Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 06 Jul 2013 (Saturday) 06:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ditching DSLR for Mirrorless

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:23 |  #76

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16098970 (external link)
I've been doing a lot of reading (and posting) of late and this thread (and the questions it raises) are a favorite. I mean, what could be more exciting than the possibility of replacing your entire setup with something smaller and cheaper and yet more powerful. But I'm not seeing it.

I'm still new to the idea of mirrorless, but it seems less of a problem looking for an answer, than the other way around. Starting with a bit of context, there are two things going on with the camera industry (I'd also say the death of film, but it's already so complete..): 1) point/shoot cameras are being swallowed up by the cell phone and 2) companies other than Nikon and Canon are watching for something disruptive to knock these established brands off their pedestals.

The answer that is mirror less, is trying to do both. Fuji and Sony and Panny have rushed to market with all new systems, catching Nikon and Canon off guard with something radical. They are also trying to inspire budding phone photographers into making dedicated camera purchases. Canon stumbled in with the M and appears poised to leap ahead with dual pixel focusing on the next model. But it's still not clear where we are going. It's like we are missing the pied piper (or Steve Jobs) to show us the way.

Does mirrorless offer SLR-like lenses to people who have outgrown App Store options, yes. Does mirrorless offer SLR flexibility and control to people who don't need the full ecosystem of SLR options, maybe. Does mirrorless offer environmental connectedness of a real through the lens viewfinder, no. So mirrorless has done better at only one mission, but it's not a bad approach for a lot of uses, either.

A major advantage of crop sensor SLRs is that equivalent length lenses are shorter/skinnier/light​er, because the target square is smaller. Mirrorless takes this a step further by moving the sensor closer to the glass, now equivalent length lenses can be even shorter/skinnier/light​er. But I can't write that sentence without the word 'length' because they are not fully equivalent. EF lenses come in 3+ classes, and as long as people buying the top (L) aren't getting an M instead of a 1D or 5D, people wanting that glass must do the same. It's the main thing that will make someone buy a 5D4 instead of a 7D2. And it will be the main thing holding back a truly professional M.

The point of an SLR is to have a high quality viewfinder. As long as that's important and as long as that is not available on mirrorless, the preeminence of SLRs will continue.

if that's the case they better start turning a profit because without Nikon and Canon the mirrorless market is doomed. Nikon and Canon are the market. they are the ones making money on their cameras.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:28 |  #77
bannedPermanent ban

ElectronGuru wrote in post #16098970 (external link)
I've been doing a lot of reading (and posting) of late and this thread (and the questions it raises) are a favorite. I mean, what could be more exciting than the possibility of replacing your entire setup with something smaller and cheaper and yet more powerful. But I'm not seeing it.

I'm still new to the idea of mirrorless, but it seems less of a problem looking for an answer, than the other way around. Starting with a bit of context, there are two things going on with the camera industry (I'd also say the death of film, but it's already so complete..): 1) point/shoot cameras are being swallowed up by the cell phone and 2) companies other than Nikon and Canon are watching for something disruptive to knock these established brands off their pedestals.

The answer that is mirror less, is trying to do both. Fuji and Sony and Panny have rushed to market with all new systems, catching Nikon and Canon off guard with something radical. They are also trying to inspire budding phone photographers into making dedicated camera purchases. Canon stumbled in with the M and appears poised to leap ahead with dual pixel focusing on the next model. But it's still not clear where we are going. It's like we are missing the pied piper (or Steve Jobs) to show us the way.

Does mirrorless offer SLR-like lenses to people who have outgrown App Store options, yes. Does mirrorless offer SLR flexibility and control to people who don't need the full ecosystem of SLR options, maybe. Does mirrorless offer environmental connectedness of a real through the lens viewfinder, no. So mirrorless has done better at only one mission, but it's not a bad approach for a lot of uses, either.

A major advantage of crop sensor SLRs is that equivalent length lenses are shorter/skinnier/light​er, because the target square is smaller. Mirrorless takes this a step further by moving the sensor closer to the glass, now equivalent length lenses can be even shorter/skinnier/light​er. But I can't write that sentence without the word 'length' because they are not fully equivalent. EF lenses come in 3+ classes, and as long as people buying the top (L) aren't getting an M instead of a 1D or 5D, people wanting that glass must do the same. It's the main thing that will make someone buy a 5D4 instead of a 7D2. And it will be the main thing holding back a truly professional M.

The point of an SLR is to have a high quality viewfinder. As long as that's important and as long as that is not available on mirrorless, the preeminence of SLRs will continue.

Couple things to add:

1. Pro cameras and L glass make up a small portion of the camera world. There will always be a need for this top tier systems...but they are a niche in the big scheme of things.

2. The now generation have grown up without a viewfinder be it using their cell phones or their P&S cameras...so the lack of an OVF really is not a con for the mirrorless systems.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 345
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:28 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #78

Hey Ed. In the future instead of quoting an entire book and then highlighting one tiny sentence, how about deleting the rest of the book instead so we don't have to scroll through it all?

Thanks.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff_56
Senior Member
285 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2013
Location: SE Ohio
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:35 |  #79
bannedPermanent ban

You do realize that the mirrors are in the camera bodies, not the lenses right? The point of mirror is to allow you to see the scene as the lens sees it, in mirrorless cameras this is done with an electronic view finder or via liveview.

That isn't always the case. Nikon developed a lot of lenses with mirrors in the lens early on. Read this web page (external link) for a better description of the early mirror lenses. They still exist too.

Like I said I didn't explain it well. The mirrors certainly exist in the cameras now but I'm not at all sure they will ever produce the same IQ of the mirrored systems we have now. After all they are making the lenses smaller. That's their point and that's why I think the IQ might never reach current DSLR levels. Glass matters and it takes big glass to grab a lot of light. You can get better images with a bigger lens and a 2mp camera than you can get with a small lens and a 12 mp camera. I've tried both so I know that's true.

I admit I did a really bad job of explaining what I was thinking before. I should have taken more time to write the response. Back in the 60's they used mirrors to make lenses smaller by putting the mirrors in the lens. To me eliminating mirrors in the camera and going with smaller lenses because you can is no better of a way to go about things than those early Nikons. They both have limitations IMO.

the lack of an OVF really is not a con for the mirrorless systems.

It will be as soon as those cameras are taken out into the sun to shoot images. I have video cameras that rely mainly on screens for shooting video but there seemed to be more times I needed the viewfinder than the view screen. I've had a couple of cameras that didn't include a viewfinder. They can become paper weights if the sun is at the wrong angle. You just can't use them. Smart phones are like that too. Some screens are clearly better than others but I haven't seen any that didn't suffer from this problem at all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,140 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 456
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:45 |  #80

FEChariot wrote in post #16099077 (external link)
Hey Ed. In the future instead of quoting an entire book and then highlighting one tiny sentence, how about deleting the rest of the book instead so we don't have to scroll through it all?

Thanks.

i'll take it under consideration but i'm not making any promises :D.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4106
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Jul 07, 2013 13:45 |  #81

Jeff_56 wrote in post #16099089 (external link)
That isn't always the case. Nikon developed a lot of lenses with mirrors in the lens early on. Read this web page (external link) for a better description of the early mirror lenses. They still exist too.

Like I said I didn't explain it well. The mirrors certainly exist in the cameras now but I'm not at all sure they will ever produce the same IQ of the mirrored systems we have now. After all they are making the lenses smaller. That's their point and that's why I think the IQ might never reach current DSLR levels. Glass matters and it takes big glass to grab a lot of light. You can get better images with a bigger lens and a 2mp camera than you can get with a small lens and a 12 mp camera. I've tried both so I know that's true.

I admit I did a really bad job of explaining what I was thinking before. I should have taken more time to write the response. Back in the 60's they used mirrors to make lenses smaller by putting the mirrors in the lens. To me eliminating mirrors in the camera and going with smaller lenses because you can is no better of a way to go about things than those early Nikons. They both have limitations IMO.

I'm familiar with catadioptric lenses. That's not what this thread is about. Those are lenses built like mirrored telescopes, which allows you to have a long focal length in a small package, but you are stuck with a fixed aperture and funky donut shaped bokeh.

Removing the mirror from the camera is different. Right now I shoot primarily from a tripod using liveview. That means most of the time I'm not using the mirror in my camera. ;) I'm using my 5D2 as a "mirrorless" camera. You can still use the same size sensor and now you can make the lenses smaller. Right now any lens that is shorter than the register distance of the sensor (distance from flange to sensor) has to be retrofocal. This means the image is focused inside of the lens and then projected out the back. That's why the 40mm is so small. It's why the 50 1.2 is smaller than the 35 1.4. Compare those lenses to their Leica equivelants, since Leica are FF mirrorless, interchangable lens cameras.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jul 07, 2013 14:54 |  #82
bannedPermanent ban

Jeff_56 wrote in post #16099089 (external link)
It will be as soon as those cameras are taken out into the sun to shoot images. I have video cameras that rely mainly on screens for shooting video but there seemed to be more times I needed the viewfinder than the view screen. I've had a couple of cameras that didn't include a viewfinder. They can become paper weights if the sun is at the wrong angle. You just can't use them. Smart phones are like that too. Some screens are clearly better than others but I haven't seen any that didn't suffer from this problem at all.

EVF are just as easy to use in the sun as OVF. Why do you assume mirrorless cameras will only have the LCD to use...the EOS-M has been negatively affected for it's lack of a EVF.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ravenseal
Member
65 posts
Joined May 2013
Location: Florida
     
Jul 07, 2013 18:30 |  #83

Hogloff wrote in post #16096818 (external link)
Again, EVF's have been around for an extemely short time. The future of that technology is boundless. Let's give them 5 years and see what you'll have to say.

Remember when digital cameras first made the scene, producing mediocre small images...everyone poopoo'd them. Where are we now?

I was looking at an NEX-7 today at Best Buy, the Sony salesman was telling me how they've thoroughly improved detail with OLED EVFs.

When I actually picked up the camera, anything more than 10ft away was noticeably distorted. Anything beyond 30ft was entirely lacked detail.

How many pixels can they honestly pack into 1/2"? and if they can somehow do so, how much of the cost will get passed onto the consumer? The answer is all of it, as if Mirrorless camera's weren't already overpriced when compared to DSLRs.


Current Camera - Nikon D5200 + FX 24-85 VR | AF-S DX 35mm 1.8 |AF-S DX 18-55 VR | AF-S DX 55-200mm VR
Previous Gear - Canon 60D - Sony NEX-5R - Nikon D3000

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jul 07, 2013 20:19 |  #84
bannedPermanent ban

ravenseal wrote in post #16099837 (external link)
I was looking at an NEX-7 today at Best Buy, the Sony salesman was telling me how they've thoroughly improved detail with OLED EVFs.

When I actually picked up the camera, anything more than 10ft away was noticeably distorted. Anything beyond 30ft was entirely lacked detail.

How many pixels can they honestly pack into 1/2"? and if they can somehow do so, how much of the cost will get passed onto the consumer? The answer is all of it, as if Mirrorless camera's weren't already overpriced when compared to DSLRs.

Don't forget EVF are in their infancy with huge potentials going forward. What we have today is not what we'll have 3 years from now.

Price wise, that's just all market positioning. Personally I am not too happy with Canon's latest lens pricing strategy...are you?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,647 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 92
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Jul 07, 2013 20:52 |  #85

ravenseal wrote in post #16099837 (external link)
When I actually picked up the camera, anything more than 10ft away was noticeably distorted. Anything beyond 30ft was entirely lacked detail.

Did you use the critical focus aid/zoom feature to increase the detail of the distant objects? Something you can't do with an OVF :D I find that extremely useful on my GH2 with a 300 mm lens...


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jeff_56
Senior Member
285 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Jan 2013
Location: SE Ohio
     
Jul 08, 2013 00:59 |  #86
bannedPermanent ban

I'm familiar with catadioptric lenses. That's not what this thread is about. Those are lenses built like mirrored telescopes, which allows you to have a long focal length in a small package, but you are stuck with a fixed aperture and funky donut shaped bokeh.

I know what they are. I know what mirrorless cameras are too. I know what an EVF is too. You people are so busy looking at the trees you don't seem to be able to look at the forest. The design of the SLR, including the mirror designs both inside the camera those early models that were inside the lens, made it possible to use interchangeable lenses. They use large lenses that gather lots of light making for a lot of advantages including but not limited to bokeh. And most mirrorless cameras do not use EVF's. They use LCD's which are hard to use in the sunlight.

The point I was making is that there are lots of things that need to be worked out and some will be worked out quicker than others. It's a long process and one that wil surge forward and fall back if history is any predictor.

Certain things will seem unnatural to a lot of people just like the lack of brakes on a gearless bike or the lack of a free wheeling set of pedals that can be used as brakes by reversing them. My comment was meant to point out that certain things will be missed and it won't seem natural to have a camera that doesn't have them or can never use them.

So if you want to argue over catadioptric setups (all modern cameras have them BTW except for the mirrorless cameras). Any camera that uses both reflective and refractive optical devices is a catadioptric system. I believe that describes SLR type cameras pretty well. Not using mirrors is an entirely new process and is one that will make people like me (that remember the kid's bicycles of the 1950's and 1960's) wonder if something isn't going to go wrong at any time even if it isn't going to. And when I said cameras without mirrors in the lenses I meant the lenses inside the camera as well as the actual lenses inside a lens system. I suppose my classes on light physics are more foggy than I had thought because I didn't explain what I was thinking well and that's a sign that my memories are murky. But I do know that reflex mirrors are technically lenses even if most people don't look at them as if they are. We made our own lenses in my light physics class. Trust me I do know what they are. I guess I need to limit myself to the terminology limits of the photography crowd or maybe I should just talk to my son about it who turned down a chance to get a Phd in light physics from Harvard because they didn't get as many job offers. He "only" got a masters in light physics instead. He was designing laser systems for the Air Force but he's moved on to another job now. I'm really not sure exactly what he does but it's in the same field. He can't discuss a lot of what he does since it's top secret. I have picked up a good bit from him too especially since I took that light physics class way back when. We discuss such things pretty frequently. I would suggest that before you nitpick what others have to say that you expand your own horizons and learn why it is you are missing the point.

I won't bother to return to this thread. I have better things to do than explain that photography terminology isn't the be all and end all of light physics terminology. And I don't wish to spend my time explaining the differences. There always seems to be someone that just can't help themselves from trying to find fault in what others are saying. God knows why they do it but every internet forum has them. 9 times out of 10 it's their own lack of understanding that is the real issue.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iowajim
Senior Member
Avatar
518 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 53
Joined Mar 2011
Location: North Central Iowa
     
Jul 08, 2013 01:11 |  #87

Jeff_56 wrote in post #16099089 (external link)
I admit I did a really bad job of explaining what I was thinking before. I should have taken more time to write the response.

Well...


Jim, in Iowa
80D / T2i / Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 / Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 / Canon 24-105 f4 / Tamron SP VC 70-200mm f2.8 / Sigma 150-600mm C

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Neilyb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,192 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 444
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Munich
     
Jul 08, 2013 02:17 |  #88

My Sony NEX is great, great for taking my daughter as face detect does all the work. Great when shooting outdoors in good light. I made the mistake of taking it to a party at the weekend, indoors at night... I wish I had my 5DIII with me. :|There are too many weaknesses to make mirrorless a pro camera, works for general stuff and maybe even a few landscape if I need to save weight but a serious camera it is not.


http://natureimmortal.​blogspot.com (external link)

http://www.natureimmor​tal.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c_henry
Member
124 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Jul 2011
Location: London, UK
     
Jul 08, 2013 04:03 |  #89

Well, I've got both, I bought the Olympus E-P1 as soon as it was released 3-4 years ago and pre-ordered the OM-D. I use my mirrorless (OM-D's, E-PL5 and EOS-M) a lot more than I use my DSLRs. A lot of the downsides that have been mentioned are just not issues for me, but I appreciate they are for some, here's my take:

EVF - I prefer the EVF. I like the way I can see the effects of exposure compensation immediately. The OM-D has a really nice EVF and the VF-4 is even better and gives a larger and more detailed image. You see a 100% of the viewfinder. I also like that you can get all sorts of information on there, such as a live histogram, when shooting. In really low light the EVF image brightness is increased making it easier to see what's going on.

DoF - Having extremely shallow DoF is, for me very occasionally, nice to have but I can probably count the number of times I've taken a photo and thought "Wow! Wished I'd had less DoF". There have been plenty of times where I've taken a photo and thought "Wish I'd had more DoF". For a lot of the pictures I do, event photography, having twice the DoF of a FF at the same aperture is a very good thing. I think for the 90% of photographers the extra DoF is welcomed. But it depends on the type of photography you do obviously. If you must truly have extremely shallow DoF all the time, then go for medium format.

No mirror - DSLRs are noisy. When I'm covering an event I can hear the mirror of the other photographer from across the room (5D3). Personally I love the sound that my 1D and 1Ds make, but when photographing a presentation or seminar it can be distracting for both the speaker and the guests.

AF - Good and bad here. The Good: Very fast, I mean, very, very fast AF. I'd say faster than any DSLR. No front or back focussing issues with CDAF (all of my DSLRs are too old to have the MA feature). Features like face recognition, where it spots a face and you can set it to focus on the left or right eye. Focus tracking of faces. The Bad: Slow C-AF. But the AF is so fast you can probably get away with single AF given the DoF advantage of the smaller sensor.

IS - On the Olympus cameras it's built in, so any lens, m43 or a lens with an adapter, has IS and it works with video.

Lenses - DSLR have more lenses, though a lot are repeats of each other, as in they cover a lot of the same focal lengths. The selection for m43 is only getting bigger and there's a very nice selection of primes available. True there's only a single 3rd party T&S lens, but even in the DSLR world a T&S lens is a tiny seller compared to other lenses. I'd rather manufacturers concentrate on the more popular focal lengths before producing more specialised lenses. There's a couple of good 1:1 macro's, such a the Olympus 60mm f2.8 which is extremely sharp. My Olympus 75mm f1.8 beats my 135L for sharpness! Panasonic are bringing out a 150mm f2.8 though the current m43 AF doesn't make for a sports camera, yet.

Size / Weight - I think these speak for themselves. I love my 1DS2 and 70-200, but my OM-D and 35-100 are a lot easier to carry around. In my Kata rucksack, I can get my 5D, 28-70 and maybe another lens. With m43 I can get, 2 OM-Ds, one gripped, a 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8, 35mm f1.8, 24mm f2.0 and a 18-36mm equivalent lenses all with hoods attached.

IQ - Yes the FF camera's produce better IQ (though that's dependant on the sensor generation), the APS-C ones not so much. But the OM-D matches my 1Ds2, beats it at higher ISO's, and very few have complained about the IQ from a 1Ds2. How much IQ is enough?

With all that said, and even though I use my mirrorless camera's more than my DSLRs, I still can't get rid of them, yet. I dare anyone to slap a 70-200 f2.8 L onto a 1 series body and not think "Awesome!".

TL;DR: Mirrorless camera's are here to stay, I suppose at some point they might well replace DSLRs, but we're not there yet. I'd suggest to anyone to get one and have a play, it may not make you rush out and replace your DSLR, but I'm certain it will surprise you with it's IQ from a light, small form factor.

Colin




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mackeral
Senior Member
Avatar
524 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Jul 08, 2013 06:27 |  #90
bannedPermanent ban

I'm not sure if I'd consider dumping DSLR's yet but looking at alternative options is enticing. I just got my x100 and love the portability. Because of the research on that I've looked at some of Fuji's interchangeable lens systems and the OM-D line and they do seem enticing. I love my 70-200 though and the thought of giving up that glass isn't entirely appealing.


"Complete quietness surrounded me as the dense fog smothered all sounds. As the sun rose, lifting the fog to reveal this majestic mountain, all my thoughts of the daily hustle and bustle were put away, allowing me to sit in solitude with nature."
-Utter Bull

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

15,465 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ditching DSLR for Mirrorless
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is copyairpods
833 guests, 231 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.