Support NeoGAF

[345triangle]

the changes in the S are mostly down to hardware. i think the X100's as good as it's ever going to get, unfortunately (though i don't see why they couldn't make manual focus more responsive).

i still like mine just fine.

 

[shantyman]

Each and every review I am reading of the X100s is increasing my desire for it. Most are saying every single issue with the original is fixed. Considering how much I love my X100 that sounds awesome to me.

 

[tino]

Each and every review I am reading of the X100s is increasing my desire for it. Most are saying every single issue with the original is fixed. Considering how much I love my X100 that sounds awesome to me.

Zack Arias's review is hilarious. It must be one of the funniest product review.

I really like the flash sync at any speed and the 3 stop ND filter. I think those features worth 200-300 alone. For my 35mm focal view solution, I was going to get the up coming Fuji 23mm 2.8. pancake. However if the OG x100 drop around $500 I would get that instead.

I also like the idea of EPM1+14mm/2.8, if I can get that for around 300 I will get that instead.

 

[345triangle]

the upcoming fuji lenses are a 23mm 1.4 and a 27mm 2.8 pancake, which makes the X100 a little harder to replace.

 

[tino]

^ Oh really? I didn't realize. Hope it will be closed to Panasonic 20mm pancake's price.

While I was away I got a few accessories:

1. hard screen protector for the XE1

This is the right size for the XE1 screen. The height matches and its only 1-2mm wider than screen.
It has thick foam/double sideed tape to raise the protector a bit, plus good seal to prevent dust. Cheap from ebay, I recommend.

2. Thumbs Up Grip

Originally an exotic Leica accessory. The generic bootleg ones are getting alot cheaper now.
XE1's shutter button is way too close to the palm position. Without this its very hard to take picture single handed. Minimal bulk for huge ergonomic improvement.

3. Tripod Mount straps

Originally I was trying them for an easier duel wielding solution. They worked so well I am going to use them to replace the regular straps now. To sum up the reasons: easier to let belt and shoulder share weight of heavy gears; less intrusive when shooting; naturally drop to the side even if I don't put the gear back to belt pouch.

The first is a 10 dollar strap that I got from ebay. The second one is the base of a hand strap I re-purposed as a tripod mount strap. I use it with heavy lens because it pushes my hand further out and make the camera easier to grab.

Also, Nikon 180/2.8, the lens is godly.

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

What do you think of Sony's OLED electronic viewfinders?

I just tried out one of them a few days ago - the kind that you'd find on the latest SLT models that have 1024x768 pixels (2.4M dots), and I must say, it looks just like optical to my eyes... except better. I think I would probably appreciate the limited dynamic range as what I'm seeing is actually what I'm getting on the final image for the most part. I really want to buy the EVF for my NEX-5R now, but the price is a bit off-putting. And yet I don't want to give it up for a NEX-6... (I hate trading-in.)

 

[Forsete]

What do you think of Sony's OLED electronic viewfinders?

Well I have only tried the one that is in the NEX7, its nice and pretty big with excellent resolution (apart from when you press the menu-button, which shows up a bit low res for some reason).

Right now I think I prefer it to an optical viewfinder (I compare it to the creme de la creme of OVFs, A900), its so much more useful. You never really have to take your eyes off it in order to preview the photo you just took, press the "play" button and it is shown in the EVF. Instant 1x1 maginification or if you prefer to have peaking displayed.

Focusing with my 85mm 1.4 Samyang was way easier on the NEX7 compared to my old A900 (though A900 kicks its ass in IQ ).

 

[Flo_Evans]

^ Oh really? I didn't realize. Hope it will be closed to Panasonic 20mm pancake's price.

While I was away I got a few accessories:


Also, Nikon 180/2.8, the lens is godly.

Nice! I need to get one of those hotshoe thumbrests for my X10. And yes the nikon 180/2.8 is an awesome piece of glass.

ugg.

I can't decide what 85mm lens to get. Or if I should even get one, as my 105DC is pretty much the perfect portrait lens... I find I am shooting allot more product shot to pay the bills, and while the 105 works for this it seems a waste.

85/1.8D - cheap, but the bokeh leaves allot to be desired. aperture ring is nice for video but the MF action is poor. ~$300 used

85/1.4D - awesome metal construction, great bokeh but not as sharp as newer models. ~$750 used

85/1.8G - logical choice. Best contrast and lowest distortion and CA of the bunch. No aperture ring for older film cameras or video. $400 NEW (on sale 20% off till end of month!)

85/1.4G - the dream. Sharpness and bokeh at the top off the heap. Also on sale for... $1400 NEW (ack.)

Not sure what to do. I could sell the 105 and go for the 1.4G but man I love that 105. The obvious choice is the 1.8G, but something about it just doesn't excite me. Would be the best for general photography I think, nice and compact and don't have to have a seizure if my kid drops it or something.

I kind of like the idea of buying a used lens since if I don't like it I can re-sell for not much loss. Of course I could rent all these lenses and test them myself but, my dilemma is that the nikon lens rebates are ending this month! so they are going up $100 (1.8G) and $300 (1.4G)....

 

[Wads]

I've got a baby on the way and I'm looking for a good point and shoot w/ a wide angle lens and takes good video as well.

Could possibly go for an entry level DSLR, but I'm not looking to spend 1k. What say you camera gaf? < 500 is best, but I'm flexible

 

[RuGalz]

I've got a baby on the way and I'm looking for a good point and shoot w/ a wide angle lens and takes good video as well.

Could possibly go for an entry level DSLR, but I'm not looking to spend 1k. What say you camera gaf? < 500 is best, but I'm flexible

I know a few couples swear by the tough p&s cameras cuz you don't have to worry about baby throwing up on it or you dropping it while handing the baby, basically any accidents...

http://www.dpreview.com/products/se...Compact&paramSpecsDurabilitySearch=Waterproof

 

[EviLore]

I've got a baby on the way and I'm looking for a good point and shoot w/ a wide angle lens and takes good video as well.

Could possibly go for an entry level DSLR, but I'm not looking to spend 1k. What say you camera gaf? < 500 is best, but I'm flexible

Generally the go-to for photos of your kids is a DSLR. Bulk isn't really a concern since you'll either be at home or somewhere stationary, kid photos can be demanding in terms of available light and time to shoot before a moment passes and shots per second, and you get the best priceerformance ratio there. Canon T3i can be had with kit lens for $560 from Amazon, so within your budget and not $1k.

If you want a more pocketable mirrorless camera then $500 will get you a Sony NEX-3N with kit lens, but the AF performance won't be as fast as a DSLR, and that can be important for getting clutch candid shots. The $650 NEX-5R has phase detect AF, in that case, but it's getting up there in price at that point.

 

[bangai-o]

hello
i have been going back and forth to the library for the scanner for a few years now. I am now wondering if I could just get a camera that can take high enough res shots of paper documents.
i dont know much about camera technology, so can anyone recommend?

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

hello
i have been going back and forth to the library for the scanner for a few years now. I am now wondering if I could just get a camera that can take high enough res shots of paper documents.

A $100 scanner is going to be better than a camera.

 

[tino]

hello
i have been going back and forth to the library for the scanner for a few years now. I am now wondering if I could just get a camera that can take high enough res shots of paper documents.
i dont know much about camera technology, so can anyone recommend?

You can get a tiny sized portable document scanner.

 

[Joe]

Can anyone recommend a decent and inexpensive lightbox?

I made one myself tonight. It was annoying and came out like poop and I don't really feel like giving it another go - plus I'd need to buy another light or two anyway.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Generally the go-to for photos of your kids is a DSLR. Bulk isn't really a concern since you'll either be at home or somewhere stationary, kid photos can be demanding in terms of available light and time to shoot before a moment passes and shots per second, and you get the best priceerformance ratio there. Canon T3i can be had with kit lens for $560 from Amazon, so within your budget and not $1k.

If you want a more pocketable mirrorless camera then $500 will get you a Sony NEX-3N with kit lens, but the AF performance won't be as fast as a DSLR, and that can be important for getting clutch candid shots. The $650 NEX-5R has phase detect AF, in that case, but it's getting up there in price at that point.

As a dad I have to disagree. Well maybe so not much disagree but offer a counterpoint. Again I have to contend that a high end p&s will match or beat an entry level DSLR + kit lens for focus speed. At least for single shot speed. For tracking AF when the kid starts sports DSLR all the way (currently).

Now I love my DSLR. I have taken some really great (at least to me) pictures of my kids. But I think that often the extra complication, the changing lenses, even the shallow DOF that is so often desired has been a hindrance to capturing fleeting moments. A DSLR is the superior option, but only as far as you are able to use it. A DSLR gives you the flexibility and control to really do what you want... But more often than not the kid is not going to sit sill when you set up the shot.

Also you have to consider how much extra shit a new parent hauls around. Diaper bags, snacks, toys... It adds up. A pocketable camera is much less of a burden at the zoo. At home no problem, but you are often going to want to take pics out and about.

It really depends on you and how much you want to get into photography. If you plan on investing in lenses, getting into external flash, and want the absolute highest quality then by all means get an entry level DSLR and go from there. But if you just want a nice camera to take pics of your kids I think a higher end P&S is a better solution.

 

[reggieandTFE]

I've got a baby on the way and I'm looking for a good point and shoot w/ a wide angle lens and takes good video as well.

Could possibly go for an entry level DSLR, but I'm not looking to spend 1k. What say you camera gaf? < 500 is best, but I'm flexible

Panasonic Lx7 without question. Unlike most compacts, its zoom starts at a wide 24-mm equivalent with a superfast aperture of f/1.4. The autofocus is also fantastic and the camera has great burst modes to capture fast moving kids. It seems to be on sale at Amazon for $299 every couple of months.

 

[345triangle]

i don't think anyone should buy a point-and-shoot that isn't the sony RX100, especially for something as important as baby shots. you just won't get the low-light performance and general shot-to-shot reliability from anything else.

 

[RuGalz]

Also you have to consider how much extra shit a new parent hauls around. Diaper bags, snacks, toys... It adds up. A pocketable camera is much less of a burden at the zoo. At home no problem, but you are often going to want to take pics out and about.

Pretty much why my friends opt for tough cameras even though they have DSLRs at home. Sure you are going to need better camera in low light condition but when you are out and about, screw that.

i don't think anyone should buy a point-and-shoot that isn't the sony RX100, especially for something as important as baby shots. you just won't get the low-light performance and general shot-to-shot reliability from anything else.

That's crazy talk. Sure RX100 is no doubt the best of its class, I'd be worried about breaking/dropping that thing as a new parent. And it is an expensive camera no matter how good it is, for a lot of people, value of a product is equally important.

 

[tino]

Pretty much why my friends opt for tough cameras even though they have DSLRs at home. Sure you are going to need better camera in low light condition but when you are out and about, screw that.

You mean a waterproof camera? They are not much better than phone camera IQ. Really.

That's crazy talk. Sure RX100 is no doubt the best of its class, I'd be worried about breaking/dropping that thing as a new parent. And it is an expensive camera no matter how good it is, for a lot of people, value of a product is equally important.

Its not that expensive for other cameras that people consider "good cameras". I have a better suggestion though. Nikon 1 series. Same sensor size as RX100 but bigger pixel for better low light performance; fast AF due to AF points build into the sensor. None of the other high end P&S has this.

Also cheaper, you should be able to find a kit for 300-400.

I personally don't think any one cares about low light noise for baby pictures. Not even parents.

 

[RuGalz]

You mean a waterproof camera? They are not much better than phone camera IQ. Really.

Yea tough cameras aren't that much better IQ wise than a phone camera. But a dedicated camera, imo, is still easier to use than a smartphone. I just find it easier to take out camera, turn it on and press a button to take picture instead of take out the phone, open camera app and tap the screen to shoot. Not to mention with a phone I usually need 2 hands. Not having to worry about dropping it is a big plus in this case.

Its not that expensive for other cameras that people consider "good cameras".

It's a good 20-40% more expensive than other compact cameras that are probably more than good enough for regular, usage cases but it doesn't really offer that much more functionally. But just like everything, it costs quite a bit to go from 'good enough' to 'best of the class'. To me, it's over valued because I tend to stay some where in between; something that is practical and good enough without having to pay the premium.

 

[345triangle]

the way i see it, it's just about the only digital compact that turns out images good enough to justify the bulk of any dedicated camera over a decent phone. if you're going to spend anything at all on a point-and-shoot, it might as well be worth it. pretty much every camera with a 1/1.7-inch sensor turns out more-or-less identical photos these days. that's not "good enough" to me.

the lens is better than anything available for the nikon 1 system considering what it is, and performance is equally good &#8212; not to mention that the body is much more convenient and user-friendly.

 

[Wads]

Generally the go-to for photos of your kids is a DSLR. Bulk isn't really a concern since you'll either be at home or somewhere stationary, kid photos can be demanding in terms of available light and time to shoot before a moment passes and shots per second, and you get the best priceerformance ratio there. Canon T3i can be had with kit lens for $560 from Amazon, so within your budget and not $1k.

If you want a more pocketable mirrorless camera then $500 will get you a Sony NEX-3N with kit lens, but the AF performance won't be as fast as a DSLR, and that can be important for getting clutch candid shots. The $650 NEX-5R has phase detect AF, in that case, but it's getting up there in price at that point.

As a dad I have to disagree. Well maybe so not much disagree but offer a counterpoint. Again I have to contend that a high end p&s will match or beat an entry level DSLR + kit lens for focus speed. At least for single shot speed. For tracking AF when the kid starts sports DSLR all the way (currently).

Now I love my DSLR. I have taken some really great (at least to me) pictures of my kids. But I think that often the extra complication, the changing lenses, even the shallow DOF that is so often desired has been a hindrance to capturing fleeting moments. A DSLR is the superior option, but only as far as you are able to use it. A DSLR gives you the flexibility and control to really do what you want... But more often than not the kid is not going to sit sill when you set up the shot.

Also you have to consider how much extra shit a new parent hauls around. Diaper bags, snacks, toys... It adds up. A pocketable camera is much less of a burden at the zoo. At home no problem, but you are often going to want to take pics out and about.

It really depends on you and how much you want to get into photography. If you plan on investing in lenses, getting into external flash, and want the absolute highest quality then by all means get an entry level DSLR and go from there. But if you just want a nice camera to take pics of your kids I think a higher end P&S is a better solution.

Panasonic Lx7 without question. Unlike most compacts, its zoom starts at a wide 24-mm equivalent with a superfast aperture of f/1.4. The autofocus is also fantastic and the camera has great burst modes to capture fast moving kids. It seems to be on sale at Amazon for $299 every couple of months.

Sorry for all the quoting, but thank you for the suggestions. Certainly many options for this price range and there are a few cameras in here that I wasn't already considering. Lots to think about! I'll let you guys know what I end up doing. Maybe pop back in w/ some questions. I'm pretty technical, but photography is one the few areas I don't know as much as I should.

 

[Radec]

Damn, im tempted to get that NEX6. Almost half the price of the 7 but a much better performer.

16-50 kit + Sigma 30 looks like a neat compact combo.

Im missing photography after I sold my Nex7 a few months ago.

 

[nick nacc]

So I have shot Nikon my whole life, but I was considering a mark 3. I went to Allen's camera to try it out. I found the wheel and the button placement odd. Like when when I try to change the ISO like shooting its extremely uncomfortable and have to have like 3 fingers on the top of the camera to do it. I am sure you canon shooters have gotten used to this?

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

I'm home, one E 55-210mm (SEL55210) in hand. It took me about 10 photo equipment stores before I found a good, new deal - seems like everyone's charging a different amount of money for the same lens!

Being able to shoot well at 210mm is crazy amazing, and the optical stabilization is, like, crazy good. As soon as the stabilization kicks in with half-press of the shutter, everything seems frozen. Somehow. It was very shaky before.

 

[Deaf Spacker]

Hi guys, I bought a brand new Nikon V1 in November last year and already the battery age is at 3. Does that seem right? I have checked the age since buying the camera and it was at 0 until I last checked it at the weekend. Should I get it checked out?

The battery isn't from the recalled batch.

 

[tino]

I'm home, one E 55-210mm (SEL55210) in hand. It took me about 10 photo equipment stores before I found a good, new deal - seems like everyone's charging a different amount of money for the same lens!

Being able to shoot well at 210mm is crazy amazing, and the optical stabilization is, like, crazy good. As soon as the stabilization kicks in with half-press of the shutter, everything seems frozen. Somehow. It was very shaky before.

Whats the slowest safe shutter you can use for the 210mm end?

 

[mrklaw]

As a dad I have to disagree. Well maybe so not much disagree but offer a counterpoint. Again I have to contend that a high end p&s will match or beat an entry level DSLR + kit lens for focus speed. At least for single shot speed. For tracking AF when the kid starts sports DSLR all the way (currently).

Now I love my DSLR. I have taken some really great (at least to me) pictures of my kids. But I think that often the extra complication, the changing lenses, even the shallow DOF that is so often desired has been a hindrance to capturing fleeting moments. A DSLR is the superior option, but only as far as you are able to use it. A DSLR gives you the flexibility and control to really do what you want... But more often than not the kid is not going to sit sill when you set up the shot.

Also you have to consider how much extra shit a new parent hauls around. Diaper bags, snacks, toys... It adds up. A pocketable camera is much less of a burden at the zoo. At home no problem, but you are often going to want to take pics out and about.

It really depends on you and how much you want to get into photography. If you plan on investing in lenses, getting into external flash, and want the absolute highest quality then by all means get an entry level DSLR and go from there. But if you just want a nice camera to take pics of your kids I think a higher end P&S is a better solution.

I should look into modern P&S. the only frame of reference I have is a Panasonic something or other from about 3 years ago, and that was a piece of shit at focusing, even single shot.

As a counterpoint - you could just slap an 18-200 zoom on a DSLR and never have to change lenses. and stop down your aperture to ensure decent depth of field if you need it (high ISO performance gives you freedom here)

If size is an issue then maybe a mirrorless.

All I know is that my favourite shots of my family - the ones on my wall - are from DSLRs

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

Whats the slowest safe shutter you can use for the 210mm end?

Using the 1/35mm focal length rule, without stabilization, you'd want at least 1/320 sec fast.

I've shot it hand-held with two hands (one on grip, other on barrel), standing, without leaning on anything, and got sharp images as slow as 1/30. Your mileage may very, though. (Is that about a four-stop advantage?)

I've also messed around with the 16-50mm kit lens, and that, too, is a bit crazy. With a bit of luck you can get good shots with just 1/10 at the tele end. It's about a three-stop advantage there.

(If I'm recalling correctly... each stop = doubling/halving of light, right?)

 

[tino]

Using the 1/35mm focal length rule, without stabilization, you'd want at least 1/320 sec fast.

I've shot it hand-held with two hands (one on grip, other on barrel), standing, without leaning on anything, and got sharp images as slow as 1/30. Your mileage may very, though. (Is that about a four-stop advantage?)

I've also messed around with the 16-50mm kit lens, and that, too, is a bit crazy. With a bit of luck you can get good shots with just 1/10 at the tele end. It's about a three-stop advantage there.

(If I'm recalling correctly... each stop = doubling/halving of light, right?)

I would go with the 1/focal length rule and start out from 1/200. In that case you have 2.5 steps advantage.

Have you tried continuous shooting and see if you can get good photos from 1/15?

 

[Cute Dragon Here]

I would go with the 1/focal length rule and start out from 1/200. In that case you have 2.5 steps advantage.

Have you tried continuous shooting and see if you can get good photos from 1/15?

I did exactly that, and, yup, there ARE clear shots when hand-held.

I'd fare better with 1/30, though.

 

[Flo_Evans]

So I have shot Nikon my whole life, but I was considering a mark 3. I went to Allen's camera to try it out. I found the wheel and the button placement odd. Like when when I try to change the ISO like shooting its extremely uncomfortable and have to have like 3 fingers on the top of the camera to do it. I am sure you canon shooters have gotten used to this?

Some people swear by it, but yeah I am always confused as fuck when switching to my canon... The idea as I understand it is that you can set all the important functions (awkwardly) with 1 hand, but I find nikons layout and using 2 hands much easier and faster.

I should look into modern P&S. the only frame of reference I have is a Panasonic something or other from about 3 years ago, and that was a piece of shit at focusing, even single shot.

As a counterpoint - you could just slap an 18-200 zoom on a DSLR and never have to change lenses. and stop down your aperture to ensure decent depth of field if you need it (high ISO performance gives you freedom here)

If size is an issue then maybe a mirrorless.

All I know is that my favourite shots of my family - the ones on my wall - are from DSLRs

True but the nikon or canon super zooms are almost double his budget alone...

I also hate the 18-200mm lenses with a passion. I am somewhat of a prime snob though

 

[1871]

i don't think anyone should buy a point-and-shoot that isn't the sony RX100, especially for something as important as baby shots. you just won't get the low-light performance and general shot-to-shot reliability from anything else.

Fuji x20?

 

[Thraktor]

So I have shot Nikon my whole life, but I was considering a mark 3. I went to Allen's camera to try it out. I found the wheel and the button placement odd. Like when when I try to change the ISO like shooting its extremely uncomfortable and have to have like 3 fingers on the top of the camera to do it. I am sure you canon shooters have gotten used to this?

Are you holding the ISO button, by any chance? That's the only reason I could think for someone using so many fingers to change ISOs on Canon DSLRs.

Just tap the ISO button, scroll the wheel to the ISO you want, then get shooting. You should be able to do it all with your shutter finger. If you find the placement of the ISO button a bit awkward you can assign the M-Fn button to do the job instead.

 

[nick nacc]

Wow, I didn't know you could just tap it! Thank you. On canons can you switch up which wheel scrolls 1st and secondary functions?

 

[Fusebox]

Fuji x20?

Hell yeah. If you're a real pixel-peeper than the RX100 might have a slight PQ edge but in terms of using the actual camera the X20 is a proper joy to use whereas the RX100 didn't excite me in the slightest. The improved AF and startup speeds on the X20 should be great for those moving baby pics too.

 

[345triangle]

Fuji x20?

that would be my number 2 pick, sure &#8212; but as someone who already owns a bunch of better cameras that don't fit in my pocket, if i'm going to compromise on sensor size and image quality it had better come with a huge leap in portability. the x20 is pretty bulky for what it is, and i don't think the quality or flexibility would be enough to justify it as someone's only camera. that would make it a cool second camera, but it's not really going to fit in many places that an X100 wouldn't.

the lens is great though, and what they've done with the viewfinder is cool, so yeah. if you're sure point-and-shoot quality is all you need, i guess it's a better choice than anything that isn't an RX100.

Hell yeah. If you're a real pixel-peeper than the RX100 might have a slight PQ edge but in terms of using the actual camera the X20 is a proper joy to use whereas the RX100 didn't excite me in the slightest. The improved AF and startup speeds on the X20 should be great for those moving baby pics too.

the RX100's control ring and awesome MF make it infinitely more usable than any other compact, at least for me. i like the X20's zoom ring but beyond that it's just another compact.

i'm far from a pixel peeper, but the RX100's advantage is more in things like depth of field control, shutter speed flexibility and so on. that's what i don't want to compromise on.

 

[Thraktor]

Wow, I didn't know you could just tap it! Thank you. On canons can you switch up which wheel scrolls 1st and secondary functions?

I think so. I use a 550D, though, which only has one wheel to begin with, so I'm not 100% certain.

 

[captive]

My imacon 343 film scanner is for sale and my Fuji GX 617 with 90mm 105mm and 180mm are for sale as well.

Let me know if your interested.

 

[BeEatNU]

I just upgraded

Got a Nikon D600 really love how it feels in my hands

 

[SaitoH]

Anyone hear how good the Vello extension tubes are? So much cheaper than the Kenko version ....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/787223-REG/vello_ext_cd_auto_focus_ext_tube.html

 

[Borman]

Picked up a huge lot of older filters, brand new, mostly polarizing and CP for fairly cheap. Now to figure out what to do with them.

 

[dpatel304]

Anyone have experience printing out their digital photographs? I'm not a photographer at all, but I want to decorate my new place with some art, and I thought printing my own photographs onto some canvases might be cool. Before I invest in a camera, I just want to know if I can make some good quality canvas art without spending too much money. I know nothing about cameras or photography. All I know right now is that I'd prefer a point and shoot type of camera and I'd like to spend $200-$300 ($500 is my absolute max). In the end, I want to be able to print some B&W photos I've taken on canvases that can be as large as 24x24 or something. I've seen some sites that offer this service, but need to know the quality will be there.

If I need a more robust/expensive camera, so be it, I would honestly just rather not spend too much time learning about how to take pictures and just go out there and take some pictures and get some art made.

 

[tino]

Canvas print is okay. If you have really high quality image you should get a metal print.

The thing about canvas is that real paintings are 3 dimensional. There are thickness in brush strokes, you can never make canvas print look like a printing. What you get is the novalty of having realistic photo on a cloth surface. The resolution is going to lower than a regular print. If you want good deals, pay attention to groupon or livingsocial.

 

[CrudeDiatribe]

Before I invest in a camera, I just want to know if I can make some good quality canvas art without spending too much money. [...]

I would honestly just rather not spend too much time learning about how to take pictures and just go out there and take some pictures and get some art made.

You can take good pictures with anything (see Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera), but it does take knowledge/practice/experimenting. Spending an hour reading about the basics of photography will go a long way.

If you have really high quality image you should get a metal print.

Wow, I need to get one of these done.

 

[EviLore]

Yep, I have a 12x24 metal print of one of my photos from Bay Photo, came out very nicely and doesn't need to be framed.

 

[Instigator]

Picked up a huge lot of older filters, brand new, mostly polarizing and CP for fairly cheap. Now to figure out what to do with them.

I'll take one of each for 46mm and 72mm. You have my gratitude.

 

[SpinningFrog]

Hey guys, I have been thinking about getting a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens, I was wondering what you all thought about them, or had any advice on another lense for a similar price.

I currently have a canon T2i with the kit 18-55mm lense.

 

[reggieandTFE]

i'm far from a pixel peeper, but the RX100's advantage is more in things like depth of field control, shutter speed flexibility and so on. that's what i don't want to compromise on.

Despite the smaller sensor, the LX7 has shallower depth of field than the RX1 due to lens speed.