Amateur /p/hotographer here... I have a Canon EOS 700D. Is it

>>3057198
Are you a girl? Serious question here.
Also learn about metering.

>>3057206

No, a guy. Why do you ask?

Do I need to carry a light meter with me?

I should also mention I am relatively new to this. I don't give a shit about posting to social media or having the most expensive gear hanging off my neck. I just do this for me.

>>3057198
Sell up and get a Sony mirrorless, the viewfinder is a high quality screen giving a wysiwyg preview of your shot, just like your rear screen but much, much better.

This is the main reason I recommend sony to anyone new at photography.

Not only do you get focus magnification you also get focus peaking, meaning that those shallow dof shots become a breeze, also the viewfinder isn't physically limited in size, so you have a much larger view similar to that of a top of the line full frame dslr.

And they're small and make you look less autistic.

File: 11.jpg (1MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1728px

>>3057209

Okay, thanks for the advice. I'll look into a Sony... out of curiosity, though, is the 700D I have aimed more at pros who know what they are doing or is it just old and lacking features?

I got my 700D years ago for filming work. I chose it purely because of it's video capabilities and now I'm just kinda running with it. I've since moved on to over-the-shoulder units which end up being worked by my business partner who is far more skilled at these things.

Focus peaking sounds awesome and I do look like a complete retard staring at the screen, but it seems to be the only way my amateur ass can get the shot. I can tell there's still a lot of learning to do for me! Right now, I take most pictures by selecting the lowest F stop and adjusting the shutter speed. I generally like the freeze-frame, low dof shots, but I can swap it up if I need to. I'm just slow at it.

Pic related, another one from Vietnam. Taken with a slightly better lens than the previous.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Lens Size	100.00 - 300.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Lens Name	EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:14 02:49:34
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1728
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	132

>>3057213
Exposure on a dslr is a learning curve, between choosing your metering mode, reading the histogram and using your experience anything can happen. It's not so much that your 700d is aimed at pros/outdated, it's the whole DSLR concept, which was the best we could come up with a century ago.

Another shortcoming is the focusing screen, unless you swap it out for a dimmer one, it's only accurate down to f2.8, which is suicide for anyone looking to utilise a shallow dof in their work.

File: 28.jpg (1MB, 2592x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1728px

>>3057221

I see. This may be a stupid question about the screen, but I also notice that the photographs I take look less colourful and vibrant when I upload them onto my computer versus when I have them on the DSLRs preview screen. Maybe it's just a brighter screen on the back of my camera... is this a thing? Maybe it's just par for the course that you have to edit a bit of vibrancy into your photographs. Luma curves and whatnot.

Thank you for your input! I'm heading to a Thai temple tomorrow and I'll practice with what I have, but I think a swap up of equipment is in order. I can just see how this is going to become a very expensive hobby. Any constructive criticism on my photos is greatly appreciated!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Lens Size	100.00 - 300.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Lens Name	EF100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:14 03:02:37
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1728
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	132

>>3057240
Ideally you should be shooting in raw then editing in lightroom/capture one/dxo. The raw image is designed to be as flat as possible to give you the most flexibility in editing.

The preview you see will be the raw image with your currently selected jpeg profile applied.

And it need not be expensive, if fast autofocus isn't critical for you an old sony nex 6 comes in at a very affordable price, the nex 6 and 7 had excellent sensors and are very usable little cameras. Also, sony mirrorless lets you adapt any old lens to it using cheap adaptors, allowing you to play with lenses on the cheap.

>>3057255

Wow, I just looked up that Nex 7, that looks amazing. I'd be worried about breaking it, it seems pretty small. How can they made a 24.3MP DSLR so small?

I think I need to read some more books on the subject. I find that my images never quite come out as crisp as I hope. I will change the settings to RAW. I didn't realise my camera was just doing JPEGs, thank you!!

>>3057274
Because mirrorless have no need for a mirror box, the camera can be tiny.

The mp count doesn't dictate the size of the sensor, nearly all changeable lens cameras have a 'full frame', 'crop/apsc' or 'm43/micro 4 thirds' size sensor, with full frame being the largest and best, but with a considerable price premium (sony a7 is very cheap for its full frame specs though). The nex 6 and 7 and a6xxx series use a crop sensor.

A larger sensor has less noise in low light, has more bokeh (shallow depth of field) and gives sharper images as it is less demanding on the lens.

The little sony bodies are a lot more hardwearing than you may expect, mine have taken a hammering. With less moving parts than a dslr they are in many ways much more robust than your canon.

File: 17.jpg (1MB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1456px

>>3057278

Robust is important. I put my Canon through hell and back. I've just been looking at the a7 and a6500 on Amazon. It's pricey, but I guess it's one of those things where it can be rewarding if you've really got the time and subject matter to practice. $1,500 is on the top end of my budget. I'd have to do some mental gymnastics to justify it.

Does it really matter if you have a full frame camera, though? Does it affect anything more than just the dimension of the final image? With something like the a6500 with a crop sensor, surely just some cropping would turn your picture into a (lower rez) full frame picture... which wouldn't be so much of a problem given the image output size.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 700D
Lens Size	18.00 - 55.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Lens Name	EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:13 11:25:40
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2592
Image Height	1456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	256
Color Matrix	132

>>3057282

Also, I'm a moron. Rotate much?

>>3057282
>does full frame matter

Well, you're going to get one stop better low light performance as there's double the surface area.

You also get the better shallow depth of field look.

And images have approximately 130% better apparent sharpness when you use the same quality lens.

Crop and full frame are made out of the same silicon wafers, crops just a smaller central portion.

Crop is fine for 90% of hobbyists, start with an old nex 6 or 7 and see how you get along, crop means you can use the sigma dn range of lenses which are super cheap and their performance is WAY above their price point. For $500 you could get a nex 6 and 2 of the dn lenses, there's no need to blow an extra grand just yet on a 'new' crop body like the a6500, the difference in image quality is somewhere between negligible and non existent. I spent a grand going from the a7 to a7ii just because I wanted slightly better autofocus performance and ibis, this was a fine deal for me as I know exactly what I wanted, but makes no sense for a newbie. Like how a fender won't make your songs sound better than a squire, unless you really know how to work that instrument.

>>3057282
>I put my Canon through hell and back
You might want to avoid Sony then. Canon are built like brick shithouses, they can take rough treatment. Canon also have service centres all over everywhere so if you do break it you can get it fixed. Sony's support is notoriously poor

>>3057287

By hell I mean seawater splash, salt, sand and extreme weather rather than physical trauma. I think if I had something so expensive I'd probably be way more careful with it, but point taken. Nothing worse than shitty support for a piece of equipment you've really invested into.

>>3057285

Point taken. I might get a Nex 6 and a few lenses and go for it. I like the way the viewfinder is on the corner and it seems like something I could carry around very easily. My one worry is about losing money by 'upgrading' as my current bit of tech becomes worthless, but I guess these things can be traded in?

Also, I'm guessing by the green text "does full frame matter" is maybe a sore topic on this board! Perhaps an a7 will be a little further into the future for me...

>>3057207
>Why do you ask?
Because you give a shit about people judging you rather that being efficient.

>Do I need to carry a light meter with me?
No, your camera has a very good light meter inside. You need to know how it works in order to use it properly.

>I don't give a shit about posting to social media or having the most expensive gear hanging off my neck
So keep shooting the way that fits you, then.

>>3057274
Warning, shooting RAW implies you can ATLEAST re-apply the same enhancements your camera gives to your jpeg in Lr/Ps/whatever. NOT for beginners.

>>3057287
I do agree that a Nex with a prime lens is the best starter for a noob.
Even a GF1 with a 25mm is ok for me.

File: 1489368384608.jpg (34KB, 338x305px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 338x305px

>>3057357

>>3057357

>Because you give a shit about people judging you rather that being efficient.
Not really, I just notice that looking at the screen seems to be an amateurish thing to do, implying that there are benefits to the viewfinder that I haven't yet realised.

>So keep shooting the way that fits you, then.
I don't want to be adored for my photographs, but it's good to take advice from anyone with much more experience. I just want mine to be the best they can be.

I'll have a play with RAW files. I mastered Premiere Pro, Light Room shouldn't be all that hard.

>>3057379
>I mastered Premiere Pro, Light Room shouldn't be all that hard
Lightroom has a lot of similarities to Photoshop if you've ever used that. I'm assuming you have Creative Cloud already, personally i wouldn't buy Lightroom as a beginner or even solely as a prosumer (personal opinion)

>>3057410

I've had a few friends who were graphic designers try to show me Photoshop and, either they had no clue what they were doing or they just didn't explain it well. I have always found PS daunting, but if it's the best option I'll give it another try.

I have Creative Cloud, paying for a single PP license. I know they do a cheap photography option which just has Ps and Lr. I get a 30 day trial, so I'll give them a go.

just keep an eye on the meter in the viewfinder, the camera averages the colors to grey. so if your shooting something light(snow), it was under expose and the snow or whatnot, will look grey, which is right, but in that case you need to over expose because the photo you want is brighter than it will do on its own. same with dark objects, under expose. Im full time and still takes a photo or two or 5 to get the right exposure if its a little tricky. the middle exposure is just a base.

>>3057198
sounds like you need a sony

>>3057213
700d is bottom tier.

>>3057207
>Why do you ask?
Because you sound like a fucking idiot.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!
USE THE GEAR THREAD YOU MASSIVE STUPID IDIOT!

>>3060648

Better than being one, I guess.