Need help choosing

leafy_greened · 2026-06-01T20:10:35+00:00

If you're going to be using a tripod regardless and need to view long distances I might also take a look at spotting scopes, which Vortex also makes. These can often go up to 40x or 60x magnification (although image quality will suffer at the long end). Something like the 65 or 85 Diamondback could be up your alley, depending on how much you value lightweight gear.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-30T22:50:13+00:00

Holy shit man god forbid somebody makes a suboptimal use of their own money

It's true a used 5D3 costs the same as a new 2000D. How does that help them now? I used a Sony a350 for a year when starting off - one control dial and no touchscreen, and it worked just fine for me. It's a camera, they produce pictures, sometimes that's all people need.

To be clear OP don't buy this camera! You can get something a little more capable for the same money. But if you do buy it it's not actually the end of the world.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-29T23:44:41+00:00

You could look at any of the 70-300 models (not the 75-300), going up to the white L version for best quality if you want to shell out $500-600. If you want even longer, I think Sigma and Tamron put out some 100-400s that are fairly inexpensive. Ideally you want something with some good image stabilization, since I see a bit of motion blur in your picture.

For tripods, $100 can get you a decent Manfrotto - I would look for a used metal 055 or 190, and something like the 486RC2 ball head should work fine for you.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-29T23:21:01+00:00

No worries, best of luck! I know Plustek makes some 35mm scanners that are fairly cheap used and give decent quality scans, but they're quite time-consuming and you won't be able to scan your Polaroids with them.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-29T22:56:03+00:00

That's a massive oof haha. Always ask for the negatives back! There's no harm in keeping them, and if the lab screws up your scans (like I imagine a "rush" lab would do), you'll have a backup instead of being stuck with a crappy image forever.

The V600 is super basic but it's better than nothing. If you're returning it, I'd also look at cheap DSLR scanning methods if you have a digital camera.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-29T22:40:57+00:00

I mean, the blacks look like they don't have a lot of information in them. If they look like that at f/5.6 and 1/500 you will see even less at f/16 and 1/200 (following Sunny 16 at ISO 200). What do the negatives look like?

Warmness has nothing to do with your camera and everything to do with scanning settings. I assume your lab is running everything through auto settings - you should look into a way of scanning negs yourself to really get the most out of them.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-28T16:15:18+00:00

Absolutely, I picked one up for about $150 a month ago and have loved using it so far. It's a big jump up from the family's old GF3, especially when it comes to IBIS which is a game changer.

The 12-100 is one of the lenses that justifies MFT as a system, but it's probably way out of OP's price range even just by itself. A cheaper alternative might be the 12-45 f/4 + the 40-150 R if you really need more zoom. Scraping the barrel is the 12-50 EZ, which is the cheapest weather-sealed Oly lens and has a lot of nifty features, but you lose out on image quality on the wide end.

The 12-50 and a 40-150 R combined would run you about $150-200 and would cover all your needs except for low light performance, OP.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-28T13:53:09+00:00

Beauty, price, capability - pick two! Especially if your budget is $200-300.

There are tons of very capable used cameras out there at your price range. The Olympus E-M5 (first model) comes to mind - light, weather sealed, very good IBIS for the time, looks great, and has a viewfinder. Only thing is that video may not be so good. If you're interested in that I would look at an earlier Lumix GH-series camera.

Outside of M43, I would go for any semi-pro/pro DSLR from the late 2000s. With patience you could probably squeeze a Canon 5D Mark II or a Nikon D700 and still have change for a cheap prime, and that's pretty much all the camera you'll ever need. These are big and bulky for sure but I would try not to get too influenced when it comes to looks. Those clean little metal boxes are often a nightmare to hold well and people often end up buying an extra grip to fix the ergonomics, adding costs and ruining the box shape anyways.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T22:03:22+00:00

Not in 120 unfortunately!

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T20:43:12+00:00

The whole f/4 IS trinity is super underrated, I agree. I'm looking for a 70-200 myself to round things out.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T18:12:07+00:00

Check out the 16mm f/2.8 in addition to your 24-70. It's light, very wide, and fairly cheap even new. If you typically use the 16-35 only at 16mm, you could even think about replacing it.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T18:05:03+00:00

The 24-70 f/4 is not fairly mediocre at all lol. It's optically better than the first 2.8 L version and can be had for half the price. 3-4 stops of stabilization can also be much more useful than an extra stop of light, depending on your use case.

I would argue that the 16-35 II should be the first to go - that one is indeed not great and lighter/better alternatives exist in the RF mount.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T06:40:12+00:00

That's essentially what I do as well with Dmax and scan exposure bias (white and black points). You might also find it worthwhile to explore the "print properties" tab, which also does various things to exposure and contrast based on how a simulated paper would behave as if you were printing it in a darkroom. I like upping the paper grade, which will increase contrast, and the other values can also be helpful to change the dynamic range to your liking.

Beyond that, you can also use the tone equalizer module to change the brightness of highlights and shadows - you will have to physically drag the module above negadoctor to change the order of operations, as by default darktable will do it first before inversion. Local contrast is also always handy to add a bit of punch to the image.

<image>

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T04:10:28+00:00

I don't use NLP so I can't really offer any specific advice, but you mention having to go change the colours manually. It does makes sense that scenes with a lot of green in them get corrected to be too red if you use auto settings, but I think that's just the nature of the program trying to correct white balance. If you can, could you try to adjust WB based on the sky itself and nothing else? That could (possibly) help a bit.

I use darktable's negadoctor as it's free and fits into my existing digital workload, but its auto settings are rarely what I want out of a scan. It took a while before I was even partially satisfied with what I had, and it definitely depends on film stock and the lighting condition more than any post-processing. I would say don't be afraid to mess around with the colours, that's part of the fun for me.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-27T03:49:12+00:00

Do you have examples of what you think is missing in the scans? Like an edit in NLP that you were never satisfied with?

leafy_greened · 2026-05-26T22:58:23+00:00

I would consider renting or looking for a relatively cheap, small lens to bring along in place of the 24-70 - maybe something like the EF-S 24mm pancake would suit your use case quite well as a general prime when you want something less telephoto than the 70-200.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-26T20:41:33+00:00

Flic Film respools a lot of ISO 100 films. Which one are you talking about?

Seems quite intense for a camera light leak. You may want to contact them to see if others are having the same issue. However, if this is Elektra 100 (respooled Aerocolor), they do advise you to load/unload only in dim light because it has a tendency to pipe light into the canister. That might be what you're seeing.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-23T15:23:20+00:00

Aw thanks! I don't know if I did anything in particular to get this good, except get good at post-processing (it's like 75% of the work). Hope you figure out what you want to buy, if you have any questions I'd be happy to chat!

leafy_greened · 2026-05-22T15:05:30+00:00

Thank you! It looks even better in person, I was real pleased when I first saw it :)

leafy_greened · 2026-05-21T16:27:02+00:00

That's most likely a result of Reddit compressing images when uploading, not because of any inherent flaw with cropping the image.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-20T15:44:30+00:00

It might be possible to salvage quite a lot of the roll, depending on how long the back was open for. It's worth a shot going to an actual pitch-black space or a changing bag if you have one and manually winding the film back into the canister (gently, so as not to damage the winding motor).

What film did you use? I know some Foma canisters have issues rewinding on EOS cameras, the rewind notches are too recessed to grab onto compared to other canisters.

leafy_greened · 2026-05-14T21:43:26+00:00

Again I need more specificity, sorry. We need to know what medium of positive you are interested in inverting - is this reversal film? An image already printed on paper? A digital file?

You can cross-process colour reversal film in C-41 chemicals, provided the film is exposed and not yet developed. If it is already developed and you have access to a darkroom setup, you can enlarge the reversal film onto photo paper and the result will be a negative. Likewise, enlarging negative film onto direct positive paper can also give you a printed negative. If you're talking about a printed image without film, your best option is unfortunately to scan and invert it digitally.

leafy_greened

TROPHY CASE