In anticipation of our in-depth buying guide, our friends in the North have been looking at a handful of the latest instant cameras.
Chris and Jordan stocked up on Instax Mini film to feed the twin-lens reflex Mint TL70 and the simpler (and strangely similar) Fujifilm Neo 90 and Leica Sofort. Then, just for some variety, they grabbed the square-format Fujifilm SQ6.
Fantastic roundup! There is definetely a place in the market for cameras like these. Yes, very expensive but it's nice to know that the photo that one takes is the only one of it's kind out there. I enjoyed the video guys and keep up the good work!
It would be great to see some of the portable printer options from the instax range to compare the quality from the real camera and the convenience of being able to share digitally.
My daughter has the Instax SP-2 printer and loves it. She originally wanted an instax camera and i was going to buy her a mini 90 but realized that the printer would allow her to take much better quality photos with her iphone, which she always has with her, and allow her to chose which ones she wanted to print which would reduce the cost of film. She has had friends pay her to print some of their images too. It think it's great that kids want to actually print things out and see them for longer than the 2 seconds a digital image gets viewed.
As mentioned, this was a look at the smaller formats (Instax Mini & Square). We're planning to look at larger formats (Instax Wide, Polaroid 600) in the future.
I saw a couple of times a Chinese youtube guy with a British accent, that is quite funny to watch when he's walking and talking about camera's and lenses while sitting at the toilet.
I want to give my daughter a Fuji Neo 90 having seen this informative video. Thanks to Chris and Jordan that is.
I brought my SX70 and some new Polaroid film to a family party. I was thinking I'd have all these great photos afterwards. Everyone was excited and the young people were intrigued and very curious to see the print develop right before their eyes.
My SX70 is from a time when Polaroid was using TimeZero film. I couldn't believe how long it took for the film made today to develop. It was at least 1-2 minutes before an image appeared. I looked at the back of the camera and it said I had 2 shots left, so I saved it for the cake. When I shot the photo nothing came out. I just wasted a flash bulb. Argh. Only 8 shots per pack. There should have been 10. Sigh.
In the end I went home with 1 photo because everyone took the Polaroid shots that I took of them! So, don't use a Polaroid for family functions. You'll end up empty handed.
I had a couple packs of Time Zero film. To my surprise the old Time Zero film worked. The film developed almost instantly and an image appeared within 5 seconds.
Isn't the fact that you ended up almost empty-handed part of the point of instant photos though, namely that you could give them away to the subjects? Sounds like a success to me.
A lot of serious artists used polaroid film back in the day; I saw a book recently of a Polaroid exhibition in the late 70s including names like David Hockney, William Eggleston, even Ansel Adams. Some worked with larger format Polaroid films but many did SX-70, for example Hockney's series, which was fantastic. The rendering of these films were beautiful. It's a pity the revived Polaroid film sounds to be of lower quality.
Nice review of a type of camera I'm just not all that interested in but learned a good deal about. They all look like fun toys. I do like the funky-square shape. I'd prefer a large digital sensor with low pixel density like maybe 8MB max and data transfer to groupshare cloud everyone at the party can regret later on. More booze equals more interesting embarrassment.
I am here by error, I saw an 6x6 reflex camera for "Instant Camera Roundup" and wanted to check. It is for "Instant Camera Roundup", I could not read the camera's name, just after enlargement of photo. . .
I seem to remember Polaroid instant film costing around $1 per print. Which was the minimum cost, if every shot was a keeper. But it was fun, and it was different, so I thought about buying some to run through my old Polaroid camera.
8 shots for $36.95, or roughly $5 per shot after sales tax. Seems like a bit too much for a party gag.
EDIT: I went back and checked again, because it just seemed too high. Sure enough, the website was Australian, and the price was in Australian dollars. Which means around $27 USD for 8 shots. Still too high.
I can't speak for instax, but for some reason I have a much, much greater percentage of keepers with film (35 mm though) than with digital. I don't know the exact explanation for it, but one cannot calculate based on how digital works. Most people, including me, take too many unnecessary and uninteresting digital photos, which is part of why I have largely moved back to film. I agree instax is too expensive though.
The explanation is simple. Digital is essentially free, and film isn't. When it costs nothing to press the shutter you take a lot more shots. So we all take unnecessary shots with digital that we would never take if we were using film.
2 euros and change per shot for SX-70 if you buy a 3-pack, so the price is significantly better than Instax. More than a dollar, but it is also 40 years later.
A bit off-topic, but I pay about 50 cents per shot for 35mm including development and scanning. OTOH I don't have to get a new camera every couple of years as one does with digital and cellphones (my film cameras are respectively 25 and 40 years old and function perfectly) so I save a lot on cameras, which also has to be taken into account. I'm not sure how long these instax cameras will last though, they seem to have a lot of electronics.
Based on your link, 24 exposures cost 45 Euro, or $2.18 each at today's exchange rate.
Yes, it is more like "over two dollars" per shot. But your point is still valid. Instant film was never cheap. It wasn't cheap 40 years ago, and it isn't cheap today.
The difference is that 40 years ago the same company that sold you the camera also sold you the film. So they sold cameras under the cost of production in order to sell more film.
Olifaunt, why do you have to buy a new camera or phone? Unless it breaks, you don't unless you're unhappy with it. As for breaking, the shutter on my Mamiya 645 Super lasted just 5 years.
My son, a millennial, loves his Instax. Meanwhile, my Polaroid Spectra sits on the shelf with no film (except for some horrid stuff) available. Go figure.
For that reason I thought Impossible would be using the same old Polaroid chemical formulas, but it seems some people are implying otherwise. I haven't used either but I love the old Polaroid film looks and have been thinking of trying my hand at it, so the answer would be of interest to me. Polaroid cameras are a dime a dozen in local thrift shops so I don't think the box would be a problem to get.
I've tried the Impossible film, and there's no way it's the same as original Polaroid film. Very dull, low contrast, and issues with uneven development. Never again, especially since the Instax cameras are so nice.
The image with the new Polaroid film takes a LONG time to develop where an image won't appear for about a minute or two. The original Time Zero would literally show an image within 5 second after the picture was taken.
Well, there were several different polaroid films with different properties and very different pallettes. Time zero was apparently fast to develop but a bit dull and low contrast and wouldn't be my first choice for most subjects. I do think SX-70 had a nice pallette, so that's one I'd like to have. Also the 600 series ones. From some googling it appears that the Impossible ones are different from the originals in development conditions, etc., (e.g., they can take up to a half hour to develop fully and need to be in the dark,unlike the originals) so sounds like they are still ironing the kinks out a bit unfortunately.
Remember watching something on YouTube about this - When the original Polaroid went txts-up, a lot of the film-making machinery was sold off, the formula and the expertise in making the film formula was lost/dispersed. Impossible tried to make the film again with some of the salvaged machinery, but only got close (ie had a high failure rate, and had to let the films develop in the dark for half hour or whatever). Instax is the closest to having a fuss-free polaroid-type result.
Very fun watch with the light hearted/not serious approach and well matched for these fun cameras. I had 8 of the Fuji Instaxcameras sitting on tables at my daughters wedding last year in SF. Most of the attendees were the millennials and working in the tech industry and these cameras were a big hit. Even the pro photographer and assistant got in on the fun.
Yes, it's what people do with these, but the hard truth is that really nobody wants to see more of our photos shared online. They really don't. Even in the old film days people just suffered through and endured our vacation albums to be polite. Unless one has the discipline to post just one truly great image a week, now they "like" them to be polite or to be liked back. Which is the advantage of just physically sharing, or giving, these prints in the moment to whomever they have meaning.
Sharing also involves email or messaging. The point is that there is noting about these instant prints which is a barrier to handling them as you would something you took with a digital camera.
Instant cameras are great fun. They don't compete with digital. They complement each other... Just like film.
Personally I prefer larger formats. Instax wide, peel apart or polaroid square. And it's not expensive. If you take the pictures you want to take, $1 per picture is not that much.
Excellent video Chris and Jordan. Your videos are the only ones I will watch for a review, otherwise, much easier to read a review. Something to think about, maybe to add a transcript, for those whom like to read. On content, doesn't Fuji also have a fake instant camera that not only prints but also saves files to be uploaded to social media. May have been worth mentioning as it was one of your bigest gripes with the test. Keep up the good videos.
You're thinking of the SQ10 - apparently it's a bxtch to actually get those digital images out of the camera and onto your laptop/phone/whatever - It was built from the ground up as a closed system unit. Why do I say that? The sensor they chose for it is 3.7mp or somesuch - Fine for an instax square print, but around a 15 year throwback in terms of resolution for a regular digital camera - IF they were serious in letting you take shots on it, and easily and freely transfer those pics elsewhere.
I congratulate Chris and Jordan. They have been able to maintain the quality of TCS videos and upped the frequency considerably.
However, having said this ...
Where is the cooperation with the rest of DPR, where are proper video resumees of review work done by dpr, where is the lab input into DPR videos which was promised? TCS on steroids isn't exactly what the world (me at least) was looking for ...
We're working on a way to more closely integrate DPReview's work with our video content. You should start seeing the results in the next wave of pre-Photokina camera announcements. Thanks for watching, and we really appreciate the feedback!
falconeyes TCS on steroids sounds pretty good to me :)
Jordan - sounds good, I can imagine it's a surprisingly tough challenge to adapt your content and style, and work out where using DPR content adds value vs repeats dry technical content we could all just get here anyway.
Falconeyes, all I'd say is - be careful what you wish for, crossover sounds nice, but two sources of information that differ substantially might actually be more useful... I do trust the guys to get it right though.
@LodgeandTurn Actually, I was referring to Chris‘ and Jordan‘s initial reasoning given after the change. I fear that just upping frequency may eventually burn out these two great guys ...
If it was not that expensive… But I still love it. I do not think about a current Fuji-Instax, but will carry my last Films this summer. Please do have a look to the digicammuseum.de Blog article "Polaroid"
I am a millennial and categorically refuse to watch any video reviews. I can read many times faster than the flow of information in a video. Also, there is no ctrl+f for videos, so you can't search for content of interest.
Generally I prefer written reviews, too. But in this case the topic is just not serious enough. It is only a little hype and as shown there is not much difference between cameras: Pick any of them and you'll have a lot of fun with a bunch of terribly bad pictures. The video is well made and the little joke between Chris and his cute boy alone was worth watching it.
So these videos (and other Chris and Jordan classics) take me right to the essence of the user experience. They bring a bit of soul to the reviews of cameras. When I get my tech on ,..., then I can delve into charts, focus tests, and pixel-gasms. They will find a balance,....
What does "hipster" even mean anymore at this point. I know people as far away from that stereotype who own instant camera's. People just enjoy having physical photos, it's just meant for fun. But this a website where people who take pictures of their toddlers and dogs are mad a camera isn't 50mp full frame with 150 focusing points.
People talk about hipsters as if they are a new thing when the subculture has been around (under one name or other) for almost a century. ie people who dressed up in or collected things that were part of their grandparents generation or older. In my day they were called Mods.
I agree with the sentiment expressed at the end of the video. These are fun for about 50 shots because we are so used to digital. It's novel. But then when it wears off, you have a camera with expensive film that takes photos that look worse than your phone camera's - especially indoors.
Video/Review Request: portable photo printers. I have the Instax SP-2 that when used with a compatible Fuji camera seems to offer the best of both worlds: prints direct from camera in just a few seconds and digital files for sharing or printing larger format. The novelty has not worn off and the photos are a hit at gatherings of all kinds or when traveling or shooting street and wanting to give a memento. I know this sounds like an ad, but I’ve really found it to be that good! While I’m curious about the SP-3, I hesitate around another upfront investment and the pricier film.
I have a Lomo'instant Automat Glass that takes Instax minis, and the SP3 printer. I pick which one to carry out with me depending on what I'm doing. Love them both, But the SP3 wins on sheer versatility (it's also just a little bit of a relief when you have photos you don't have to squint at). Also have a LG zink printer that (when coupled w LG zink paper kid you not) produces decent 2x3s that retain a little bit of vibrancy (I'm looking at you HP and Polaroid) - Know zink has it's problems, but a) the printer is tiny b) there's Way less wastage and bulk when carrying the paper compared to Instax c) Resolved detail is really good d) There's very little flattening of tones compared to Instax e) They're stickers! Lifeprint have a 3.5x4.5 zink printer - Really tempted for the great sized prints, but the paper is stupid money.
Regarding whether instant is short-lived novelty... we have had an Instax Mini 90, Mini 70 and a Wide 300 for some time now, and have found that we use them on an ongoing basis for: 1) "Take along / Take home" photos -- when we have guests visit, we often shoot a pack or two of instant and invite them to take some photos with them... and we do get follow-on comments noting that instant prints, being tangible and different (no emails, apps, or logins needed), prompts them to share a bit of the visit 'instantly' upon returning home. 2) Instant Physical Documentation -- have found the Wide 300 useful for things like documenting damage for repairs or insurance, or before/after shots when we have other work done -- instant prints enabling us to hand the image to a contractor or better yet, tack it up right next to the work site, along with a note right on the print.
True fishpix. I think a 3rd reason is simply because some people find it fun...and want to use something different than digital gear. Same for the resurgence in film use.
Agree with you Davinator -- same goes I think for the Lomography movement?... ... as for film -- just last week I started looking around for a processor that could handle half-frame rolls for my vintage (film) Olympus PENs... There is something to be said for the elegant simplicity and implicit commitment (due to cost) associated with film or instant...
While there are some professionals who still shoot work on film, I think what's happened is that those who shoot both reserve and film for recreational photography.
Suppose we could debate the subjective issue of elegance, but as with the instant cams, if we use number of controls as a gauge for simplicity -- a typical vintage manual SLR with a nifty-fifty prime might have a grand total of 6 controls (aperture, focus, shutter speed, ASA setting, self-timer, meter on/off) -- 8 if you stretch it and count the film-type reminder ring and the film-advance lever -- the entire control system would fit on a fraction of the typical digital menu screen... and hey, no submenus!
That's what I did! I can see the appeal of the cameras, my sister bought my mother one... I just don't see myself using one instead of say, my GX850. The printer doesn't take up any more space, isn't quite as immediate and it more expensive up front, but you do gain versatility in the long run... Print whatever on the go.
I think the fact that it uses OLEDs to expose the film and achieve the same look is pretty clever, and makes for a quick print.
I actually own both kinds tkbslc, they're very different propositions IMO. The quality and cost of something like the Canon Selphy CP1200 dye sub printer I own is definitely better (4x6 prints as good as any local lab or better, yes, for 27-30¢), the convenience and portability are not.
Using one is a somewhat more involved process that absolutely requires you to set it up on a table, flip doors open and insert a paper tray, have some clearance behind it for the print to enter/exit either side as it lays down all 3 colors & the overcoat, and the battery lasts a lot less.
It's also like twice the size than any of the Instax printers and much heavier. You can literally hold an Instax printer in your hand or in a bag as it spits out an instant 'print', which takes all of 12s. Fuji's WiFi interface is also somewhat more refined than Canon's FWIW.
TL;DR: I'd classify the 4x6 dye sub printers more like "transportable", IMO they're worth looking into even if you don't care about that aspect tho... The convenience of long lasting and relatively inexpensive 4x6 prints at home without any of the maintenance hassles of an inkjet make them very appealing.
OTOH Instax printers (and ZINK I guess? never tried one) are all about the portability and more immediate results that you can literally share in the street, in the middle of a party, etc. Not quite as immediate as the cameras themselves but certainly more versatile. The 4x6 dye sub is probably the safer buy but each has it's appeal.
Last year DPR covered an instant camera made entire of cardboard on Kickstarter. I got email last week saying it actually shipped! Looking forward to testing it in action.
I'm disappointed the square format cameras haven't matured yet because I personally prefer the square aesthetic. I did buy a fuji instax 200 back in 2008 (instax wide film). It's a huge, clunky plasticky POS that is easy AND hilarious to shoot with (still works on the rare occasions it comes out of its hidey hole).
Shooting instant is expensive and the novelty does wear off fast, but it's FUN. I was considering the Fuji SQ6 but after seeing how bad the controls are, I'll wait. Thanks for the review.
Apparently they're selling refurb SX-70 at several places (Amazon, directly from the new Polaroids Originals co., etc.). I'm kinda tempted by it, but I dunno about the current cost/quality of the film... Think I'll stick with my SP-3 for now. That SX-70 looks super sleek and portable tho! Would be interesting to see Chris & Jordan include it in a roundup of the larger format stuff.
Yes instant film is nothing new. But all except Instax are effectively dead today.
I got an SX-70 for like $30 on craigslist 10 years ago. Great little machine, brilliantly put together. But I pretty soon figured out that no film available at the time went in it and I dumped it. Thing would probably be worth $300 today.
Fuji is doing a great job reviving instant film, but it takes time and the market is very very limited now with digital.
I considered getting an instant camera as a gift for a child recently, but realised I didn't know enough about them. These reviews are useful. Instant cameras are interesting, even if some people here seem to be mentally comparing the output to their full-frame digitals :D
Kids love them, I bought a people mini 9 for my nine year old cousin and she was ecstatic with it... 'Course her mother then told me it was on me to buy her film in the future but eh, worth it. ;)
People spend about 10-15x more on phones for some pretty crappy photos so... :P All kidding aside, there's clearly a market. I dunno about these higher end ones, but Fuji has been making bank on the $60-90 models and the film for them. The printers are kinda fun too, it's not something I'd use at home but I'm enjoying having it on the go and just doling out prints randomly and in the moment.
As far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong, all pictures you take are printed so you have to spend 1$ per picture unlike digital where you can choose which to print.
you are wrong. This is the case with SOME instant cameras, but not all. Furthermore instant film isn't limited to cameras, there are also printer options.
Last but not least, 1$ isn't the street price, which is closer to 50ct per picture. Still a lot, but taking 10 pictures isn't more than a big beer at your local pub.
Then my mistake. I had a small printer which could be used with battery before, somehow I got bored to use it. Pictures looked too small and image quality was very different from what I saw on screen (colours, but also very limited dynamic range especially at highlights). And I'd prefer beer at local pub with friends :)
Olifaunt, we are not talking about big and nice prints. We are talking about sizes even smaller than your phone. How many of those tiny photos can you store in 50 years? I agree that printing is better because it is near impossible to look at countless photos. Again: These are tiny frames and picture quality still lacks.
One of the early Sofort youtube reviews claimed that the flash exposure was tweaked on the Sofort relative to the Fujifilm to increase the ratio of ambient light. On your side by side photos, the greens did look a little bit different. Did you take that with our without flash?
@Dav - if I was very interested in Instant Cameras, I would not hang at and read Digital Photography Review. OK - it is just fine to read one or two articles, but a roundup is a bit too far I think.
But, as I said. It is their site. They do what they fancy. Just surprised at the focus, that is all.
Maybe they also are interested in Fixie Bikes? Just waiting for a roundup :)
@Lenny. Teasing hipsters and DPReview is totally fine, personal attacks is not.
@oz - generally I find roundups rather uninteresting. Have stopped reading them, even if they are for digital cameras. If there are few models on the market, I usually already know about them all and if there are many models, then the roundup consist of examples, which I find not all that useful.
Of course, a roundup of something I am not interested in and where there are few models might actually be interesting, as I do not know them all. So, maybe a roundup of instant cameras has some value. But, I do not think I will waste time on looking at a video. Waiting for the textual roundup.
@Sactojim - who are you? What do you get out of being rude and do name calling? BTW - I live at Södermalm in Stockholm, the Mecka of hipsters in Sweden. And the hipster, even in vintage clothes and on funny bikes are quite nice guys. Making fun of hipsters or mods or hippies is totally harmless. They bring it upon themselves. Personally I was a hippie that participated in the anti US marches for Vietnam in 1970 or so. We took it seriously. Today it brings a smile when looking at old films. Did we really wear that clothes and had that long hair? Yes indeed. Tight shirts with flowers and tight trousers wide at the foot. And Indian music and Beatles Sgt Pepper Lonely Hearts Club Band ....
roland, I was a bit miffed by the negativity of your post on a interesting (to me) video/article. I'll apologize and move on. It's not worth it to either of us.
Fine, then you do not need to watch or comment. But out in the real world away from Dpreview "experts" land, creative and engaged photographers are still using film.
I'd argue Canon's Selphy dye sub printers are still a very different concept than Fuji's own SP Instax printer line (I own both a Canon CP1200 and a Fuji SP-3 FWIW), let alone the cameras. I can see why someone would be attracted to the simplicity and utmost immediacy of the cameras over the printers... I've used the cameras and enjoyed it even if it's not my preference.
The Selphy line of printers is a way slower and more involved process that requires a flat surface to lay the printer, flip open its doors, and insert the paper tray. You even need some clearance behind it because the paper is pushed back and forth from either side as it lays down all 3 colors and the final coating... Just sending pics over takes a bit too (and it's a little less intuitive).
The Selphy output does blow the instant stuff out of the water quality-wise tho, and of course you're getting 4x6" prints for 27-31¢ vs 2.4 " x 2.4 " (or smaller) for $0.50-$1.10, so it's a matter of output and cost vs portability and convenience. The Instax printers you can literally hold in your hand or carry in a bag and the film takes like 12s to spit out, they're significantly smaller/lighter and the battery lasts longer too.
I'm pretty much the opposite of the hipster thing, but I do like instant photos. They are real. You cannot tweak it with Photoshop. You do not need the time to process, like with the film. I'm not a pro, I do not need that quality - there are millions who get better shot anyway. And do I need a thousand shots for each month passed, to bury them on the drive on in the cloud? No. Actually, even 10 shots per month is OK for the memory. Maybe 20, or 30, if something really interesting goes on.
Thank you, Impulses. Now I see some of my friends needing exactly one of these, nothing else will do. I did not get the point. Like on a boat. Or going batfaeces crazy in unpredictable circumstances with friends you cannot be sure of. I am 65, my lifestyle does not require these things any longer.
I've just gone back through the DPTV videos and there's not much in there, there are dozens of current 'real' cameras though and there are cameras more worthy of Chris and Jordans time than these toys that will soon be forgotten.
There are episodes with comparisons of certain models to be made, a popular questions is 'should I choose X over Y model, less poplular is 'which silly toy should I waste my disposable income on?'
There are a heap of video cameras that take stills, that Jordan, then Chris can review (reverse format). Black magic has a few I've never seen reviewed properly.
I'm not understanding how DPR decide on the subject to review, seems like a lacklustre approach to what could have been a very compelling series of videos.
Obviously, you never heard of the Hasselblad Lunar.
A $750 Sony NEX-7 for $7,200. I think it still holds the record for the highest premium set for rebadged camera. It actually made those Leica-Panasonic rebadges seem like bargains. Relatively speaking.
@Jersey It is not only the grip. The whole housing is completely different, made with titanium, carbon fiber and wood (in the case of mine). The guts might be the same, but the shutter is different, sounds much more solid than the Sony. For me it is a beautiful camera, I wouldn´t pay more for it, but $999 for a brand new kit was a steal.
999$ is a fair price difference for the design and cheer material used in the hasselblad vs the Sony. Like some current leica does to a panny (check it out if you liked the lunar/premium build for cheap)
It's the 7K first MSRP that took our heads off around, I remember to say is this april? No it's summer, why is a "tuned" sony with plimps and wood be 7K, absolute zero camera difference, and why is this called hasselblad, not "hasselblad design" like many companies do, porsche design, ferrari design, zeiss design, etc.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
Keith Ladzinski is a wildlife and adventure photographer and filmmaker based in Colorado. In this interview he explains the background to his most recent project, and looks back at what's changed since he bought his first digital camera in 2004.
As a current D750 owner and someone primarily concerned with still photography, the Z6 doesn't quite offer a compelling enough reason for DPR staffer Dan Bracaglia to go Nikon mirrorless – yet. But that may not be the case for you.
Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.
We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
Comments