron/Tokina.
The 35mm 1.4 Art is the sharpest 35mm ever, like the 85mm Art.
Even the 18-35mm is sharper than the primes from canikon.
https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sig...-art-for-canon

Dan, have you shot the 85mm Art lens? I have. It's sharp but lacks contrast when used for black and white. I don't like the term micro contrast, but the lens lacks the tonality I'm accustomed to for prime glass.

As a whole, the quality of Tamron lenses is greater than Sigma. Sigma gets pushed by some dealers due to higher kickbacks for sales. Ask your dealer how many Sigma lenses he's returned for repair verses Tamron?

The Art lens for Nikon and Canon is $1200, if you can find the Canon version. The other downside of the 85Art is that it's slow to focus compared the Nikon 85f/1.4 G lens and the Canon f/1.2 USM.

Lens sharpness isn't everything in photography. It helps, but it's not the end all be all.

[mfunnell]

Hello Guys,

I own Canon 700D with screen size 7.62cm.

Below are the specs:
[.. snip ..]
I have it since 2 years now and planning to upgrade.
Can anyone suggest me what to consider while going for an upgrade.

You already have a quite capable camera. I'm assuming that you haven't yet used it to its full capability, if only because you only have one lens for it and so can't have used it to its full capability. Buying a new camera won't change that, and most certainly won't make your photos any better in any meaningful sense. Before you can know if a change in camera would be useful, you have to really know what your existing equipment can and can't do - which requires knowing it well and using it to the point where you can say "I want it to do x and it's harder than it should be..." But x needs to be some specific technical thing, not just a general desire to take better photos nor attempting to substitute equipment for technique.

IMO, the only photographically useful reason to buy a new camera is if it allows you to surpass a limitation of your old one. That is, if the new camera allows you to do something you just couldn't do with the old one (which would be a rare circumstance) or if it allows you to do something you want much more conveniently than the old one.

You've already been given some good advice:

• Learn more about photography
• Learn about image compostion
• practise
• Visit photo exhibitions
• practise
• get a good lens (17-50mm 2.8) |
• get a better lens (70-200mm 2.8) |- well, get other lenses, anyway
• get a prime lens (50mm) |
• practise

You'd probably be better off taking that advice, rather than spending more money on a camera you're unlikely to get much more out of than you have your old one.

...Mike

[PiperBob]

IMO, the only photographically useful reason to buy a new camera is if it allows you to surpass a limitation of your old one.

I second that! The camera I use most is a Nikon D200 (First released 11 years ago). I can make really good looking D size (24x36 inch) prints. It doesn't do so well in low light, but other than that what more could I really ask for -- aside for more skills, that is ;-)

The lens I use most is a Sigma 10-20, but I have a reasonable selection, including some old manual focus lenses.

I have also settled on a Sunpak 622 speedlight. It's massive and only does basic flash, but it's wicked bright (GN 160).