dslr – Lumix G85 – Black Corner regardless of lens and no hood – please help

I have a Panasonic Lumix G85 for about a year. This month, I started getting a black area in the left corner of my images, which you can also see on the electronic viewfinder.

Example here

I do not see anything on the sensor and it never happened before. Can any one help me? I would hate to think that my camera is not good.

I've heard that sensor repairs are extremely expensive, but I do not know at all what I would look at.

Thank you everybody.

lens – How to get closer to 180 degrees with a minimal fisheye look on iPhone X or 11?

Your question boils down to the angle of view.

Looks like your camera is set back somewhere near the field, rather than in the stands. Let's use assumptions to calculate some numbers.

  1. You set up the camera 10 m (3 m) from the court touch line at the center line.
  2. The site is 69 m wide and 100 m wide. Try online online.

Then the corresponding angles of view are:

  • 2 * atan (50/3) = 173 °, from test line to test line on the side line next to the camera.
  • 2 * atan (50 / 37.5) = 106 °, from the centers of the test lines between the uprights, end to end.
  • 2 * atan (50/72) = 70 °, from trial line to test line on remote sideline.

Thus, without adding anything, you will be able to see the whole half of the field, essentially the nearest amounts on each test line, on the opposite side. The triangle on the nearest vertical side, along the test line to the near lateral line, and somewhere between the 10m and 22m lines on the sideline, will be out of your field of view ( on both sides of the camera).

You can not broaden a wide angle of view without introducing a certain degree of precision.

Your idea of ​​adding an anamorphic lens is good – in theory – assuming that an anamorphic lens "crushes" everything in front of the camera by the anamorphic factor (from 1.4: 1 to 2, 6: 1). Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Any lens has a maximum viewing angle, regardless of what's behind the lens. You will have to find anamorphic AoV lens of around 180 °, which I'm not sure is there, to get what you want. And even in this case, even assuming anamorphic, a width of 180 ° will always produce fisheye effects.

Is there a reason to keep a 18-55mm f / 3.5-5.6G lens and a 16-85mm f / 3.5-5.6G lens for my Nikon D5100?

Aside from keeping it as a spare part, there is no reason to keep the 18-55 if you buy the 16-85.

The 16-85 is better than the 18-55 in just about every way, but only a little. A little better range (but not so much that you can not get exactly the same pictures with the 18-55 taking you a little closer or a little further), a little more pointed (but only to the point that it is noticeable in a lab with tests, probably will not make a difference from the real world). Same opening, a little heavier. So, an improvement, but a small one.

That being said, the 16-85 is what, $ 700? Abandoning this type of money for a very marginal improvement does not seem like a good investment. There are many interesting lenses at this price that would be a great addition to your kit.

So, to answer your question, no, if you buy 16-85, you do not need to keep the 18-55. Now if I think you should even buy the 16-85 at all …

lens mount – Do my old Canon Digital Rebel lenses work on a 7DMkII?

… can I use the old lenses with this new model?

Yes. The 7DMkII is a "crop" box, so it can use both EF and EF-S lenses. This is only if you switch to a full frame box like the 5D / 6D models that you can no longer use EF-S lenses.

And if so, what quality will I lose by doing it?

Since these two lenses are considered entry-level kit lenses, it is unlikely that you will lose a lot of quality because there is not much quality to lose. 😉 However, given the improvements made to the processor and sensor between the 300D and 7DMkII, it is possible that the number of faults is much higher. Increasing the resolution from 6MP to 20MP, in particular, may indicate some additional drawbacks of the lens.

in addition both of these lenses as entry-level lenses have been replaced during the last decade. The objective of the current 18-55 kit is probably the fifth or sixth iteration of this lens and is now equipped with both stabilizer and stabilizer. And the 75-300 III has been replaced by three lenses: the EF-S 55-250 IS (low-end entry-level), the 70-300 IS USM (medium-quality, improved optics and updated system compared to the 75 -300 III IS USM) and IS USM 70-300L (superior quality, improved optics compared to 70-300).

And to top it off, none of your goals are particularly suitable for shooting sports, which is not an entry-level subject. Sports tend to require autofocus speed. To do this, the 7DMkII can certainly work on the body side, but you will usually want a ring type USM lens for the lens side (with the video, STM may be more useful; slightly slower, the focus be smoother). And if sports are indoors or at night, you will probably want as wide a goal as possible. opening possible. And the good telephoto zooms that do that on the Canon fence side tend to be white and cost four digits. Sports and wildlife are two areas in which the costs of equipment are not modest.

Stabilization may or may not be essential, depending on the length of your lens, the lighting conditions for the sport in question, and your intention to shoot video or still images. With video, IS can help mitigate the pan. With still images, the sport usually requires higher shutter speeds to "freeze" the action. You may be more than 1 /focal distance (a general shutter speed target to mitigate camera shake blur; that is, with a 300mm lens, you want to be more faster than 1 / 300s), anyway. If we are talking about football, a 75-300 may be suitable. But indoor hockey, swimming or basketball, probably not.

It seems that the difference of mm67mm could be important too?

Well, it just means that you can not use the 58mm filters you already have without vignetting. You will need to purchase 67mm filters, but with a reduction ring you will be able to use 67mm filters on your other lenses without vignetting. Of course, if you end up having a white L lens, it is likely that you will need filters of 77 mm (or more).

If you want to reduce repeat filter purchases, purchase the largest size you need and then the appropriate reduction rings. Unfortunately, the larger the size of the filter, the more expensive the files.

lens – What's the biggest difference between these two big animal pictures?

The second image is "better" mainly because it is a fat glamorous cat that looks glamorous and dangerous. It's better for the same reason that James Dean's pictures are better than those of me.

In terms of composition, I appreciate the fact that the leopard photo is a portrait rather than a landscape (it is however a personal preference) and that all the cat is in the frame, with a narrow enough DoF to mean that you just get hints at most of them. I like the leaves in the RHS of the leopard photo. In your image, almost all the gorilla is missing, especially the left hand, which annoys me.

For the gorilla, I do not think you could have had it all (hmm, I feel bad about calling a gorilla "but not a leopard, which is interesting to a linguistic point of view) in the frame while keeping a special focus on what we eat is the focal point of the image. It might have been better to be closer (or more) and frame the interesting part. Maybe something like this:

cropped

Although I spent little time thinking about the composition when making this crop (she wants more space up, I think, but it's the top of the original mount, so there is not one). However, I am a bit pretentious, but I do not feel very good about cultures. Again it's just me.

This cropping as such is not really clear enough, even for me, especially for the eyes: I do not know if it's because I'm doing it from an already reduced JPEG file and / or that imgur further reduces the quality. But it may be that the resolution is not enough, in which case the answer is a longer goal or (better!) Closer ("if your images are not good enough, you're not close enough") . Or maybe the goal is wrong but I do not think so.

In terms of image quality and everything else: do not worry, your photo is fine. Again, it's just me: I love the pictures and the stories that they tell. I would be very happy if I had taken this picture.

(And of course, I'm always tempted to say that everything is better in black and white:

Eaves

even with a very rudimentary conversion. Except that it does not look better: it looks more "filmed". because the slight blur now looks a bit like the 35mm B / W film, but it lacks the color of the thing eaten that is essential to the picture: it is therefore necessary to be in color. So I'm wrong about that.)

Is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f / 3.5-4.5G lens good for portraits, landscapes and everyday uses?

The biggest limitation of the lens of your 18-55 kit lies in the fact that its consumer lens, designed by Nikon to be affordable, has a very limited maximum aperture. This affects the low-light capabilities, but even worse, the extent to which you can separate your subject from the background. Therefore, unless you talk about working in the studio with an infinite background, it's important.

Here's what I mean … and you can do it yourself by comparing your 50mm lens and your kit … but it will be the same case pretty close with this kit lens at 35mm.

Here we are wide open to f1.8

First goal with a nice maximum aperture like f1.8

Here is the same picture with the lens of the kit .. because of the larger maximum aperture, you can see everything including the kitchen sink! Even worse, as it requires another full stop or more light, the shutter speed is slower and the camera moves too.

Lens kit

This is the problem with the kit objectives. Cheap main lenses such as 50mm and 35mm f1.8 lenses can be much better than cheap zoom lenses. If you want a zoom that works for portraits, you really need to start shopping for constant f2.8 goals (this means that, regardless of the zoom, the aperture can still be f2.8), but it gets expensive, and unfortunately (I did not build your camera to work with some excellent old professional zoom lenses that are very cheap.) The 18-35 is excellent and everything, but it's still a lens with variable aperture, and at 35 mm it is a f4.5 which is not ideal for portraiture.

Honestly, I would suggest the F1.8 35mm format, as it looks like you want more body shots instead of head and shoulders. Ideally, it would be nice to have more space because the 50mm lens on your camera is a very flattering lens. The use of shorter lenses starts to create distortions of facial features, although it is not horrible at 35mm.

In the street, many people swear by the 35mm lens on a full-frame camera, 23 mm less than yours. The purpose of your kit is not too worn for this purpose, because with the street also, it is not unusual to take pictures with a smaller aperture, for example. F5.6 or even F8 because in the street there are often a lot of things going on, and that is the context that is important. In f5.6 and f8, the depth of field is large enough to capture more of the present moment and allows above all to leave some margin on the focus. In other words, if you do not master the subject perfectly, there is still a chance that it will be well.

How to get rid of the distortion in the distant object images photographed with a telephoto lens?

Here is a terrible example of my problem: Photo of a ship several kilometers

Technical Data: Canon EOS 70D + Canon EF 100-400mm f / 4-5.6 L IS, ISO 320, 400mm, 1/500 sec, f / 10.

Is this problem caused by atmospheric turbulence over water? Thank you.

What exactly does the Canon Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) do?

Recent Canon cameras (example: EOS RP) have a feature called Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO).

Canon Digital Photo Professional software (DPP) also has the same DLO functionality.

Apparently, DLO uses patented technology to improve image quality by taking into account the complete operation of all parts of the camera's sensor, including color (Bayer) / anti-aliasing filters, as well as operation. lens (including diffraction caused by aperture) and should therefore be able to significantly improve the quality of the image.

But how does DLO work? Does it use only some generic manufacturing information or can it take into account programmed calibration data stored in the lens, as predicted by Roger Cicala in "This Lens Is Soft" and other facts? Can it automatically detect for example the exact strength of chromatic aberration with the help of sophisticated algorithms, directly from the RAW image?

Can DLO completely overcome the effects of diffraction or does diffraction still pose a problem with small diameters of opening?

Is the camera's DLO identical to that of the DPP software or does it use the extra processing power available on a computer compared to that of a camera?

Related: Why does the use of Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer double the size of a RAW file?

How to get rid of distorted images of distant objects photographed with a telephoto lens?

Here is a terrible example of my problem: Photo of a ship several kilometers

Technical Data: Canon EOS 70D + Canon EF 100-400mm f / 4-5.6 L IS, ISO 320, 400mm, 1/500 sec, f / 10.

Is this problem caused by atmospheric turbulence over water? Thank you.

mounting a Vivitar lens series 1 on a nikon d5300

What kind of lens should I use to attach a Vivitar Series 1 lens to a Nikon D5300 camera?