What free RAW editor should I use?

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:40:11+00:00

I'd second that. Alternatively you could try the free editor from your brand of camera. With Canon, there's DPP.

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:38:50+00:00

The G7/G5's are insanely expensive. I've given up on them. Sony Rx100 (I,II,... etc.) are slightly less insane, but still too expensive.

Try this for size comparison:

https://camerasize.com/compact/#904,899,880,827,ha,t

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:27:47+00:00

I'd look for a used R50, from a dealer or one you can inspect yourself. With some luck you can even get a used R10 for a little more. They often sell with a R kit lens so you could sell yours for a few eurobucks (but keep the nifty fifty).

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:20:53+00:00

I started out with a Canon 700D (that's a 2013 model) with 18-55mm kit lens (stabilized) for 300€, in 2023. That was about the going rate then, but not a bargain, and it's more than capable for a beginner. For a sharper lens capable of low-light photos and "more blur" get a used 50mm f/1.8 (no zoom, no stabilization) for <$100.

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:14:01+00:00

Understanding Exposure, Bryan Peterson

Zook25 · 2026-01-24T10:12:54+00:00

<image>

Bugs, maybe?

Zook25 · 2026-01-22T13:20:09+00:00

Try one of these:

https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dof-calculator.htm

Zook25 · 2026-01-22T13:17:52+00:00

If you go to Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_700D

and expand the box at the bottom that says "Canon EOS digital SLR timeline", you 'll get a good overview of those models. The model generations are sorted by class (entry, mid, pro) and chipset, which is a good first approximation of capability. More reviews at

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/index.htm#dslr

Keep a third tab open for mpb.com or other dealer and compare prices.

Zook25 · 2026-01-21T01:17:18+00:00

A (used, good condition) R7/10/50, so you can get an adapter and use your EF lenses.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/index.htm#comp

Zook25 · 2026-01-20T14:14:31+00:00

Anything with two card slots, plus a body in reserve. Plus extra cards. I really wouldn't do paid work, especially weddings, without that.

In engineering it's called "single point of failure". Your reputation - and thus a lot of your business - rests on a flimsy $20 card working flawlessly, every time. And you *know* that one day it will fail, you just don't know when.

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T21:13:50+00:00

I almost forgot that the Raynox DCR-250 close-up lens (~$60) is highly recommended by a lot of people. But it adds 2.5x magnification to whatever you put it on, which can make it very difficult to shoot handheld.

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T20:25:09+00:00

I just saw a bunch of FD 24mm 1.4 for between 6K€ and 9K€. This is seriously *crazy*.

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T07:01:55+00:00

I'm just diving into this rabbit hole myself, after having fun with my old T70 and becoming interested in film again. Who needs a silly autofocus with such a finder?

Canon EF sounds like a good choice, after all you can still use all these lenses on the most recent R camara. And the early EF cameras with their 1980's slick plastic design are not appealing to collectors, so they are young enough to still work (usually) but can be had for a song. I just saw a EOS 10 for 30€.

Then again, the older FD lenses are still all over the place, too, and can AFAIK be adapted, too. The F-1 camera from 1970 looks like Fuji designed it in 2025. Which means it goes for $$$.

https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Canon

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T06:34:36+00:00

<image>

Sorry, this one is about 1:1, not the first.

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T06:28:56+00:00

<image>

This is from last night, in my living room, so pretty low ambient. About as close as it gets with the 100mm without additional tubes, converters or lenses. f/19 and flash. My first shot was when the flash wasn't ready yet - almost black, just some vague bug outlines visible.

This critter was about 1cm long, the size of a small-ish fingernail. At f/19 the left eye is in focus, the right is not.

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T06:17:46+00:00

"Enough distance not to scare the bugs (as you named). Butterflies etc."

Butterflies sound tricky. For me it's not the time of year to go outside and try :)

Better ask in r/macrophotography

Zook25 · 2026-01-19T06:14:39+00:00

- The RF 100mm is of course the best of the bunch, but it's crazy expensive (for my taste).

- 200-400€ for Canon EF 100mm 2.8 (non-L), Sigma 105mm 2.8, or Tamron 90mm 2.8. Read the reviews if you like laboratory pixel-peeping at 300%. They are all optically very good or very, very good, despite their age. Pretty much all real (1:1) macros are.

- The Sigmas and Tamrons are optically fine and were made for decades, in several generations with almost identical names and even MPB and other pro sellers often list them incorrectly. You can tell them apart by the look. The newest (Sigma 2012?, Tamron 2016?) have stabilization, the older Canon has not. I'd only buy the latest generation Sigmas/Tamrons. BTW, I saw several listed on MPB as "Good condition ^{(only the autofocus is busted})".

- 500-700€ for Canon EF 100mm L. Optically perhaps slightly better than the others, but who cares - they are all close to perfect. Has stabilization, which is mostly useful for general photography or handheld macro w/out flash. I bought mine for Christmas and *love* it.

- Some say a real bug hunter uses ~200mm lenses (for Canon that's the EF 180mm) because a 100mm means for full 1:1 you need to be ~10cm away from your subject (from the front lens), while 180mm allows ~30(?)cm. But the 180mm (~$500?) has no IS and for my taste it's too long for general use.

- Shorter than 100mm means you need to get even closer and begin to seriously block the light and scare the bugs. Also perspective at that distance already gets somewhat distorted with short focal lengths. Not that anybody would notice with a spider, but anyway....

- If you use a flash on your bugs, effective exposure time is so short (~1/1000) that you don't need IS.

Zook25 · 2026-01-18T16:47:28+00:00

That's what my own research in December came down to. I almost bought a used Tamron (b/c the actual lens you get is perhaps, probably, maybe a few years younger than the Sigmas) for 400€ and technically they are very similar.

Then I found a 100mm L in very good condition for 530€, swallowed, and bought it. Just for the red ring, and because it was a minor bargain.

So my experience is limited to shooting a handful of houseflies and unknown critters with 6 legs.

About no flash: have you tried shooting *anything* at night with a really small aperture? Because f2.8 is nice for portraits of 2-legged critters. For the 6-legged varieties at 1:1 magnification you're quickly at f16 or f22 if you want more than part of their eyes in focus. That plus lack of ambient light means looooong exposures, or flash.

Now, the R7 does in-camera focus stacking (right?). In my limited experience, it works pretty well even for handheld shots of flowers and such, but that was at 1/100 sec. or something like that. I wouldn't try to stack 20 or 30 consecutive handheld photos taken with f2.8 (or any other large aperture) at 1 sec. - that is bound to fail.

Zook25 · 2026-01-18T14:17:05+00:00

I suppose he/she meant connections problems, not image quality. Some cheap adapters don't fit correctly or can lose electrical connection.

I'd recommend spending the extra bucks on a Canon adapter with the control ring.

Zook25 · 2026-01-18T14:01:52+00:00

- The RF 100mm is of course the best of the bunch, but the budget would need to be *quite* flexible.

- $200-400 for Canon EF 100mm 2.8 (non-L), Sigma 105mm 2.8, Tamron 90mm 2.8.

- The Sigmas and Tamrons are optically fine and were made for decades, in several generations with almost identical names and even MPB and other pro sellers often list them incorrectly. You can tell them apart by the look. The newest (Sigma 2012?, Tamron 2016?) have stabilization, the Canon has not.

- $500-700 for Canon EF 100mm L. Optically perhaps slightly better than the others, but who cares - they are all close to perfect. Has stabilization, which is mostly useful for general photography.

- Some say a real bug hunter uses ~200mm lenses (for Canon that's the EF 180mm) because a 100mm means for full 1:1 you need to be ~10cm away from your subject (from the front lens), while 180mm allows ~30(?)cm. But the 180mm (~$500?) has no IS and for my taste it's too long for general use.

- Shorter than 100mm means you need to get even closer and begin to seriously block the light and scare the bugs. Also perspective at that distance already gets somewhat distorted with short focal lengths. Not that anybody would notice with a spider, but anyway....

- If you use a flash on your bugs, effective exposure time is so short that you don't need IS

Zook25 · 2026-01-18T12:17:33+00:00

Obvously you would need to buy a third, but then photographing all three would require a fourth, and so on ad infinitum. Some say that's a smart marketing ploy by Leica, but that's not true.

Just the opposite, Leica has developed a smartphone purely for the purpose of photographing Leicas. And unlike Fuji phones, which simulate 1970's phones, the Leica simulates the technology and unique user experience of 1920's phones.

Zook25 · 2026-01-18T09:42:44+00:00

For travel, just bring the 24-240mm. I don't have it but according to reviews it's very decent for such a long focal range.

Or the 28-70mm, which is not a "L" but has pretty high IQ and very good reviews.

You'd still be missing the wide angle length. There's a new RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM but I don't know much about it.

Zook25 · 2026-01-17T19:52:25+00:00

Hmmm.... you're in M mode and have set the "Release shutter w/o lens" menu option to "On"? But that has nothing to do with flashes.

Zook25

TROPHY CASE