You can get a Canon 5D II or a Canon 6D for that. Older cameras for sure, but full frame with excellent sensors. And there are a ton of inexpensive used EF lenses available.
Compared to moderns systems the main difference is the autofocus and video capabilities. Modern mirrorless have cosmically better tracking, eye detect etc.
Also speaking of older models I think it is important to repeat that the pixel count is not what define the quality of the image but mereley only how cropable the end result will be and it is only really useful if the higher pixel count isn't made of garbage. Accutance of the end result is in most cases much more important.
For instance, human eyes can't perceive the difference between a 12MP and a 50MP image printed in a poster format from a typical 1.5-2meters viewing distance and 8MP is usually good enough for most large prints.
So I would advise choosing a second hand model taking shutter count, general state, lenses quality, autofocus speed and image stabilisation efficiency as more prioritary parameters than sensor pixel count.
Both take excellent photos, especially in low light. I reprinted some of the original 5D photos 11”x17” and even though they have fewer pixels the quality was fine.
Canons are pretty cheap on the used market because they have a new mirrorless R series cameras/lenses so the older ones value dropped a lot.
A good lens helps a lot. Someone on the thread suggested a 50mm 1.8 “plastic fantastic”. It’s a great choice. Really sharp, lets a lot of light in, feels kind of cheap. I always liked the 24-105mm f4 zoom, but it’s pricier.
Cannons are no longer pretty cheap. If so then they have huge mileage on them, shutter count might kill your camera soon. I think the window closed two years ago and now they are becoming very cool again.
Besides the 50mm nifty fifty. There is "middle" range of "ultrasonic" zooms that are actually pretty capable and underrated/cheap. I have few for canon film cameras and their secret huge advantage is weight, optics wise they are pretty good (i have them converted on lumix full frame). I would also mention sigma 35mm art which can be get for less than 300eur and is THE lens if you know you like 35mm (person i ended up being).
On one hand, you have to remember that huge MP doesnt do much if the glass can't resolve well enough.
On the flipside, I have to note that switching to high MP full frame makes it a lot easier to do good, clean crops. Sometimes I might care about a small portion of the frame but for composition reasons (e.x. can't get closer for one reason or another) I at least can lean on cropping more.
To add: Hit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II and scroll down to the very end, then click "show" to expand the "Canon EOS digital SLR timeline". This is an incredible collection of information that I can't figure out how to link directly.
Full frame sensor = full frame lenses = heavy and expensive. You need something light that you want to carry with you. Otherwise what's the point of having the best medium format camera + lens that you have at home, collecting dust.
That means a camera APS-C or micro four thirds sensor might suit better to someone who is new to photography.
I've always thought i am that APSC person and I ended up not taking the camera that much with me because it was small difference to compact camera i was carrying in my pocket. I thought it was skill issue because my photos just didn't have that bite/detail/look.
The moment i got older full frame i realized that "look" has so much to do with the sensor size. In beginning i only had cheap 30euro manual soviet lens and even with that the quality of the photos just shot up.
Full frame is heavy yes but it can be pretty affordable (lenses from china are becoming extremely competitive).
Full frame DSLRs are heavy because of the big mirror box. Mirrorless full frame cameras are a lot lighter. An APS-C Canon R7 is bigger than my full frame Canon RP. Coupled with a light prime it's almost indistinguishable from a compact camera and delivers better image quality than most of those.
Since TFA is talking about focus points and you are suggesting a 5Dii, I'd have to put out a strong bit of caution as the 9 focal points of the 5Dii are a huge pain point. More modern cameras have many many more points that make shooting so much less of of a pain. With the 9 points, I routinely find myself framing the image to get focus only to have to reframe before releasing the shutter. It was a huge factor on why I switched focusing from half-press shutter to the button on the back of the body.
- You Right click a tab and choose `Add to new Tab Group`.
- You then name and set a colour for the group.
- You then drag tabs in and out of the group.
So far the tabs work much the same as ungrouped ones. There is a small coloured button to the left of the group with the name, and the tabs in the group are underlined with the same colour.
But then you click the button and the tabs all collapse.
The nice thing is when expanded they are just like every other tab, not hidden away in a folder, or some menu or modal. But then you can clean up with the press of a button.
Lack of Tab Groups is what stopped me from switching to Firefox last year.
That sounds like tree style tabs except with colors, that you have to manually set groups instead of it being grouped based on what opened what, and it's still horizontal so can't see more than a handful of tabs at the same time. On the other hand, it being native sounds like a big advantage (looking with one eye at xpi addons here, specifically the vertical tabs one Mozilla developed themselves and then immediately killed because it had been decided addons need to not be so powerful)
You can pre-select multiple tabs to add to the group when creating a new one. It will also automatically add newly opened tabs originating from a grouped tab in the same group. Not vertical like TST, but a very nice quality life improvement in the native browser.
I think most peoples judgments have been formed over 21 years. WordPress initially gained a reputation for being a fast and easy way to setup a website, then gained a reputation for being a security nightmare.
Maybe its not anymore but people are right to be sceptical. I sure do see a lot of CVEs in the weekly update I check - maybe they're all low risk, or relate to rarely used plugins.
I think the root of bad reputation was due to various plugins and their usage pattern:
lots of non-tech users heard that they can use plugins X Y Z for fun and profit, so they started to use them, but no one told them that managing dependencies requires some skill or at least discipline; that the fact some 3rd party pluggable software exists doesn't automatically mean it's good, viable, maintainable and safe; and that things in IT don't work by means of cargo cult, copy-pasting without underdstanding and by crossing fingers. So, there was a fallacy: these people believed (and many believe until this day) that they can remain being non-tech users while maintaining their wordpress-with-plugins installation, but it's impossible; one needs to become tech-aware in the process.
I am not sure what WP community did to dissolve this fallacy; maybe they did something. maybe didn't.
We've expanded our HackerOne and other security apparatus to cover the top 100 plugins directly and do our best to work with every plugin in the directory, including many contributions from web hosts who of course want their sites to be secure. The update system has become very robust, and all the top hosts also protect their sites at the network layer so many CVEs are blocked even if the code hasn't been updated yet.
A brief period (~2008-2015) when XMPP had momentum and federation was trendy, if incomplete.
Apps like Trillian, Pidgin (Gaim), Adium actually allowed chatting across many platforms on the client side. To some extent they still can, with add-ons.
That's precisely what the primary Beeper Cloud and the old Element One product are for. Just connect to your Signal, Discord, Facebook, WhatsApp, iMessage accounts and chat with all of them in one single app.
Beeper Cloud and Element One do this through matrix bridges, but Beeper has been trying to move this entirely into the client again, which is what Beeper Mini is an experiment for.
If Beeper Mini succeeds, it'll soon also support Signal, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger. If Apple succeeds, messaging will remain fragmented.
> Back in the day there was ICQ, Yahoo Chat, MSN Messenger (and no doubt a dozen I forget).
Yes, and you could combine them all into a single multi-protocol messaging app like Adium, Trillian, Gaim, Pidgin, etc. to provide a single convenient unified experience.
2001, when Adium launched. It pretty much had every messaging app that anyone was on.
I used it exclusively for years. It supported all those things (or I should say if someone had multiple ways to get to them, Adium supported at least one of them).
Adium was a total lifesaver on Mac since there was never an official MSN messenger client there.
Back then a lot of services also used XMPP but that has been readily abandoned - Slack used to do XMPP, doesn't any more. Google used to do XMPP, doesn't any more...
I think their switch away from XMPP predates E2EE and some of them still aren't using E2EE, so that's not the real reason. XMPP has good E2EE now with OMEMO though.
Adium was a very well-designed mac app that I used for many years. All of its messaging connectivity was due to its use of libpurple (formerly libgaim).
Probably when e-mail was the primary form of digital communication.
Or maybe referring to RL. You know, actually talking to someone on phone or in-person. Although then you have to deal with different accents, dialects, languages, and even regions specific lexicon.
Yes, and there was Trillian, which was compatible with all of ICQ, Yahoo Chat, MSN Messenger and others.
But because Apple decided to make their messaging system a marketing tool instead of an interoperable app, we don't get to have a Trillian equivalent today.
I tried moving to Firefox a year ago but found that the lack of Tab Groups really killed me.
There are several extensions that try to emulate this behaviour, but I didn't find that they worked particularly well. And then there are the security concerns.
I guess when Chrome break uBlock Origin next year I'll give Edge a go, or one of the various chromium builds
Does it allow "saving" tab groups and having them sync with what you've actually put in them? Last I checked this was still an experimental feature in Chrome (it might be auto-available now), but it's a killer feature for me (it auto-syncs with whatever you add to or remove to the tab group also).
Mozilla providing the same would be required for me to make the switch altogether (though I happily use it for some things already)
Just in case you're open to something new: Tree Style Tabs is my goto extension to managing tabs on firefox
You manage your tabs vertically in a sidebar, organized as a tree. Every new tab is opened as a leaf from the tab that you came from, grouping your tabs by branches following your navigation on the web. This make managing groups of tabs by topics really natural.
Not the browsers themselves, but the extensions that provide tab group functionality - they often have the `Access your data for all web sites` permission.
Maybe I trust the developer right now, but one day they may sell their plugin to someone else. Obviously its the same story for uBlock Origin, but I prefer to restrict the number of extensions with these permissions, and its a shame to need an extension for what is provided by all the other major brwosers.
I don’t think those permission mean that they can collect the data and send it home. I think it means more something like „ accessing all code of website to block scripts“.
If the would send data home I would be a bit irritated. Could someone please clarify this ?
Because I know some extensions do exactly this . There was a talk from the ccc about this. But is this a Firefox specific problem ?
I use several EF lenses on my Canon mirrorless. They tend to focus faster then on the old SLRs (and this is on the EOS-R which has the least sophisticated focusing).
Compared to moderns systems the main difference is the autofocus and video capabilities. Modern mirrorless have cosmically better tracking, eye detect etc.
reply