Guitarsoup said:

---

The light isn't changing in there. Put it in manual.

What lens are you shooting with?

Start with:

ISO 3200
f/2.8
1/800th

And adjust from there. Take a pic, look at the back of your screen. Too dark and up the ISO to 6400 and try again.

---

I shoot a D7000 and I feel like I have too much noise at an ISO like that. Is that just a factor of my body quality?

A crop sensor body has more noise than a full frame. All those pixels are smashed into a significantly smaller area.

Try to slightly overexpose your pics and use noise reduction in Lightroom.

3200 should be fine on most crops. 6400 probably won't be.

And the real way to judge is to go print something rather than pixel peeping on a screen.

ISO 3200
f/3.3 - 3.8 depending on the zoom
1/1000th

This worked really well in the darker gym. I really appreciate the help.

Cool. Got any pics?


Florescent white balance usually works well in gyms.

Impressions of the Fuji X-T2 vs 6D to this point:

+ Fuji lenses are SHARP. The 50-140 2.8 is freakishly sharp, even wide open
+ Much more portable
+ EVF vs DSLR viewfinder
+ Joystick for AF selection is great
+ 4K video is really, really nice. Glad to have 24p native as an option
+ Increased frame rate for still captures is nice to have
+ Dual SD is very nice for piece of mind (mirroring each other)
+ Physical dials for ISO, shutter speed, aperture (on supported lenses), autofocus modes, and exposure modes are incredible and I don't really ever want to use a camera that relies on scroll wheels again
+ JPEGs SooC are leagues better than Canon JPEGs

- Atrocious battery life, around 200-300 shots per battery. This is about 1/3rd the 6D
- Awkward ergonomics with larger lenses like the 50-140 if you don't buy the $350 battery grip
- Audio in video captures is far worse than the stock 6D with no external mic
- Usable ISO range is obviously considerably lower than the full frame 6D, but finding I really don't like pushing past 1600 on the Fuji. I was comfortable on the Canon up to 6400.
- Camera strap eyelet is really poorly placed on the right side (while holding), nearly always interferes with my grip
- Flip out screen doesn't rotate for "selfie mode" (more a comparison against the 6D MkII though)

The one major issue I have at this point is how Lightroom handles Fuji's RAF files. It's just about impossible to sharpen a RAF in Lightroom without introducing "worms". I am very possibly going to have to change my entire RAW workflow because of this. I'm playing with Capture One, but am not sold on it yet, as it seems to apply a fair amount of processing to RAF files by default (warmer and more noise than LR). However, Capture One can really crank up the sharpening with almost no ill effects on the file.

Time will tell on this swap, I'm having to relearn in almost every area of the camera, but so far have gotten pretty good results all told.

So my wife and I are tired of using our phones for vacation photos and not too happy with their quality. We are looking to splurge on a camera, but really know nothing about them so I have a couple questions about what would be best for us.

This would mostly be for outdoor scenery (going to Alaska in May so waterfalls, glaciers, mountains, etc), but we would want to get some good shots of us together. Are there any nice cameras able to take a "selfie" of both of us with a selfie stick type device? Should we get a nice point and shoot or try a DSLR ? Would we be risking our vacation photos if we are inexperienced with a DSLR? What is better between a point and shoot and an inexperienced person with a DSLR and lens?

In an ideal world would love to spend under 1000, but if the DSLR makes that big of a difference and is capable of snapping shots of us together I would maybe go up to 3000.

There is not a lot I can pick from a gym full of eleven year olds. However, I cropped mine out for an example of fully automatic vs manual. These are jpg with no processing, I'm guessing. I'm not sure how much damage photo grid does, but they look like the jpegs that came off the camera. ( As long as you don't zoom in. Photo grid and postimg dropped some pixels.)

With youth sports you can probably use a shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/800 to get good pictures and reduce the amount of under exposure seen in the photos

tv1113 said:

---

So my wife and I are tired of using our phones for vacation photos and not too happy with their quality. We are looking to splurge on a camera, but really know nothing about them so I have a couple questions about what would be best for us.

This would mostly be for outdoor scenery (going to Alaska in May so waterfalls, glaciers, mountains, etc), but we would want to get some good shots of us together. Are there any nice cameras able to take a "selfie" of both of us with a selfie stick type device? Should we get a nice point and shoot or try a DSLR ? Would we be risking our vacation photos if we are inexperienced with a DSLR? What is better between a point and shoot and an inexperienced person with a DSLR and lens?

In an ideal world would love to spend under 1000, but if the DSLR makes that big of a difference and is capable of snapping shots of us together I would maybe go up to 3000.

---

Point and shoot!

I own both and take the point and shoot on vacation.

dubi said:

---

tv1113 said:

---

So my wife and I are tired of using our phones for vacation photos and not too happy with their quality. We are looking to splurge on a camera, but really know nothing about them so I have a couple questions about what would be best for us.

This would mostly be for outdoor scenery (going to Alaska in May so waterfalls, glaciers, mountains, etc), but we would want to get some good shots of us together. Are there any nice cameras able to take a "selfie" of both of us with a selfie stick type device? Should we get a nice point and shoot or try a DSLR ? Would we be risking our vacation photos if we are inexperienced with a DSLR? What is better between a point and shoot and an inexperienced person with a DSLR and lens?

In an ideal world would love to spend under 1000, but if the DSLR makes that big of a difference and is capable of snapping shots of us together I would maybe go up to 3000.

---

Point and shoot!

I own both and take the point and shoot on vacation.

---

I'd look at a Sony RX100 III or a Canon G7X

I was trying for max shutter speed. Those are certainly not good photos, just similar in that I was a court and a half away and that was the fastest motion. Plan is to try 1600 ISO, slower speeds and wider angle next. I don't know if I'll ever be in a good position. A few of the 3200 ISO, 1/1000th wide angle shots came out decent. They all did need a slight brightness adjustment.

Different kind of camera question than normal...just inherited this Canonet QL17 from my grandpa, and the light seals inside of it have completely disintegrated.

Anyone ever tried restoring something like this before on your own?

Next question, since I haven't shot film in 25 years...any good recs for a film processing company? Doesn't have to be local, I could ship.

I've contemplated restoring many old SLR film cameras. The do sell seal kits etc.

I've had a darkroom until 5 years ago. But after a day of shooting Hassy and Pentax 6x7 and spending all day with chemicals and an enlarger wasting photo papers, I called it quits once and for all. Gave away the darkroom supplies and now film cameras are displayed in a cabinet.

I'm happier for it and I will not look back.

I know this isn't what you want to hear.

Nope.

Anyone have any thoughts on this camera? Seems pretty cheap. I know woot is a legit company owned by Amazon, but just wondering if the camera is worth the price.

https://electronics.woot.com/offers/canon-rebel-t6-dslr-camera-with-18-55mm-lens-7

Very good (not great) price. That's an entry level camera with some really good features.

Wonder how many months of planning was lost by Reuters after being banned from the Olympic Opening Ceremony

https://m.dpreview.com/news/8507227431/reuters-photographers-banned-from-olympic-opening-ceremony-over-leaked-photos

Why were you in a helicopter?

AZAG08 said:

---

Why were you in a helicopter?

---

Wanted to make sure the moon wouldn't get caught up in the haze around the horizon but mainly because I fly with this company all the time and I knew they would get me in the right spot for a good pic.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

AZAG08 said:

---

Why were you in a helicopter?

---

Wanted to make sure the moon wouldn't get caught up in the haze around the horizon but mainly because I fly with this company all the time and I knew they would get me in the right spot for a good pic.

---

Good call. Haze and high clouds were a big issue for me trying to get it with the bell tower on campus today. Didn't get a shot I liked.

Thoughts on Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3? Maybe the G2? I am definitely getting a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 first, but I already anticipate wanting something with some more reach for shooting wildlife at the ranch or duck/deer blind.

Nikon FX folks -

I'd like to get a lens on the longer end of things. Currently the 24-120 is the longest I have, but would like something out to at least 200, probably even 300, for storm chasing season coming up.

Any recommendations? Not looking to drop a couple grand on a lens or anything like that, and am good with buying used.

Thanks in advance.

Look at the new 300 f4 or 200-500 f5.6 zoom. Both are excellent deals

reddog90 said:

---

Thoughts on Tamron 150-600 f5-6.3? Maybe the G2? I am definitely getting a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 first, but I already anticipate wanting something with some more reach for shooting wildlife at the ranch or duck/deer blind.

---

I would get the Nikon 200-500 over the Tamron

The Nikon 200-500 is an absolute beast (physically and performance wise). Absolutely loved that lens when I rented it.

Thanks. I have a workshop in W texas this summer, i'll rent the 200-500 f5.6 for that and see how I like it. Hopefully I'll own a 70-200 f2.8 by then.

How is the 200-500 in lower light?

I'm specifically thinking about it for storm chasing (tornados) and lighting can be a challenge.

AG 2000' said:

---

How is the 200-500 in lower light?

I'm specifically thinking about it for storm chasing (tornados) and lighting can be a challenge.

---

It will let in 1/2 as much light as your 24-120 or a 300 f4. But long lenses that let in a lot of light are REALLY expensive and way out of what you want to spend.

You could do a little over $2k for a first generation 200-400 f4: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1526858/0

A used 200-500 goes for ~1k used. Used 300 f4E goes for ~1500 used and a used 300 f4D (much older, not as good) goes for ~650.

200-400 would be the best of the bunch, but the new 300 f4 or 200-500 might be sharper. But that 200-400 will let in twice as much light as the 200-500.

Man, I don't think Id ever use a 200-500 for storm chasing. If you're so far from a tornado that you're going to use a 500mm lens to see it then there's going to be so much atmospheric haze that I can't imagine you're ever going to get a good shot.

Gotta say, the X-T2 isn't really clicking with me. Been quite disappointed with its higher ISO performance and low light focusing. Audio in videos is so bad with the stock mic that taking videos is almost pointless. Electronic manual focus vs analog is actually pretty annoying. Battery life is miserable. Editing RAW files in Lightroom isn't possible due to Adobe's handling of RAF files. The mobile app takes AGES to move files over to the phone. The list goes on.

What it DOES have over the old 6D is some increased portability and great lens sharpness. Much better continuous AF performance as well.

Really debating getting a 6D MKII instead at this point. I'm not sure the positives of the Fuji system outweigh my pain points.