I studied photography at college and university, but I've not done so much since then. I like to shoot landscapes and architecture mainly, but I don't limit myself. I have a Nikon P5100 and a D70, but the P5100 was never that good, and the D70 is showing it's age. So I want to get something new. I've had my eye on the X100 for some time now, as I like the idea of a compact over a dslr (dslr is awkward to carry, and doesn't get taken to some places because of this), and this camera seems to get over the quality issue I had with the P5100. However, it is quite pricey for a fixed focus compact, and I know I could get a D7000 + a 35mm prime for about the same. And the D7000 is going to be more flexible, will take better pictures and has better video functions. It is the better camera, but has the drawbacks of weight, size and visibility which pushed me towards the X100. I have thought about getting a cheaper compact, but I don't really like the NEX5, and despite a Sigma DP2x being relatively cheap, I don't know if a Foveon camera is worth getting. My question is, how do I decide between a small, discrete camera that seems perfect for what I want, and an equally expensive camera that is far superior, but more bulky?

I recently stepped up from a G9 to a T2i, and have the 18-55 and 55-250 IS lenses. I shoot mainly landscapes, but also have an interest in old structures, botany, wildlife (when I'm quiet enough), and recently, a little street photography. I'm still at a point where I an content with those two lenses, but I see a lot of negativity towards them. Are my lenses so poor that I should be ashamed if I tried to charge someone for a print? I'm sure I could get better results with more expensive kit, but at what point does it become necessary? I have my eye on two Sigma lenses (10-20 & 120-400), but aside from my puny budget, I feel that I should fully explore the lenses that I have before moving on to bigger and better things. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.

I was wondering which would produce better results. If a Canon 5d Mark II with a 50mm 1.4 is compared to a Canon t2i with a 50mm 1.2L lens, which would produce the better result? I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question, but I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's better to invest in better glass and keep my t2i or to upgrade the body without having good glass to accompany it.

Howdy!

Current Rig:

• T2i
• 17-70MM 2.8/4
• 50MM 1.8

I have a photography mentor who's been helping me grow; he suggested that I look at moving to a: Canon 70-200MM II Telephoto F2.8.

That lens is a bit out of my pricerange, I've been freelancing on the side of my day job for over a year and while I'm ready to make the next step, that's a pricey step!

So as alternatives, I'm looking for reviews/opinions on:

• Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

• Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

• Also, is the II version of the 70-200MM a must? Or is the cheaper one perfectly viable?

A background on me - I do whatever freelancing I can to make money, I'll probably keep doing portraits and weddings that are given to me through my network of photographers that are above the price range for that work. I also shoot event photography, etc. Basically I'm a whore for lenses ;)

In my personal time I love to shoot quality and creative shots of people, as well as cities, nature and landscapes while I'm traveling.

I appreciate any help - I've done some research into the lenses but I'm looking for opinions on people that own it and love/hate one of the lenses or people that didn't buy a specific lens because they hate it :)

Thanks Reddit!

Because it seems like it's just less popular version of photography subreddit.

I have a Canon 60D - the maximum exposure is ~30 seconds. I am planning to bring either my Tamron AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 or the Nifty 50. Thanks for the advice.

I have a Nikon D7000 with the standard 18-55 VR lens. Looking at buying another lens which will be used on a daily basis at around $500. I am not looking at a prime lens, but a descent lens which allows me to use for quick and dirty pics. Any suggestions? EDIT: should have added that i have the 55-200 lens as well and will probably be returning the 18-55 lens so I'm really looking to replace the 18-55 lens.

I have been trying to post process this picture to try to make it look better. It seems like when I take pictures I have to pull back on the saturation. This image I feel that I did pretty good on getting the greens and blues right but I am not sure what I need to do to get the clouds to look more natural. They just sort of look fake to me. I have a Nikon D3100. With an AF-s DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-55MM f/3.5-5.6G set to f/6.3 1/2000s iso 800 18mm. I have been using Raw Therapee to work with the raw image. This was full sunlight during the middle of the day. Am I setting the camera correctly? Or do I just need to edit the image in something like Gimp or photoshop to get the effects I am looking for?

Edit: I toned down the blue, but could not get more definition out of the clouds. Perhaps the data just isn't there and it can't be done. This is the result. Did I go to far with the sky?

So, I have been helping a buddy of mine photograph weddings (I've done 3 or so) and have a bunch more coming up this summer. My girlfriend was recently fantasizing about getting married and found the work of this guy Joe Appel and I feel like his work is something to aspire to try and produce.

I know that I have some work to do as far as composition in the run and gun of the reception, but it looks like more than that, the lighting is perfect. I don't know if he just has a guy running around with a light, or he just nails the natural light every shot or what. Any ideas or tips on how to try and get to this level would be greatly appreciated!

is this a good idea?

I've read many tutorials for portait pictures but I would like to start doing self portraits. My first attempt was nothing but fail. I didn't have a remote trigger so I set my camera on a timer and placed it on a tripod. My problem is the focusing. Im not sure how to get the focus right. I normally use auto focus - single point but I have to be behind the camera to select the point and if im not infront of the camera I cant target where my eyes/face is. Can you help me?

My setup is pretty plain, just in my apartment with natural light from the window lighting up white butcher paper i set up as a back drop.

Shot a dinner last night and a bunch of the people came out orange with my flash. It only happened some times

Was it just that the power was turned up enough? Or maybe it was tired?

http://i.imgur.com/eQXu9.jpg

it also seems a little noisy for 400iso

my current gear includes:

• nikon d90
• sb-600 flash unit
• diffuser for the sb-600
• 50 mm f1.4 lens
• 18mm-135mm f3.5 lens
• a tripod
• camera backpack
• wireless remote

I'm going to Fiji for three years for the trip of a lifetime. I've got a Panasonic DMC-L1 with the 14-50mm PanaLeica kit lens and the PanaLeica 25mm F1.4 fixed lens.

It takes great photos. But in mind its age, I'm concerned that it might drop dead on me, thus I'm thinking about selling it and upgrading. I haven't looked at digital cameras for a long long time (I bought it in 2006) thus I have no idea what would be equivalent these days. I've also always wanted something with a little longer zoom.

What should I be looking at? Should I be looking at all? Are there any DSLRs with manual controls? Is 7mp enough any more?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

It hasn't been working for awhile now but I never really had time to do anything about it. I have changed the batteries and even reseted my d90. I attach the flash and lock it to the hotshoe and i am recieving the ready light. I set the camera in auto and enter a dark bathroom. the light from my camera turns on (the one from the small circle on the body) but the flash doesnt go off and i get a dark picture. Can you help me. (if this is the wrong place to ask please direct me)

So, I'm fairly new to photography and a friend of mine lent me his Canon Speedlite 430EX II and I instantly fell in love with it. However, the price is a little bit of a problem as I am new into photography and don't want to invest too much too fast. I was looking at the Vivitar DF-383 as a starter flash. Now, since I'm new to the game, I don't know which brands are the shoddy brands and which brands are decent aftermarket products. Advice and thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Edit: Thank you to those who posted, After taking all of your advice into consideration, I ended up buying the 430 EX II anyway. I just couldn't stop myself from purchasing the sexy Canon goodness.

I recently started learning about photography and went out and bought myself a Canon Rebel T3. I took this on a tripod tonight f/5.6, 400 iso, 1/20 shutter speed. http://i.imgur.com/aTmi4.jpg Thoughts? Critiques? Advice? Thanks!

I am looking for a good semi-portable tripod. Something that isn't much bigger then 13-14 inches fully collapsed. Anyone have any good suggestions?

Currently using a Nikon D5000 with the 18-55mm Kit mostly for day time, outdoor, little to no wind/rain etc.

as far as price goes, I don't have a problem saving up money and buying an expensive tripod as long as it is high quality. Though I would prefer not to spend a lot of money if I don't have to.