Every photographer knows about APS-C sensors, but what about APS film? This week, Chris and Jordan take a stroll down memory lane and try out the original APS format, short for 'Advanced Photo System', a technology that promised to streamline the film workflow, but which ultimately lost out to digital technology. Tune in to see what made APS so interesting, and whether 15-year-old expired film is still up to the task.
I remember when APS came out. I was a very heavy film user back then (hundreds of rolls a year). I wasn't interested in APS because it was more expensive. For me, digital had nothing to do with it. I was shooting film up until 2001 and then digital almost exclusively shortly after that. Digital killed film, not just APS.
thanks for the nostalgia.. waiting for when my Elph Jr would be competing with Contax T2 on ebay. elph jr. was so cute. led me to the digital elph and so many subsequent elph models for many years to come. Also remember lusting over the Pronea's, cant remember if i actually bought one (and thankfully sold it).
The marketing spiel was that although smaller than 35mm, you would get IQ just as good, because of improved film technology. Problem was, the film makers then put it into 35mm film. That's what really killed APS. I had - have - both Canon APS SLRs, and the IX was actually fun to use. I used it as my colour print camera. Fine for that job, but there was never the film range to compete for enthusiasts - only one colour slide film.
I still have my Vectis 3000 P&S...It was a fun camera, looked like something out of a Bond film and was good during daylight but horrible without proper lighting.
All in all, I enjoyed it for what it was...a fun little cam
Nice history lesson...now how about 35mm half (single) frame? Olympus was of course the big player but Canon was also heavily into it. The Dial 35 will look very familiar to APS Elph owners. Half-frame mainly suffered from two things:
1. It was still 35mm film with the need to rewind.
2. A roll lasted a loooooooooong time. I had both a Pen F and a Pen FT...a 36 exposure roll gave 72 exposures! Great if you shoot like crazy all the time but for amateurs used to taking 12 shots and then off to the drugstore to get prints it could be months before they would finish a roll.
APS was a great idea, sort of crossing 35mm with Instamatic cartridges and then adding the one thing that always caused Hasselblad envy...changing film mid-roll!!! No more carrying two bodies (one B&W, one color, etc.) around all the time.
I sold hundreds of APS cameras and developed 1000's of rolls of it. It was from a everyday consumers point of view a great system. Print size choices, index sheets, storage of negatives. We continued to process the film until it was no longer available. Yes it was overtaken by digital but it provided great convienence, extremely easy to load and they just came back for more and more and more film and developing.
I think the biggest thing to remember is that is was EASY and FUN and SIMPLE. I used APS cameras, 126 cameras 110 cameras and even disc cameras when we sold them and processed them. At the same time I used 35mm, 6x6cm, 6x7cm 4x5 and 8x10 formats. Each had it own place and time for using it.
They were fun cameras that's the perspective to look at them with
Minolta aside, perhaps the "best" APS camera for photo quality was the Contax Tix... a small camera with a 28/2.8 mm lens. Had one of those for a while as well and took it often on business travel. Expensive little thing... but by the time I got mine it was available at reduced prices. Surprised to see several on eBay now for $150 to $200.
Minola invested more in APS than Canon or Nikon. I had the Vectis S-1 as a 1996 (?) Chrismas present,,, replaced the kit lens with... the 22-80, an 80-240, and a very nice 50mm macro. Later added a 400mm mirron lens... and a 17mm metal lense that Minolta said was only for the RD 3000 digital camera. The advantage: it was much smaller size & weight for vacation travel than my 35mm Minolta SRTs. I used the S-1 for several years. Minolta also made a variety of accessories... most of which I collected. A final advantage on a few occasions... lense and camera was water resistant. Film was 100, 200, 400, 800 speed... and a black & white version. Still have lots in the freezer. A scarce slide version was available in Europe but not the U.S. Always shot the full format... no problem enlarging to 8x12 size. Examples... see Travels in Burgundy at https://bestbob.smugmug.com/Travel/Travels-in-Burgundy/ and Travels in Provence at https://bestbob.smugmug.com/Travel/Travels-in-Provence/
Just today I found my Minolta Vectis 20 complete with battery installed, which miraculously has not leaked. Don’t ever recall using much of it but I think mine was new in 2002.
Minolta rely miss the boat when they had a set of very good APS-c lenses from the Vectis SLRs before everybody else but was last to the DSLR party ...they was 1/2 way there with having a set of lenses
Actually, they weren't - they were pretty much the first there, with the Dimage RD-3000, based on the Vectis range and using the lenses. It just wasn't very good.
i had forgotten about that one ....it makes it worse ....if only they had pat a 3mp APS-c sensor in it like the Nikon D1 had in it ...the crop factor must have been insane
Our son was given an APS camera and roll of film by a relative. We took one look at the film and processing costs and decided that he wouldn't be using it; he got a 35mm camera instead. More money for a much smaller negative? Um, no.
Really enjoyed this. APS film came at a time I was not very active in photography. I vaguely knew about it but what work I did at the time was with my Olympus 35mm system. This was most informative and interesting. Well done and thank you.
When I was between studios in the mid 90s, I did a stint as an equipment salesman at a very well known (and still active) NYC photo retailer. I dissuaded customers from APS, reminding them that a bigger negative is always better than a smaller one. Most customers understood, and opted for 35mm despite the hype, and were thankful for the honesty.
Oh, and I also showed how bogus the "panorama" feature was on point and shoot cameras -- the simple mask that would slip over the film frame...what a joke.
I used to work in a photoshop in the early 2000´s, and we received alot of APS film. My personal opinion after handling hundreds of those rolls, is that it was properly bad...
The aspect-ratio thing was just a little "metadata" on each frame which could easily be changed in print. This could be done on 35mm as well... The cases kept braking, giving us proper headaches. And the film had to winded on a proprietary, highly expensive, weird little machine that also kept braking. The imagequality was also nothing to write home about. An ISO 200 film would be grainy beyond acceptance for your average customer if they wanted anything printed above 10*15cm (5*6inch). To me the death of APS film was a welcome one...
Yes! I was remembering that too. They were supposed to be easy to process, but the machine I used was a POS too. I can't remember some of the weird things we had to do, but I think I remember having to transplant the film to blank cases when they'd break.
As a young person growing up in the 90s in a consumer photography household, my experience was that APS was a huge hit amongst my parental units and most of friends' families (that weren't into any serious photography, of course).
I remember my dad selling it to my mom on precisely because it was 'so easy to load the film' and easier to reorder because of the printed thumbnails lol. What a time to be alive. Of course didn't know much about anything aside from how cool the Panoramic mode was - until I got my first 'real' DSLR - T1i and i learned about the crop sensor...
Yes, I had a Canon APS camera, but not for long. I forget the model, but it had a moderately long zoom starting at 28mm equiv. We were backpacking around South America, and I had shot just a couple of rolls when it was stolen at 16,000' above sea level in the refugio on the active volcano Cotopaxi. That was not my only camera stolen on that trip, Oh well. The APS thief must have been disappointed to discover that APS film was not to be found in Ecuador. The camera was probably discarded.
As someone who still primarily uses film my work, I saw APS primarily as Kodak's attempt at an end-run around the oncoming digital onslaught, as well as Just One More trip to the proprietary-format feeding trough. The major Japanese players at the time kinda-sorta went along, but at the same time kicked a bit of sand in Rochester's eye by releasing some *seriously* techy 35mm auto-everything compacts at surprisingly reasonable prices, and which, both performance- and value-wise, left most APS cameras in their wake. But then, digital got better...
I had a Minolta Vectis S-1 and S-100 with 4 lenses, 28-56, 56-170, 50 Macro and 400mm. I loved the system! Thought the pictures were great and it was easy to use. Plus being smaller than 35mm (which I also had), it was lighter and easier to carry and travel with.
My mom was the family amateur photographer growing up. Forgot the camera but knew we had to go to Target just to process the negatives when I was younger. Film loading was easy for my little hands!
APS was really cool. Funnily enough I 'discovered' it only less than 10 years ago, bought some cameras and films and used them for a few years.
Of course people may ask - why not just use 35mm? APS actually gave me several advantages over 35mm cameras, in particular:
- compact cameras with wider lenses. Within 35mm compacts, 35mm lenses were standard and anything wider was usually expensive (e.g. Nikon 28Ti). Canon Ixus II has a ZOOM lens that starts at about 29mm.
- tiny, light and high quality cameras. I just visited my drawer: Canon L1's - ultra light, fixed lens of about 33 mm, I have 2 and like them more than I've liked my Olympus Mju II's. Canon Ixus II - tiny, light yet built like a tank, superb quality. Nikon Pronea S - ok not as cool, but it's a modern SLR with the size of a modern MILC.
- great film stock. B&W Kodak is amazing (different from 35mm BW400CN) and my favorite B&W film ever. Fuji 800 beats any ASA 800 35mm film by a mile.
Also, APS came extra handy during the time when compact digital cameras were still sh*tty and getting worse and worse, while the really good ones were still far away. There were 1" or 4/3 sensors at the time. I had Sigma DP1 but it was really impractical for general use.
Say a decent enough digital compact cost 400 € at the time. APS gave me comparable or even better IQ and with the crazy low prices of cameras, films and processing/scanning it would take 1 or 2 years for APS to cost as much.
Never got into APS and saw very few rolls come into the lab I worked at.
The 16:9 conspiracy theory. Yep, that's what I believe. I LOVE shooting 16:9. Anything "smaller" is a waste of my widescreen monitor space! (Hahahaha...)
High confusion! The end of times! Stories of photographic film abound as digital cameras are facing their own Kodak moment brought on by portable telephones. Twisted.
Nice walk down memory lane. My first real camera was an APS Fujifilm Endeavor 100ix that I got for my 11th birthday, and it went with me everywhere. The C-H-P option and quick loading/unloading made it very simple to use.
why is this article on dpreview? Who sponsored it and who is the beneficiary. It's a waste of time. Photographers want to see more relevant review rather than look at some old underexposed negatives. The review itself is a failure if we look at it from the technical point of view. It should have been reshot with properly exposed negatives - it's like saying we effed up the film but look at the results anyway
Why do you care? Why waste your time? this is a photography site and some might find this interesting as it relates to photographic history. Considering apsc film hasn’t been made for years you cannot get fresh film. This has nothing to do with exposure, it has to do with the fact that the film is expired. This is a fun article. Why be a killjoy making irrelevant points.
We occasionally like to deviate from camera and lens reviews, just to keep things interesting for the audience and ourselves. I was surprised to find a number of younger photographers had no idea what APS film was, so we thought this would be interesting for some DPReview readers.
Sure, we could reshoot the images, but the episode is about the experience of shooting APS, not critiquing the image quality (which would be useless as all the film is now expired anyways). Sorry you didn't find the video interesting, we'll be back with a gear review next week.
I thought it was interesting, entertaining, and relevant, as it deals with the era of transition from one medium to another. Gear reviews are great, but some history behind the gear can also be very informative. More historia! :)
Why was APS developed, follow the money, it had to do with collecting licensing fees and per unit royalties from everyone but the Big 5 that came up with APS; Kodak, Fuji, Nikon, Canon and Minolta. Kodak had developed a clear magnetic coating that would cover the APS film; more advanced cameras would be able to put info on that magnetic coating to help improve the image when printed: was the camera held vertical or horizontal, if flash was used, exposure comp, and more. The APS printing equipment could read the info the camera put on each image and the printer would add the exposure info for each print on each negative so reprints would look like the original, saving reprints if the customer like the original or reprints better. The 'Other' camera, film and processing equipment companies did not want to send their production numbers to the Big 5 who were their competitors, so the Big 5 formed a separate company to handle the royalty payments. 5 years to develop APS, Big Fail.
Great video taking one back in history. When the format came out I wasn't convinced that it would take off. And then soon after the first digitals came out. 11 years ago my then digital SLR Canon 400D (xti) broke and I went into that same seneal store where I bought a refurbished one. Still works today :-) Thanks for your great video. More of these please.
Like others have said APS was too late to do any good in the film arena. Add to that most manufacturers only paid it lip service and NEVER stood behind it with any commitment. APS had the ability to do a lot more than it ever did with the magnetic layer and the ability to record digital data. I had one of the first APS cameras and one of the first photo labs for processing the film and if we did 4000 rolls total in the life of the film that would shock me, probably closer to 2000 roll max (as a comparison we did 500 rolls of 35mm per day). It was also a PAIN to process with having to reload it into a second canister before processing then load back into the original canister after processing. Not sorry to see it go!
There were some excellent top of the range slrs from the likes of Canon, Minolta and Nikon. I added the three systems (selecting the top model in each) to my camera collection because they could be picked up for peanuts, but I do know what you mean. Interesting to read your experience as a processing lab, too. The Canon was best as it could mount standard Eos slr lenses
Did I read somewhere back then that labs were forced by Kodak to accept APS-C processors? Or have I got this wrong?
APS was pushed on the labs, We were Fuji and they REALLY pushed it by offering incentives to upgrade. C-41 machines were not an issue as they came up with the intermediate canister that we could reuse. Some printers were able to be upgraded with new APS carriers to at least print. The issue was the carriers also did not take advantage of all the APS functions OR we turned them off. One function that I remember was the "Customer selected print quantity". When shooting the customer could select the number of prints they wanted from each shot. That lasted a couple days till it was shut off. Customers had no clue of what this did and getting 99 prints from a shot of your foot was an issue!
MUCH EASIER.... we sent out to another lab to do :-) :-) as we did not have a processor that would take the disks.
I did do them at a friends place - you took the disc into the dark box, cracked the case, removed the film, slid the disc onto a spindle. After he just put into a envelope.
Printing was the same in that you needed a different carrier and with the smaller neg (like 110 as well) the exposure time was longer than 35 or even 126.
The APS system could have been a big hit if it weren't for two things:
1. The image quality was pretty poor 2. Digital kept getting better and cheaper
It really was the last gasp of a dying film industry. It was an attempt to prevent a mass switch to digital, but the attempt failed. I guess they had to "try something" even if it didn't work as hyped.
I remember paying $650 for my Canon IXUS Lite SLR kit, and today you can find them on ebay for $5. This is a risk all early adopters and gadget freaks take.
We remember it this way, but at the time digital wasn't good enough--there were 1.7 megapixel cameras costing hundreds of dollars. Even people who wouldn't go to the effort to buy and process film were not going digital (except some scientists and realtors.)
The two things that sealed the deal were small film/poor quality and the fact that consumers saw the new APS features as unnecessary or not worth paying a premium. This wouldn't happen today; give people a new digital feature and they will find a use for it.
You're both right. But Kodak had a track record of foisting new film formats on to the public, and which in many ways weren't really needed, and all saw a dramatic loss of IQ. Remember 126, 110 and Disc? Volume sales were in 35mm and roll film, but demand overall was relatively static with little room to grow in face of the new digital technology. After all, if one had a decent camera why change? So, let's get the public to buy into a new system, and which would also help out a flagging film camera industry. But we have to offer something over and above what 35mm provides. And the system did, but at a price and with lower IQ. Also, the system wasn't amenable to home d&p. Top of the range slr's from Canon, Minolta and Nikon were indeed quite advanced, but many would baulk at the price.
1. IQ was comparable or better than 35mm (when we talk about same categories of cameras/films) because the manufacturers put a lot of R&D into the format.
2. While digital was getting better, at the time was still very poor. Even the Canon D30 mentioned in the video was just a lowish-end SLR. It wasn't until around 2004 when digital became both good enough and inexpensive for anything but the pros and early adopters.
Digital of course won because it was more convenient in the first place, just like phones are winning over standalone cameras today - for convenience, even though the quality is not even within the same galaxy.
I remember when it came out. A good idea on paper but lower quality than 35mm so it wasn't taken very seriously. And we knew it was a stop-gap as digital matured. Bought an APS camera for my then-new wife, a nice small Canon that fit in to her handbag easily. Took decent photos but nothing earth shattering. A year later it was replaced by a small Casio digital camera that despite having only 4MP worked very well and the Canon APS camera was sold on ebay. Still have a bunch of APS film in the freezer that I have no idea what to do with, it will probably be tossed in the bin.
I would find a history of video cameras interesting as well, since contemporary still cameras are basically also considered video cameras. There was quite an evolution for that to happen. Dedicated video cams for VHS/beta to dv tape to recordable cd's/DVD's to internal hdd's to flash, then finally the inclusion of still cameras memory cards. Not to mention the standards in resolution improving over time. Jordan Drake would be able to walk us through a history of videography quite well I think.
Yes....hard to know if the Fujifilm stock was refrigerated and maybe the Kodak film wasn't, for example. I had an old camera with a partially exposed roll of Kokacolor....I forgot about it, and it was in the camera for about 5 years, I think. For fun, I had it developed and most of it was terrible, all orange, and you could barely tell what the photos were.
The heavily tint images present two problems. First, it isn't even across the image in all images, and of one color, and second, it is so heavy that there is not color information left in the images to create a normal looking image. The best you could do is create black and white images out of them, and even then they would be uneven and missing a lot of detail.
The APS was never that good compared to the good old fashioned 35mm film. The worst was the disc film where images always came out grainy and not resolving good details even in good light. The scanned images only confirmed what I've seen when I scanned mine.
And now we have digital sensors that can resolve more details even though they're MUCH smaller than disc films and can do well in low light.
And the current APS digital sensors are already doing way much better than APS film such as being able to change its ISO from 100 to 25,600 which was simply unheard of back then and having the ability to resolve much more details especially in low light.
It's quite amazing how far we've come. I remember the first time digital cameras finally had 1.2 megapixel sensors... but they were still not as good as APS film. Now, we have cameras with over 24 MP sensors doing so much better than APS film.
Yep, thin negatives. The ones that don't have horrible color shifts and tints would have been perfect with much more exposure. Best way to make negative film look horrible is to underexpose it.
What memories. I was working at Ritz Camera at the time these came out. The Elf was pretty popular but the others not so much. Obviously APS stood for Advanced Photo System, but selling them we called them a (APS) A Piece of Sh**. Wasn't too long after that we got our first digital camera in for sale. It was a tiny Casio not even 1MP and was over $600.
I was always curious about APS-C (which never took off in my country, but was still popular in Europe when I travelled to Germany in 2003), so I loved the video! I guess it was bound to fail because of the small surface area (damn that thing is noisy!), but why they never developed the same cartridge for 35mm is odd. Still, it’s amazing to see that it was noticeably inferior to modern 1” sensors, which goes to show that even MFT is well above the technical results of 35mm film. We’ve come really far!
I've scanned a lot of 35mm film on dedicated film scanners over the years and I can easily say that a 1" sensor delivers better quality than 4000dpi scans from 35mm film, and especially so at higher ISOs. That's one of the reasons why I have settled on a Sony RX100 V.
What I don't understand is why it takes a larger camera body to house a 35mm sensor. Back in the film days you could have something tiny like an Olympus Stylus Epic using 35mm film. We will come much farther when we can do the same with 35mm sensors.
I think it is because of the angle that light passing through the lens hits the Sensor. Light passing through the centre of the lens hits the centre of the Sensor directly so the full value is registered. Light passing through the outer regions of the lens hits the sensor at an angle. This does not matter much to the light-sensitive surface on film but makes a big difference to the amount of light registered by the light-sensitive electronics on a digital sensor.
A partial fix is to use a layer of micro lenses above the sensor surface to refract the light so that it hits the sensor surface in a more perpendicular fashion. I assume that this is not a complete fix because we would have full frame equivalents of the Olympus XA.
@Slouch. "Also: battery size and heat dissipation are problems inherent to digital, but not film, cameras."
Only because they have turned still cameras into video cameras too. I wish I could simply be able to buy a modern still camera without all the video baggage and extra expense and weight that goes along with it.
Phil: To remove heat dissipation as an issue, one would need to make a DSLR devoid of live view, and also curtail its long-exposure capability. Can you get any more niche than that? :/
Not really, long exposure noise artifacts have been a problem for a long time, and 35mm digital cameras all need some form of heat dissipation. Still, the Sony RX1 proves that a compact camera with a 35mm sensor is indeed possible. The lens is huge, of course, because it’s made to perform at a very high standard, and perhaps that’s the true problem: with our current high resolution sensors, the lenses just can’t be that small anymore, which in turn invalidates the raison d’être for a small camera in the first place.
Totally awesome video. I have that very same camera. Obviously I haven’t used it in over a decade as I don’t have film. I did however removed the batteries. So I’m sure it’s still in great condition.
APS was at first introduced as a Kodak Processing Lab only service. The idea being that APS would be the product that would stop the erosion of processing volume that was increasingly going to one hour labs.
When they finally opened it up to independent processors there were some advantages to the labs in that they could encode processing info into the magnetic coating such as aspect ratio and print quantity. However it required a lot more fiddling and storage of the negs was awkward and nearly impossible to find a specific image if you mixed up your cartridges or lost your index print. As I vividly remembered the costly debacle for indy labs adopting disc processing, I did not by APS capable machines until the digital Fuji Frontier was introduced. Meanwhile, many colleagues who had expensive payments on optical APS machines suffered greatly by not being able to print digital files. APS was doomed form the start and sadly hurt a lot of businesses in its slow descent into irrelevance.
Yep. There was a lot of acrimony in the lab world when Kodak announced APS. I noted to my rep that there was zero possibility the independent labs would cooperate in helping Kodak get the system off the ground. Thus Kodak had created, overnight, a vigorous and vocal opposition to the format with labs strongly recommending 35mm to their customers when asked about this new "digital" format.
The advantage to labs was that the exposure print data from when the original prints were made was recorded on the film, so when a customer ordered reprints, they would look like the original prints. With all other formats, reprints could look different and the customer would want the reprints or originals redone, which was a loss to the dealer. Kodak had a invisible magnetic coating covering the film that the camera and lab could put data on.
@mandm. Correct. But only if the lab paid attention to their process control. In addition some labs upgraded older equipment that could not take advantage of all the features of APS. Thus some labs printed APS-H prints only to the consternation of customers who were convinced they had shot a lot of panorama images.
APS was a major flop, everyone lost money on it, camera companies & dealers. The Big 5, Kodak, Fuji, Canon, Nikon & Minolta all figured the other camera & film companies plus any company that made film & print processors would have to pay a $100,000. licensing fee per product plus a per unit royalty fee. A new printer was $125,000. US $. The Big 5 also claimed the consumer could never open the back of their APS camera like they could do with most 35mm cameras & destroy their images; while true, if an APS camera jammed, you had to send the camera in for service! The Big 5 planned for APS to be 5% of camera sales the 1st year, it didn't even do 5%, it's best year was year 3 and it did 8%. 100,000's of APS cameras were piling up at the factories & destroyed, why throw away more money shipping them to their distributors & paying duties is some countries when they would not be ordered or shipped to dealers. Dealers just put the APS processor in the basement next to Disk unit!
The worst new format film experience I ever had was 110 film. Not understanding then the difference in a format change, I expected it to be like 126 film. It wasn't. The quality, even with 5x3 (old standard) prints was obviously worse. Disc film was too. APS was fine as it still provided enough surface area to produce a good print..
I rather like the photos. Does anyone else read the photos in the samples gallery as conveying a search for meaning and an underlying feeling of despair?
I know, a weird—trite?— comment for this site (and perhaps in general). But I just can’t shake it. Maybe APS film is just so frustrating to use that one just can’t help but produce these types of photos.
The Diana Instant Square is a retro-inspired camera with manual controls that's fun to shoot in good light, but largely unpredictable in its operation.
The EOS RP is Canon's latest full-frame mirrorless camera, with diminutive dimensions and a diminutive price. Find out how it stacks up and get our thoughts in our early review.
The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.
Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.
The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
A question frequently asked on the Internet is 'what's the best DSLR?' In this buying guide we've answered that question – but also whether it's the right question to be asking in the first place.
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.
Apple has updated its professional video editing app Final Cut Pro X to version 10.4.6. The update brings full 64-bit support, a new feature that helps convert older formats and much more.
We were in Japan earlier this month for the annual CP+ show in Yokohama, where we sat down with senior executives from several camera and lens manufacturers, among them Nikon.
Sony has released firmware version 5.0 for its flagship mirrorless camera, the a9. The update brings AI-driven autofocus modes, an improved menu structure and other updates.
The Auschwitz Museum has asked visitors to be more respectful after an upsurge of pictures posted on social media showing people posing on the train tracks that lead to the main gate.
This week Chris and Jordan take the new Leica Q2 for a spin, and while most of us in the Northern Hemisphere are welcoming spring, they head even farther north than usual to visit ice castles. Because #Canada.
Harvard is facing a lawsuit over profiting from 19th century daguerreotypes that captured the portrait of a slave and his daughter on a South Carolina plantation.
From the detailed textures in rural landscapes to the incredible lighting inside futuristic buildings, the photorealism of Unreal Engine 4 is blurring the lines between fiction and reality...you know...aside from the spaceship.
Facebook has sent out emails to affected users requesting they change their passwords following a discovery that over 20K Facebook employees had access to 600 million passwords.
We've added Panasonic's new Lumix S1 and S1R full-frame mirrorless cameras to three of our buying guides. If you're looking for a quick summary of each model, then have a read.
YouTube channel Photoshop Cafe has shared a video detailing ten tips and tricks you can do to both fix and speed up Photoshop when it's running slow and sluggish.
The Diana Instant Square is a retro-inspired camera with manual controls that's fun to shoot in good light, but largely unpredictable in its operation.
Residents of a Paris street plagued by Instagrammers, selfie takers and music video crews are asking the city government for a weekend and evening ban to give them some peace.
The EOS RP is Canon's latest full-frame mirrorless camera, with diminutive dimensions and a diminutive price. Find out how it stacks up and get our thoughts in our early review.
Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.
With the arrival of some much-needed sunshine and final production firmware for the Panasonic S1, we've been able to get outside and really start putting the camera through its paces.
On its own, the FTZ adapter retails for $250 and when bundled it dropped the cost to just $150. Now, Nikon is offering it for free with all Z6, Z7 purchases in the United States.
Comments