Hey anons,
I got a Canon R50 (mirrorless, interchangeable 18-45mm lens) and I’m wondering what you’d recommend adding to make the setup more versatile. Also, if you have any useful settings tips or tricks to get the most out of it, I’d really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.

Buy a lens that has f1.8 in the name
Take a picture of your dog

>>4439107 (OP)
A polarizer might help if you're going to be shooting in bright light. Other than that you don't really need to rush to spend money

>>4439107 (OP)
Trade it in for an mft sensor equipped professional imaging system. You basically aren't a photographer without one.

>>4439107 (OP)
only thing I can think of is a lense that covers a different mm range

tips and tricks:
read through the manual its only some 800 pages

go through all the settings and try to understand atleast some of it also change things to your liking while youre there. Theres lots of things like screen brightness, auto cleaning, auto focus modes, or what info you want displayed on your screen while shooting. Not big gamechangers but it make the camera fit better to you.

and this is just a general tip but its better to have a high ISO when shooting than to try to bring up the exposure in post.

>>4439116
>polarizing filter
Lmao, the least useful piece of equipment imaginable to a beginner.
/p/ never ceases to amaze.

>>4439107 (OP)
>Tips
Learn about the exposure triangle.
Figure out how to isolate subjects using depth of field (low f-stop).
Learn to use M, S and A modes (may be called "Tv" or some stupid shit on Canon).
Figure put how the various AF modes work.
Learn about AE priority modes.
Learn about exposure compensation.
You are now a cameraman. Congrats.

>>4439161
Just because you don't know how to use it doesn't mean it's not useful

>>4439107 (OP)
>I got a Canon R50
Why, and how?
Can you return it?...

>Also, if you have any useful settings tips or tricks to get the most out of it, I’d really appreciate it.
Uhh, the most you'll get out of this is your money back.
If you're stuck with it though... I recommend good lighting and replace the shit lens with something decent instead.

>>4439161
Holy nophoto

Its for cutting reflections on glass/water/plants/skin/glasses and dialing in how many reflections to cut. Literally essential.

Everyone needs a zoom, a small f1.8 prime and a CPL, at least.

>>4439176
The rf 18-45 is actually really sharp. Shit bokeh tho. Use at f8.

Don't worry about drama queens that don't like your camera. I started on something way worse

>>4439177
Do zoomers need zooms?

>>4439181
i once passed by a boomer that had a P1000

>>4439194
The boomer zoomer. A rare sighting indeed.

>>4439107 (OP)
Well you didnt buy a Snoy, so at least you didn't fuck up.
Just get an extra battery and enjoy taking photos. Then you can figure out if you want a wider or more tele lens or a prime. Or you might figure out you hate photography and just saved yourself a few thousand on more lenses.

>>4439198
Sony cameras are better. Sorry there are options other than m43 and canikon!

>>4439205
Mft owns snoysnoy.

>>4439198
>>4439205
>>4439207
why do you fags need to spread your disease everywhere?

>>4439107 (OP)
G'day, I own the same thing. Chucked the kit lens a while ago but don't get caught up and in the gearfaggoty and MFT memes.
That camera and lens will take you 70% of the way with pretty much any kind of photos you want to take. If you get into specific things then you can worry about buying shit.

Read the fucking manual. Please get out of the green camera mode that does everything for you. At the very least please try using P mode, but Av mode isn't too much more effort. You will only get better by using it though, so go do some things. The great thing about the R50 is how fucking small and light it is. If it's so small your hand is uncomfortable, buy a pleather half-case off of aliexpress and it will add some needed thickness to the grip.

The most basic things like exposure triangle and effect of shutter speed, aperture, and ISO you should really just read about online.
I would recommend rebinding some buttons like the red video button to more useful things like metering and DoF preview. The bin button is not bound to anything by default either iirc. Enable the RGB histogram and get a basic idea of what purpose it serves. Shoot RAW as well as JPEG, so if you encounter a tricky scene you can go learn how to post-process and make the most of your photographs.

Any specific question you could possibly ask about the R50 I will know the answer to, so feel free to ask away.

I personally don't see the point of an ILC if you're only going to own one lens, so think about if you're going to take photos of people in your life and maybe grab the 50mm f/1.8 as it will be a decent portrait lens. The 55-210mm f/5-7.1 would also be a good budget choice for telephoto if you feel like the 45mm end of your kit lens is too short for some things.

>>4439119
K

>>4439107 (OP)
a gimbal

>>4439260
>Any specific question you could possibly ask about the R50 I will know the answer to
Do the SPAM modes retain their settings through power cycles so they can be used as pseudo-custom modes (or Nikon's memory banks)?

>>4439276
Nah, it's actually kind of shit for that. I can't wait until I get an R6 that has C modes.
It'll keep track of SS and Aperture but that's basically it. Even ISO is shared across the modes. Video mode keeps track of a couple more things like ISO and focus mode so at least if you swap between video and photo it's a bit more convenient.

>>4439280
Man, that sucks ass.
They really rubbed it in when they gave the R50 V custom modes (for some reason).
I'd get an SL1 and use it if it had C modes.
I'll still probably get one for a joke I have in mind.

>>4439284
>They really rubbed it in when they gave the R50 V custom modes (for some reason).
Fucking kek. Ah well, I didn't know any better when I bought it. Would have gone with an RP if I did but that has its own set of issues.

>>4439289
>that has its own set of issues
The half-shutter or the Rebel-class battery?

>>4439290
Half shutter. Shit battery. Dated sensor. Fucky restricted menu system. Older JPEG engine. Pathetic video modes. Sure I've missed some more.
Granted the R50 also suffers from half shutter and shit battery. I just would have prefered FF to start as it would have cost the same. I'm pretty annoyed by Canon's cripple hammering nonsense, but once I get an R6II I don't think I'll be buying anything for a long time.

>>4439295
>Dated sensor
I never heard anyone complain about the 6D MkII image sensor, just the PDAF sensor.

>Fucky restricted menu system
What's that like?

What's making you insist on the R6 MkII over the original, the superior video functionality?

>>4439330
>I never heard anyone complain about the 6D MkII image sensor, just the PDAF sensor.
Fuck, yeah that was what I was thinking of.
>Fucky restricted menu system
Haven't experienced it personally but it's different to every other EOS R camera and is missing a handful of options that even my R50 has.
>What's making you insist on the R6 MkII over the original, the superior video functionality?
Nothing much. I would get an R6 if the price was right on the used market, but I can only find them for $500-600 less than a mark II new. The higher MP count and supposedly better AF would be all I can think of.

>>4439332
>it's different to every other EOS R camera
Even the EOS R, or does it share the menu with it because they were the first in the series?

>I would get an R6 if the price was right on the used market
What's the deal with the used RF market?
The prices are insane.
A used R6 is the same (or higher) price as a refurbished Mark II.
Is everyone crowding into mirrorless so it's driving the price up on the limited number of bodies?
That would be plausible to me if it didn't seem like used DSLR prices were stagnating.

>>4439344
>Even the EOS R[?]
Unsure actually. I can't remember reading anything that mentions the EOS R itself, but have read multiple sources talk about the RP being odd.
>What's the deal with the used RF market?
Idk mang. Aussie used market is extra fucked in general, but RF goes for like 85% the price of new. Seems like a supply issue. Funny because the R100/50 RP and R are actually rather cheap used, but then the R10, R7, R6(I/II) and R5 hold almost all their value. No idea what the pattern is.

>>4439107 (OP)
practice with manual mode to get an understanding what options you have for exposure and depth of field.
get a cheap prime, maybe the 50mm 1.8

>>4439344
>Even the EOS R
Nta but I find the eos R menu to be pretty in line with the 5div. Never used the rp so I can’t say.
>t. Owned an R since launch day

>>4439356
Has the half-shutter of the R50 ever gotten in your way?
As it's described, it seems that its peculiarities only arise in specific circumstances.
I'd probably buy an RP, but I'm concerned that shutter will vex me in some way and I won't be able to look past it (a bit like my 40D and its fucked up auto ISO).

>>4439473
What do you think of it?
I still don't understand why they reduced it to one card slot when it was, effectively, a mirrorless version of the 5D MkIV.
Could they not figure out CFexpress prior to 2020?

>>4439473
i'm not a videocuck so for me it was a great camera (if you look at most negative review from the time, most of the complaining was about the limited video and 1.6x crop in 4k, but like who gives a shit), certainly a step up from my old a7ii. I still use it plenty to this day, the 30mp it gives me i still find more than enough and i don't have issues with DR or anything like that. i'm a normie user, not a reviewer so i don't particularly care about it not being good at pushing the extremes (compared to newer stuff). Don't really feel compelled to upgrade it honestly.

>>4439500
>>4439496
replied to myself instead of you, d'oh.

>>4439500
Very cool.
What are your thoughts on the touch bar?

>>4439504
that's the one thing i agree with the reviewers on, it's stupid and kinda useless as a touchbar. i've just got it setup to work as a simple button. Actually still the first test shit i ever took with it lol. as shott window was complettely blown out, but the highlights are pretty recoverable. that's another thing the reviews slammed it for, having less DR than the competition, but for my uses it's completely fine.

>>4439496
Has the half-shutter of the R50 ever gotten in your way?
Not really. The only thing I can think of is fucky bokeh at high shutter speeds, and I don't care or notice it even if it does come up. It's all about having more options, just in case.
>I'd probably buy an RP, but I'm concerned that shutter will vex me in some way and I won't be able to look past it
It's the same kind of whatif-ism that I'm probably holding out for an R6II. Sure the cheaper option might fit me like a glove, but then I want two card slots, or suddenly I want 6x slow mo video for some reason. I want to buy the next camera and use it for 5-10 years.

The RP and R are 6-7 years old respectively, and the R50 came out in 2023. If I risk regressing in any area of capability, I don't see the point.

>>4439605
Does it happen when you exceed a set shutter speed or does it depend on the sensor's readout?

>I want two card slots
I've never had a need for two card slots out of redundancy.
The only camera that ate my images was a Fujix DS-300, while using a Fujifilm PCMCIA flash card none the less.
The benefit I get out of it is that a card's always in my camera, even when I'm reading/transferring the files from the other card.
That issue could be rectified if OEMs would incorporate onboard memory, but, still, few do.

>I want to buy the next camera and use it for 5-10 years
I sympathize.
If my 1D had custom modes, I'd be content repacking the batteries and using it.
I'll probably just get a 6D and stick a rehoused 40mm STM on it.

>>4439605
>I want to buy the next camera and use it for 5-10 years.
SNOY shamelessly still markets and sells the a7iii as new, picrel. Must be good enough for someone out there.

>>4439624
>I've never had a need for two card slots out of redundancy.
Nah see that's the thing, I'm not concerned either. But there *might* come a time when I start thinking I do need it. It's just about future proofing myself.
I've gone through my gearfag stage and now I just want to have the best tool I can afford and not buy anything for ages.
>I'll probably just get a 6D and stick a rehoused 40mm STM on it.
DSLR-tier endgame kits are getting stupidly cheap for what they can produce. Any reason you wouldn't go for a 5DIV?

>>4439629
Lol snoy. Even if there was a significant reason to switch, I'm not going to redo my entire lens kit since Canon just werks for me.

>>4439629
Panasonic and Nikon are still re-releasing the a7iii, only changing onboard noise reduction and the available video codecs. The only real hard difference between them and the a7iii is the software loaded, different jpeg presets and stuff. Sony could have made the a7iii as good as the z5ii on launch but didn't want to hurt sales of cine cams.

If magic lantern existed for each mirrorless brand you would see how much of a scam sony sensor using brands are.

>>4439629
Sony is a meme camera though.

>>4439671
>be the best
>get to be a meme

>>4439662
>Any reason you wouldn't go for a 5DIV?
Size, frugality and file sizes.
If I found the volume to be acceptable, I'd buy a Mark III.
If I was willing to spend more, I'd get a 5DS(r) for its in-VF 1:1 crop lines.
The only thing I see that the 5D MkIV practically offers over the other 5D cameras is 1080p60.

There is also the illuminated AF points of the 6D.
I'm not sure how perturbed I'd be about the black boxes.

>>4439680
>smallest Sony pancake lens

>>4439662
the 5div doesn't even have an articulating screen. Why would anyone buy that dinosaur shit?

>>4439734
>Sony pancakes
Yeah but the cameras are so fucking fat you can't fit them in a pocket

My micro four thirds camera (em5iii) is the hardest to justify owning. Since it's the same size as my a7cii, the only way it could make sense is with an incredibly small lens like the kit zoom (not the "pannycake" that thing cant af for shit and it randomly causes banding), but it doesn't fit in pants pockets or comfortably sit in a jacket pocket either so that's irrelevant. you know what makes it really, really irrelevant? a ricoh gr is more pocketable and the af is just as shit as any small m43.

If it gets dark it's totally fucking useless compared to the a7cii and if it's bright it's totally useless compared to the a7cii. in the "i'd shoot this at iso 800-3200" zone it's ok. the ibis is worse than the a7cii. the autofocus is way, way worse than the a7cii. the a7cii has a bunch of small primes to use m43/aps-c (50mm f2 air, 40mm f2.5, 90mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8). every m43 lens that's good is about as big (or smaller but still as inconveniencing) and slower even "equivalently".

so far i've only been able to make it stand out and make it useful by attaching the 12-60 f3.5-5.6 because sony has yet to release a 24-120 f7-11 thats this tiny, for people to use to turn their nice $2000 a7s into boomer bridge cameras. i guess one of the smaller, lower end 300mm zooms could be cool, and the 60mm macro is a missing option on ff (autofocusing slow macros for compactness, 1-handing w/ off camera flash), but i don't give a shit about birds or bugs

>>4439845
That's it, I'm buying a sony a7c. Fuck micro four thirds. I'm going to get the 20mm and 50mm viltrox airs and go snapshit. Leave zoom lens focal length FOMO at the door. That's a skill issue.

how did this thread turn into a sony m43 seethe fest? You people are disgusting

>>4439907
>seething snoycuck schizo enters thread and starts writing essays and samefag agreeing with himself
Many such cases unfortunately.

>>4440026
I haven't been reading your anti-sony conspiracy theories and I don't care. People like you can't take good photos.

I have nothing against sony, but MFT is not good, so noisy even in good light and ETTR

Menus on RP seem normal to me

>>4440068
MFT is better than any 1" PNS that every youtuber and instagrammers calls "more than you'll ever need"

It's just that a lot of MFT gear sits in the same price range as cameras that are objectively, vastly superior in every single way so you can only get so many things out of the system without it being a stupid waste of money, and yet, mft users insist it's better (it's not, not even close, even the rendering is bad)

>>4439107 (OP)
dont buy anything yet. just abuse your camera and find tuts on how to use the P Tv Av M top dial selections.

>>4439845
>Why would anyone buy that dinosaur shit?
Because they don't want an articulating screen?

>>4439846
Based green skin shrek anon

>>4440282

>>4439177
If you "need a zoom" you're doing it wrong. I'd agree more with "Need zooms."
If you "need a zoom" you're probably talking about a 24-70-ish equivalent, which is the most fucking useless zoom out there.
Not wide enough for proper perspective distortion, not long enough for proper compression. Almost anything you can do with a 24-70 you can do with a 35mm or 50mm.
Real set-up isn't a 24-70mm, it's a 14-24, a 35 or 50, and a 70-200. And I personally replace the 14-24 with just a 20mm.

>>4440447
Nah, everyone needs a zoom. Not a "pro zoom" (not that i'd ever call a wedding photographer a real professional). A small standard zoom like the kit lens. Sometimes you just want to live life first, and "be a photographer" (larp with primes and tripods) second, take photos to make memories instead of to "focus on the art" (it's not art and it will only start being art when you stop pretending it is).

>>4440448
>(larp with primes and tripods)
A fast prime means you don't have to play with tripods.

>>4440448
Even the 24-70 is shitty for a casual zoom.
Compact super zooms are much better for that. A super zoom is a nice lens for a photographer to have for exactly the reasons you said. The 24-70 doesn't qualify here because even for "living first" the 50mm does just as well, if not better because it's often smaller/lighter, and it's going to work better in poorly lit environments.
I'm on Pentax these days, so my typical casual outing where I care about photography (e.g. travel), I bring my APS-C KP or KF, 18-135mm, with 15mm, and 31mm in the bag. I wish Pentax made a small, lightweight 12-13mm-ish prime in their limited series which I'd rather bring instead of the 15mm.
If I bring my FF K1ii, 18-135mm or 28-105mm, my 21mm and my 43mm. Perfect.

>>4440465
In relevance to OP, the Sigma 16-300mm or Canon 18-150mm would be good (only native) choices in the super zoom category.
One of those + a 30mm lens and the 10-18mm would cover OP"s bases quite well.