Light is the basis for photography and photographers are constantly looking for the best light possible to photograph their subjects. If you are a photographer who will only shoot under brilliant light situations, then you are missing out on a lot. Imagine you are on a safari or travelling and if you confine yourself to only shooting during the golden hour, you will be missing on the beauty and stories that unfold during the rest of the day.
The same applies to bird photography. Although bird photos turn out great when the light is soft or falling from the side at a lower angle, you can still use available light during any time of the day to get the best shots possible. Understanding light is of paramount importance and if you are struggling to use any light to your advantage, we recommend you to check out this eBook “Understanding Light” by Photzy, and discover how to produce amazing images.
And for your inspiration, here are 23 bird photographs there are shot with a good understanding of light.
Photo by Nitty Ditty
Photo by Rob Potter
Photo by Jonny Gios
Photo by Harshit Suryawanshi
Photo by David Clode
Photo by Tristan chatagny
Photo by René Lehmkuhl
Photo by Huzeyfe Turan
Light changes constantly throughout the day and if you observe carefully. it alters the mood of a scene as it changes. So, when you understand light and start using it, you will be able to alter the mood in your images or use a particular type of light to bring in a certain mood to your images. This eBook, “Understanding Light” by Photzy has 88 easy-to-follow pages packed with training, illustrations and assignments.
Photo by Hansjörg Rath
Photo by Jeremy Hynes
Photo by Rob Potter
Photo by Harshit Suryawanshi
Photo by Anna-Lena Helbrecht
Photo by René Lehmkuhl
Photo by Rohit Varma
Photo by Bob Brewer
When you understand light, you will be able to work around with the available light by either using reflectors or diffusers if necessary to change the intensity of light or to fill in areas where light is less. Understanding light is very interesting once you start to understand how it works and if you are worried where to start, check out this eBook “Understanding Light” by Photzy that will teach you about all the qualities of light and how to use them to your advantage.
It feels like the last couple of years the words artificial intelligence have dominated the photographic world. Camera companies, editing tools and stock agencies have rushed to embrace the AI revolution, often with a seemingly blatant disregard for the views of real world photographers.
However, whether we photographers love or loathe the rise of AI, there is no going back. That horse has bolted and we now have found ourselves in a position of how, when and why to embrace AI in our photography.
Not all AI is a force for bad in the photographic industry so today we are going to look at the good, the bad and the ugly. In order to end this article on a more positive note, I will start with the ugly.
The Ugly Aspects Of AI In Photography.
The obvious choice would be AI imaging, however I am going to put that into the bad, not the ugly. The real and most potentially damaging aspect of AI imaging is misrepresentation.
This can range from relatively harmless social media engagement farming all the way to the manipulation of politics using deep fakes. The latter can be blatantly obvious or it can be very subtle. An example of subtle manipulation is the use of deep faked old images of a country suggesting how things were so much better back in those days.
On Facebook the use of AI imagery to farm social media engagement has become rampant. Typical examples will be very obviously fake AI images of, for example, London in the snow. The images look beautiful to someone that knows little about London but to anyone who has ever been there, or to any photographer, they are blatantly AI. However there are huge numbers of people that believe these images and like, comment and then follow these pages.
Images like this are used to “farm”massive engagement on social media
All very innocent you might think, after all following a page of pretty pictures, is not harmful. However, the intent of these pages is often not that simple. Behind them are often companies or political groups that once they have enough followers, will change the name and tone of the page to suit their needs.
There are also deeper problems with the use of AI within the photographic community.
First and foremost is the homogenization of images. With stock agencies now licensing AI work, we are in danger of a world where websites and adverts are full of vaguely similar, faintly realistic images that actually have no relevance to real life. Of course the driving factor for this is cost, but by keeping the spending low, designers and advertisers risk losing the creativity that the photographic world brings to them.
An AI landscape that literally took second to create.
The Bad
I put AI imaging in general in the bad category. For this I am talking more about the use of AI within the general photographic community and industry rather than its worldwide use.
Whilst the use of AI images in social media and political campaigns is ugly, the general use of AI in photography I feel is bad but not surprising. The worst aspect of this is photographers, or indeed even non photographers passing off AI images as real photographs. Landscapes and wildlife seem to be particular favorites as they can appear a little more authentic than images of cities and towns.
Another concern is the potential loss of skill sets. Whilst enthusiast photography will continue, the demand for commercial, professional photography is at risk and with it the skills, talent and creativity of a large number of professional photographers.
There is also the issue of the use of AI within real imaging. Personally I differentiate between the use of AI to add elements that didn’t exist and the use of AI to aid editing. The former is bad, the latter is ok.
However, increasingly, some photographers are using AI to add elements to real photos that did not actually exist. One of the more obvious is the addition of light beams to twilight shots of lighthouses. However there are plenty more examples. Whilst I am not against this, I do feel photographers should be upfront about the use of AI to add to a shot.
There are also very real issues around copyright within AI imaging. Most non-photographers believe that an AI generated image is created entirely inside the CPUs of a vast computer. However, that’s not the case. AI has to be trained, and the only way it can be trained is by looking at real photographs by real photographers.
A significant number of the main AI companies have trawled the Internet, harvesting images without permission or recompense, throwing up also sorts of legal complications. It’s quite possible that you might see an AI image that looks startlingly similar to one of your own and not have any control over how it is used.
An AI stock image trained on real images, often without permission.
There Is Some Good News.
As I mentioned earlier, AI is here to stay. As photographers we can choose to ignore it (at our peril) or we can choose to embrace the more positive aspects of it.
At its simplest, we can use something like ChatGPT to inspire us when we are in the photographic doldrums. Simply tell AI what types of photography you like doing, and ask it to give you suggestions. This can be for a simple one hour shoot or for a year long project.
AI chat can also give us good answers to technical and even creative questions that we have about photography. Because photography is such a well trodden path online, the answers are often surprisingly comprehensive and accurate.
We will increasingly see the use of AI built into our cameras. My Sony a7Rv for example uses AI for focusing. It can determine the difference between multiple different subject types and predict their movement. AI will be incorporated into metering, white balance and quite possibly in the future, as a compositional aid.
Ai Chat can help solve problems and even inspire you
AI is increasingly being used in editing software. One of the most powerful tools I use is Lightroom’s AI denoise. I can now take 61mp images at 12800 ISO, run them through the denoise and get almost perfect, noiseless photos.
AI removal tools take a lot of the legwork out of cloning out blemishes or unwanted elements. We can automate tasks more easily, especially useful for photographers having to work on large batches of images. Selection tools have also become much easier to use with the advent of AI.
The use of AI in photography is a tricky and controversial subject. However, it is not going away and will only increase over time. As photographers it is our duty to define the way AI evolves, to be part of it rather than a victim to it. That is very much the challenge ahead for all of us.
The R5 Mark II has arrived! It is a good camera but very similar to the old R5 which came out in 2020. I’ve had the original R5 since it came out in October 2020 and the question I want answered is should I buy the new R5 Mark II?
In this post I will strive to answer this question with an honest comparison of these two great cameras.
Taken with the R5.
The old R5 has already been marked down by $1,000 on most websites. Previous generations always get reduced in price prior to the next gen camera’s but it still seems like a bit of a low price for a high quality camera like the R5. It looks like market demand for the R5 has tailed off substantially, and that is true for the R3 and R5C as well. That is why Canon is going for a relatively quick refresh of the R5 after almost exactly 4 years they’re upping the ante with a new R5, the R5 Mark II.
The main thing I want to know is this, is the old R5 at it’s reduced price a good purchase? Below are some stats to help you make sense of this puzzle.
Canon claims that the R5 Mark II is using a stacked sensor with Sony’s BSI technology. Stacked sensors are supposed to be able to “read out” the sensor much faster than the “old technology”. However, when it comes to video rolling shutter, the R5 Mark II performs exactly the same as the original R5. Perhaps the original R5 had a stacked sensor even though it wasn’t marketed as such? Or, maybe Sony’s sensor technology just isn’t that great.
Resolution
The R5 Mark II has the exact same resolution as the current R5.
Readout Speed / Rolling Shutter
The R5 Mark II has faster read out speed when using electronic shutter for still photos only. When using the fully electronic shutter for stills, the new R5 Mark II is more than twice as fast as the original R5 which makes the new R5 a lot better if you like to use electronic shutter… but it still isn’t anywhere close to as fast as a mechanical shutter.
The R5 Mark II’s readout speed remains the same as the R5 for video with a maximum speed around 13 milliseconds. However, the R5 Mark II now adds in 8k 60fps shooting at 13 milliseconds readout speed. This results in a similar readout performance to the original R5 which shot 4k 120fps at its maximum. 4k 120 is equal to 8k 60 in terms of readout performance as 4k 120 is done line skipped in the original R5. Reading half the lines at 120fps is obviously the same speed as reading them all out at 60fps. This type of readout is called “line skipped” readout. The new R5 Mark II, unfortunately, also does 4k 120fps as line skipped, limiting its maximum readout speed to the same as the original R5 for video purposes.
Video Improvements
The R5 Mark II now has 8k 60fps resolution which goes above the original R5’s 8k 30fps video resolution.
The R5 Mark II has also improved upon the dreaded overheating issues the original R5 had, even without the new external cooling battery grip available only for the R5 Mark II.
AF improvements
The R5 Mark II has the same AF system as the original R5 just with more firmware updates. There are no new features other than supposedly better tracking AF. Despite initial reports, I doubt the R5 Mark II will be as good as the R1 when it comes to subject tracking.
Faster CPU
There is no indication that the R5 Mark II has a different CPU when compared to the current R5.
Dynamic Range
According to online review sites, the new R5 Mark II has no dynamic range improvements in stills from 100 ISO to 6400 ISO. In fact, it appears to have slightly less dynamic range than the original R5. It is not known if the new R5 Mark II uses a dual gain sensor like the R5 used, but if it does use a dual gain sensor, it no longer switches to another gain circuit at 400 ISO, instead, this appears to be done at a much higher ISO past 1600.
The R5 has no problem picking up all the details in this scene of a white building with a gigantic white dome.
The 100% view crops below show that there are very few details missing in this shot taken in bright midday sun.
The basic point is, if the R5 isn’t adding more dynamic range then how is it going to make an image like this substantially better?
Well, for video at least, the R5 Mark II is going to add a couple features that some people will want to buy. It appears to have slightly more accurate colors out of camera which is great for people who want a faster workflow. I think the R5’s colors are close enough most of the time but it does require some color grading to look normal.
The R5 Mark II is also supposed to have a lot more dynamic range in video mode when shooting in LOG formats. Camera’s like the R5 C have a lot of dynamic range in LOG getting all the way up to 14 stops, but, the R5 Mark II is supposed to have 16+ stops when shooting LOG. That puts the R5 Mark II less than a stop below the latest and greatest cinema cameras… I know a lot of video people will be interested in that capability.
Ergonomics Updates
The R5 Mark II has slightly changed ergonomics and physical design. The power switch has been moved to the right side of the camera and there is now a fan included in the battery grip which modestly increases recording times for video. There is also a new flash hot shoe which allows the camera to work with Canon’s new lineup of super high-performance flashes.
Bottom Line
The new R5 Mark II is a great camera, which makes sense, since it is nearly the same as the original R5, but now with a few performance updates. Because of all the updates it is now $4,299. And at this price the fully electronic shutter is now competitive with the Nikon Z9, the Canon R3, and the Canon R1. In stills mode the electronic shutter can readout in about 6.3 milliseconds, whereas the original R5 is set to read out in about 16.8 milliseconds for a still photo. Unfortunately, the video readout speeds are just about the same between the two cameras. Because the new R5 Mark II still has overheating as an issue when shooting high resolution video, the sensor is intentionally slowed down to about the same speed as the original R5 to help increase shooting times. On a brighter note, the new R5 Mark II has 16+ stops of dynamic range when shooting in video LOG formats. Since there is no log format for stills, the dynamic range there is just about identical to the original R5. But, getting 16+ stops of dynamic range for 8k 60fps video means the R5 Mark II can definitely deliver some high quality video if called upon to do so.
If you shoot video the new R5 Mark II appears to be an upgrade over the original. However, if you shoot stills, the original R5 doesn’t give up a whole lot compared to the new one. True, you can shoot with the new electronic shutter, but, the good old mechanical shutter is still superior to every camera’s electronic shutter. Yes, the MECHANICAL SHUTTER IS STILL #1. Basically, there’s no point to an electronic shutter just yet, even though random dip shits will say ITS SOOO IMPORTANT. Well, it really isn’t GOOD ENOUGH. If electronic isn’t better than the mechanical shutter then it really isn’t a replacement for the mechanical shutter, is it?
If you really need maximum electronic shutter performance, the R5 Mark II still isn’t good enough in my opinion. It reads out in 6.3 milliseconds which is still quite slow. While it’s not exactly the same, it’s still only as fast to scan as a 1/160th shutter speed. And that means it’s more than 3 times slower than the R1 which reads out in 2 milliseconds. That disparity is partially explained by the lower resolution sensor (24mp vs 45mp), but it isn’t entirely explained by that. All things being equal the R5 should be able to read out in about 3-4 milliseconds.
Ok, the bottom line is this, the new R5 Mark II is a solid camera, but it’s more of a video-oriented camera. If you shoot video, it appears to be better than the original R5, but not really better than the R5 C which doesn’t overheat. For video, the R5 Mark II kind of makes sense if you want 8k 60fps right now, but it overheats even with the fancy battery grip. However, if you don’t need the highest resolution settings, you can enjoy 16+ stops of DR when shooting in LOG. Previously, the only Canon camera with that amount of dynamic range was the C300 Mark III.
For stills shooters the R5 and R5 Mark II are a little close for comfort. Aside from the electronic shutter being improved and the supposed AF improvements, there’s not a lot to get excited about. With the R5 now being about $1,500 cheaper it seems like the better option if you’re a landscape photographer or the like. It remains to be seen how much the R5 Mark II can really improve on its predecessor.
Every photograph I’ve ever made has been a lucky shot. The light was just right; without it, there’d be no mood in the image. The weather cooperated, or it didn’t, but in the end, the resulting rain or fog made for a much more visceral photograph. The elephants lined up just so, and I was lucky. That I even get to be in the extraordinary places I make my photographs is so, so lucky. Of course, I’m referring to the final images that get edited out from the sketches, developed, and printed. Many among the sketches are very unlucky, and still far more fail for reasons for which I have only myself to blame.
Luck is underappreciated in conversations about creativity. As a younger man, admitting that luck played a role in what I had made felt like giving away the credit; I had worked hard to get where I was, I had learned to use my gear, and I had anticipated the shot, so if someone implied that it was a “lucky shot” I was both offended and defensive. It has taken me some years to change that response to gratitude and to think differently about luck.
It’s not a question of whether we credit our best work to either luck or skill but whether we’re open to taking advantage of it being both luck and skill. Creative work is a dance between you and the circumstances in which you do your work.
As a photographer, artist, or human being, being creative is about responding to circumstance or luck. You’ve probably heard some version of “the more I practice, the luckier I get.” As aphorisms go, it certainly has a ring of truth to it, but it still feels a little disingenuous—like it’s not so much acknowledging the role of luck but claiming the credit. “I wasn’t lucky,” we say, “I was prepared.” Perhaps, but it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world if we let happenstance have a moment in the spotlight.
I’ve long been a proponent of being intentional in art-making and in life. In my early writing, I talked a lot about vision, which, depending on how you use the word, could probably be swapped out for “intent.” There’s great value in planning and forethought. Still, especially after making an unexpected shift into photographing wildlife, it’s been harder to kid myself about the serendipity on which I’ve been relying. It turns out being intentional in my work isn’t exclusive of sheer dumb luck.
So, luck being what it is, why talk about it at all if we have no control over it? Acknowledging luck probably keeps us humble, and there’s value in that where being perceptive is concerned. But there’s more value in being truly awake to luck—even looking and waiting for it.
The more you practice, the less likely it is that when luck does come, it will find you fiddling with your gear.
The more practiced you are, the more intuitive your craft will be for you, and the easier you’ll settle on a pleasing composition, dial in an exposure that’s not merely correct but truly expressive, and anticipate the strongest moments. Making a photograph might be a dance with luck, but it’s still up to you to follow that lead and be responsive to it. The more comfortable and practiced you are, the smoother that dance will be, and the better you’ll be able to improvise when your dance partner changes things up and your luck and circumstances go in a direction you didn’t expect, as things tend to do.
But there’s something else—the blind spot that occurs when you get too self-assured and stop being aware of luck and the magic you can find if you’re awake and looking for it. Almost every photograph I’ve ever made has a backstory that begins with my expectations and hopes—and ends somewhere else entirely, usually somewhere better and completely unexpected. I owe the credit to an openness to luck—and those crazy random happenstances. In most cases, I was looking or hoping for something else. Perhaps not something wildly different (though in some cases, that is certainly true), but very seldom does what I see in my mind’s eye match what I eventually see in my final picture, for which I am grateful. The best of my work has always been unexpected and is a creative response to that.
If this is true for you, it pays to be careful what you look for and to be mindful of your expectations. Expectations focus us; they narrow our gaze and give us the patience to wait for the moments we anticipate. But they can also make us unobservant of everything else that is going on, stopping us from seeing what would be very lucky indeed if only we were open to it.
The challenge of thinking or perceiving creatively as a photographer is being able to look for specifics without becoming oblivious to the unexpected.
I have found it helpful to breathe. To loosen up a little. To put the camera down and look around. To sit back and watch what’s going on. To be aware of my thoughts and be present. How many times have I invested time and attention in one scene, waiting for the moment, waiting for things to pop, only to realize the real opportunity was in an entirely different direction? That the stronger photograph was begging me to pivot and reimagine things? It happens so often that I’ve become suspicious of my first instincts; second-guessing my expectations has become my (rather counterintuitive) modus operandi. You’ve got to trust your gut, but that doesn’t mean you can’t ask it to consider all of its options.
You can’t photograph what you’re not open to seeing in the first place. I never thought I’d say this, but our very specific vision as photographers can be our greatest liability as much as it can be our greatest asset, and sometimes more so if what we’re looking for (or expecting to see) blinds us to the unexpected.
Spirit Bear (Kermode Bear), Great Bear Rainforest, British Columbia, Canada.
Years ago, in the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia, we had been photographing a Kermode (or “spirit”) bear, an American black bear with a recessive gene that makes it white. We had waited for hours to photograph this bear, so we were thrilled when it briefly appeared. But then it was gone just as quickly as it had arrived, and with it went my hopes for the kind of photograph I’d worked so hard to make: a spirit bear fishing in the creek. Dejected, I sat on a rock and waited for the bear to return, feeling the muscles in my shoulders and neck tightening, fearful I had missed my chance and was wasting my time. The rain was only making things worse. And then I heard my guide, Tom, whispering my name. I was annoyed; he knew I was looking for a bear and didn’t want to divert my gaze. As I reluctantly turned to look at him, he made a gesture—a subtle upward glance with his eyes and a tilt of his head. And there, just a few feet above him, was our bear, sitting with its head on a log, watching me from high on the river bank. The resulting photograph pleases me immensely, never mind the magic of that unforgettable moment.
I was looking so damn hard I wasn’t seeing. Being awake to luck isn’t the only thing; you’ve got to be there. If the strongest photographs happen at the most unexpected intersections of light, space, and time, then the longer you spend awaiting (and remaining open to seeing) those intersections, the better the chance you’ll be there when it happens.
Yes, chance favours the prepared, but it also favours the present. Sit in one place long enough, revisit a subject often enough, and you will be luckier.
You must be there long enough for things to happen, for the light to change, for you yourself to become more aware of these changes, and to develop interesting ideas about what you see. The more time you give it, the luckier you will be, but that time will also give you more chances to do something unexpected and to think differently about how you turn that luck into a photograph. At the risk of abusing the metaphor, it’s more time on the dance floor.
I don’t pretend to have the creative process figured out; it remains mysterious, and I like the wonder that that instills in me. Yet, with each passing year, it’s a little less unpredictable, a little less scary. What I do know is that any creative effort, like making a meaningful photograph, happens in the liminal space between what we can and cannot control. There is such freedom in this.
The more willingly I relinquish the desire to control what I can’t and relax my grip on things, the more grateful I am for luck and the more likely I am to be both prepared and present when I turn and find it sitting there, head resting on a log, waiting for me.
Are You Good or Just Lucky was originally published as In Praise of Luck and is an excerpt from my latest book,Light, Space & Time. You can find it here on Amazon or from your favourite bookstore.
Welcome to the Light Stalking weekly community wrap-up!
If you’ve been following these words for the last couple of weeks, you might have noticed the strong duality between light and time when attempting to capture the essence of movement. Curiously enough, the upcoming set, which always matches our current contests, spins around another classic of photographic practice; storytelling in a single frame!
But what makes such storytelling differ from the regular one? Personally, I see storytelling as the attempt of transmitting a broad story with the aid of visual and written information. However, when thinking about a single frame —capable of telling a story all by itself— things tricky quite fast.
However, I’ve witnessed a tendency towards thinking that these sorts of images are products of a single serendipitous shot. And to be honest, I blame this a bit on all the hype surrounding the oddly translated title from HCB‘s famous book “The Decisive Moment”. Originally titled in French as Images à la sauvette, which most closely translates to “images on the sly” or “hastily taken images”, this book has sort of aided the false belief that great photographs are those perfectly captured just once on silicon or film.
This way of thinking builds up the idea that if you don’t capture something perfectly on camera, you are doing it wrong. Or at least I thought of great iconic photographs as that, until I had the life-changing opportunity of coming across contact sheets; that’s when I knew we only get to see the decisive shot from the perspective of the editing board, not the author of the frame.
For today’s wrap-up, we’ve picked a fine selection of single storytelling frames shared on this week’s challenge. So, without more horsing around, let’s dive into what our talented community shared with us!
Photo of the Week
And speaking of sly, if you ever feel the need of illustrating how technology blends with photographic skills to capture sharp images on the run, this one can do a great job! Nocturnal street imagery, is both gorgeous and challenging; and of course, is better enjoyed with fast tools like the ones used on this magnificent — and full manual capture at ISO 1250, 1/400s, ƒ3.5:
copyright – davidc
A day in sales!
Congrats David, the light on this shot is just exquisite and the notorious expression of the subject makes it unique; thanks for sharing such a high quality photograph with us!
Weekly Photography Challenge Digest
Thanks again to Diane and Dahlia for pushing our creative boundaries one step forward every week!
copyright – Robert Applecopyright – Michaelcopyright – Wendy Pcopyright – Pat Garrettcopyright – Pat Garrettcopyright – davidccopyright – Timothy S. Allencopyright – Wendy Pcopyright – Patrickcopyright – Patrickcopyright – Patrickcopyright – Frogdailycopyright – Robert Applecopyright – Tershacopyright – Tersha
To contribute, check out the original challenge post!
A Highlight on the Latest Activity at our Community
Rob shared this fantastic non-ai generated image, ergo a stunning photograph!
copyright – Rob Eyers
Patrick shared this simple yet effective example of some basic composition understanding:
copyright – Patrick
Diane shared a familiar phenomena to all of us light stalkers:
copyright – Tersha
Last but not least, Patrick sends us all some nice good vibes
copyright – Patrick
Don’t forget to check the photo contest winners for the Essence of Movement; and remember, this month’s photo contest is now open for entries. The theme revolves on “Storytelling in a Single Frame“. Submit your photos for a chance to win $250, and please don’t forget voting as well. Last but not least, keep an eye out for the Members Picks — the instructions are pretty straightforward:
Members reference what you might consider a five-star photo. Give a call out to the photographer and share their photo even if it lies in the Shark Tank and feel free to give a Critique on why it trips your Trigger. Be sure to mention the photographer and the Thread you saw it in.
And if you want to make out the most of your LightStalking user account, make sure to check the latest posts. Also, don’t forget to swim the Mobile Monday Challenge! Last but not least, Check out the current reading throwdown, it has some nice insights and recommendations!
We’d Love To Hear Your Thoughts
Our Feedback Forum is a fine place for all those people wanting to grow fast as photographers. Here, you’ll get your work reviewed by well-intended photographers, but you’ll also have the chance to comment on the work of others. We believe in the power of feedback, and here are the latest shots shared in the pool:
The Shark Tank is a great place to learn and to discuss, but please read the instructions in order to get a better experience. Share your comments, opinions and doubts on any or all of the images above. We will also be delighted to see some of your own images. Remember, all comments are given to the photographs; not the photographers. Also, don’t forget to participate in our upcoming challenge!
Digital cameras are just like any electronic device. They can last a really long time, but they don’t last forever. How long they last is usually determined by how well they’re treated, but, there is more to it than that.
Issues with old digital cameras
Batteries
One possible issue with older digital cameras is the batteries they use. Most old cameras use proprietary batteries that may not be in production anymore. If you can’t power your camera it doesn’t matter if it is in good condition or not, you’ll have to figure how to get it to turn on before you can use it.
Media
Some older cameras used obsolete media, such as Sony Memory Sticks, Mini Disks, Floppy Disks, VHS tape, Digital VHS tape, or even CD-ROMS. It might seem absurd to us today, but prior to the creation of SD cards, there were a number of cameras that used weird and potentially unavailable media. While a camera that uses a Floppy Disk is more of a collector’s item than a real camera these days, the point remains, there are some unusual old technologies that won’t be supported by a modern laptop or desktop computer without some effort on your part.
If you can verify that the used camera you’re interested in uses a media type that you are able to work with, and you can verify that it has new batteries available for it so you can turn it on, then you can start looking at the condition and functionality of the camera.
Condition
Condition and functionality is the most complex part of assessing a used camera. People often sell cameras that have sat in a basement unused for 20 or more years and nobody remembers if it was ever a working camera. Even if you know that you can get batteries and media for it, you may not be able to test it out right then and there.
Usually when something is brand new we can tell that it’s basically brand new because it has that “new car smell” so to speak. And that’s not just a fancy turn of phrase, smelling a camera or lens can give you a good idea of how nicely or poorly it has been treated. If a camera smells clean and fresh, it’s probably been kept in a clean and dry area for most of it’s life. If it has a strong, sharp plastic or glue smell, it could mean that the rubber or plastics are breaking down. And finally, if it has a strong musty or dusty smell that generally means it’s been sitting in a damp and dark place for a long time.
The problem with dampness and electronics should be pretty obvious. Over time, the dampness will ruin the camera or lens if it is left sitting in those conditions long enough. Dampness and musty basements can eventually lead to mold growth inside the lens, damaging lens element coatings, and usually forming a thin film of fog or haze on the lens. It takes a lot to ruin these old lenses, but some people seem to be working hard on figuring out how to do that.
I have quite a few lenses with small amounts of haze in the lens and they work great. As long as the haze isn’t too bad, it’s usually not noticeable, but when it does get bad, it can cause low contrast in bright light, or blooming around light sources. A professional might be able to clean them but they can be hard to locate.
Manual Lenses – The Panacea of Used Gear
If you’re buying manual focus lenses the truth is there isn’t much that can go wrong that you wouldn’t be able to figure out in the first 15 minutes of having it to look at and test.
Manual lenses can be easily adapted to just about any mirrorless camera, and once you get the hang of it, focusing with manual lenses is actually pretty easy, even for video work.
Aside from looking inside the lens to make sure it is clean and clear, there’s honestly very little that can go substantially wrong with a manual lens over its lifetime. The biggest danger is going to be mishandling the lens by dropping it.
As long as the lens is cared for and stored properly there’s no reason it won’t last for a lifetime or much longer.
AF Lenses – Some Companies Still Support Old Gear
Autofocus lenses are another story entirely. Technically speaking, just about any AF lens could be adapted to work on just about any other camera, but that requires lots of technical skill and reprogramming of computer chips. It’s not an easy task but it’s doable. The thing is, it’s a lot easier to just buy a new lens that works with the camera you’ve got.
A few companies like Canon make it easier to adapt old EF lenses to their new RF camera platform. Simply by using an EF to RF adapter, just about any EF lens can be used with no issues on an RF camera. If all you’re really after is a lens with good AF performance then many EF lenses are great options if you’re on a budget or just want a lens with a different look. I have some old EF lenses and I like all of them.
