You are wrong

If you're one of those who believe DSLRs are better than mirrorless cameras, you might be making a mistake.

 

 If you're buying today, and especially if you're shooting:

•     Sports
•     Wildlife
•     Events
•     Video
•     Low-light environments

Then a mirrorless camera of the same professional tier will usually outperform a DSLR. The technology has matured — Canon R3, Nikon Z9, Sony A1, etc., are at least equal to, and often better than, their DSLR counterparts (like the 1D X Mark III or D6).

But if you're:

•     Deep into a DSLR lens ecosystem
•     Prefer OVF shooting
•     Working in situations where battery life and toughness matter more than speed

Then a DSLR is still a strong, reliable tool.

 Mirrorless is the future — and the present — especially for high-level work. DSLRs were fantastic and still hold up in many scenarios, but the flexibility, AF performance, and video capabilities of mirrorless now tip the scale clearly in their favor.

Note for myself: I wonder how many hits this article will get just because of the tittle. ;-) 

What do you like and what do you dislike about Canon?

This is a good question. 

I love Canon's color science — the colors straight out of the camera are natural, vibrant, and especially flattering for skin tones. Whether shooting landscapes, portraits, or wildlife, Canon’s color rendering consistently delivers pleasing and true-to-life results. No wonder why it's one of the reasons many photographers trust Canon for both professional and personal work. 

 Another point that I love is the ergonomic design — they just feel right in your hands. Whether you're holding an entry-level DSLR or a high-end mirrorless body, Canon has consistently prioritized comfort and usability. The grip is deep and well-contoured, allowing your fingers to wrap around it naturally, which is especially important during long shooting sessions or when using heavier lenses.

Buttons and dials are intuitively placed, so you can make quick adjustments without taking your eye off the viewfinder. The layout feels purposeful — not overcrowded, but with just enough control at your fingertips to stay in the flow of shooting. Even smaller models retain that same thoughtful design, making them easy to hold and operate with one hand.

This attention to tactile experience isn't just about convenience; it’s about confidence. When a camera feels solid, balanced, and easy to operate, you’re more likely to focus on creativity rather than fumbling with settings. For many photographers — beginners and pros alike — that’s part of what makes shooting with a Canon feel so natural.

If you’re shooting wildlife or using heavier lenses, Canon and Nikon generally offer a more comfortable grip. If you're after compactness or cutting-edge tech, Sony leads — but you may sacrifice a bit of tactile comfort. 

Photo taken with a Canon R6.

What I dislike? The lack of third-part lenses for RF Mount. I believe Canon is taking advantage of the lack of third-party options for the RF mount to keep prices high. But to be fair, Canon’s prices aren't wildly higher than Sony's or Nikon's first-party lenses. 

Other than that, I love Canon. Keep in mind that I have used Nikon and I have used Sony. Nothing is wrong with these brands.   

My first bird picture

I was recently watching an interview on YouTube where the conversation began with the first-ever nature photo taken by a professional wildlife photographer. That made me think about which one was my own first. Let’s start by saying that the photo below was taken with a Canon PowerShot SD750 — a camera no one seriously interested in wildlife photography would consider buying. That was in 2008!

I had no idea what I was doing — no sense of composition, no understanding of photography at all. It wasn’t until 2015 that I revisited the idea of wildlife photography, this time using a Nikon Coolpix S9700. It was a better camera with a 30x zoom, which I thought would help — though it was still just a point-and-shoot. I still wasn’t editing my photos, and to be honest, I used to think post-processing was a form of cheating. I wasn’t thinking about how to improve the raw image coming out of the camera.

Of course, a point-and-shoot camera with a 30x zoom didn’t meet my expectations. These cameras are meant for travel and casual photography — and while they may be good for that, they’re not suited for wildlife photography. That’s how I ended up getting my first DSLR, the Nikon D5200, and began taking wildlife photography more seriously.

10 years, 4 cameras and more than 80000 pictures later, here is where I'm today.

 

 It’s been a long and winding road — but a deeply rewarding one. Am I a good photographer? I’ll let you be the judge. As for me, I simply see myself as someone still walking that road, camera in hand, always learning, always looking for the light.

 

 

ChatGPT, wonderful tool for photographers.

 I ran an experiment with ChatGPT to check its logic picking lenses for my next trip. Here is what I asked:

From these lenses, which 2 would you pick to travel with: Canon EF70-200mm L, Canon EF28-80mm L or Tamron 28-300mm? 

And here is the response: 

For travel, I’d pick the Tamron 28-300mm and the Canon EF 70-200mm L — here's why:

1. Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3

• Ideal for travel: One-lens solution covering wide to telephoto.

• Lightweight and versatile: You can shoot landscapes, street, portraits, and even some wildlife without switching lenses.

• Compact: Compared to carrying multiple L lenses, it’s easier to manage while walking or hiking.

2. Canon EF 70-200mm L

• Excellent optical quality: Razor-sharp images, fast focus, great for portraits and distant subjects.

• Durability: Built like a tank, perfect for serious travel and challenging weather.

• Pairs well with the Tamron: You can use the Tamron most of the time and switch to the 70-200mm when you want top-quality shots, especially for wildlife or compression shots.

---

Why Not the 28-80mm L?

• Great image quality, but...

• Too much overlap with the Tamron’s range.

• Less useful on its own unless you're only doing general street and landscape photography — and even then, the Tamron can cover that plus more.

---

If weight is critical:

Only take the Tamron 28-300mm. It covers almost everything, and you’ll save space and effort.

If image quality and reliability are more important, and you're okay carrying two lenses:
Tamron 28-300mm + Canon 70-200mm L is a powerful combo.

End of the Response. 

As you can see, it makes a lot of sense and the response is technically correct. The Tamron 28-300 while is not that sharp, it's a decent lens that I have used before in some occasions. Here is one of the pictures I took using this lens. 

  I think that I'll follow ChatGPT advise. 

Then and Now, do you see the difference?

Photography allows you to track your progress by comparing photos taken in the past with more recent ones. For example, here’s a picture of a hummingbird I captured back in January 2021.

And here’s a recent photo I took of the same bird.

Back then, I was using a Sony a7R III with a Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary lens. Now I’m using a Canon R6 Mark I paired with a Canon EF 100-400mm L Mk II and a 1.4x extender. With the settings I had on the Sony a7R III, there was no way I could have captured a shot like the one I took with the R6. The shutter speed on the Sony was set to 1/500—fast enough to photograph the bird while it was perched. But if I could go back in time, I would have set the shutter speed to 1/5000, as I did with the R6, to increase the chances of getting a sharp image in case the bird decided to take flight.

Another key difference is the editing software. At the time, I was using CorelDRAW Photo-Paint, whereas now I rely on Adobe Lightroom Classic.

When comparing the two images, the hardware didn’t make as much of a difference as the editing tool—and my experience using it. I never quite mastered Photo-Paint to the point of achieving the results I get now with Lightroom Classic. On the other hand, I have to say that Lightroom Classic feels like the ideal editing tool, at least for me, specially when you use this took with DXO PureRaw for denoising the photo.

Clearly, just four years ago, I didn’t yet have the skills to achieve the level of quality I see in my photos today. It makes me wonder where I’ll be in another four years.

 

The EF70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM is my favorite lens for indoor events. Yes, it’s a heavy lens—but the image quality it delivers is excellent.

If you can’t afford the RF version, I highly recommend picking up this EF version. It’s still a fantastic performer, especially for the price you can find it at on the second-hand market.

You can find more about this lens in this video. 

 

Initiating your kid into Wildlife photography

Wildlife photography—when taken seriously—is an expensive hobby. Even an entry-level camera paired with a decent lens can easily reach the $1,000 mark.

If you search on Amazon, you'll find a flood of inexpensive, often Chinese-made cameras marketed for kids. But let’s be honest: I haven’t come across a single one that delivers decent image quality—whether in still photos or video—despite their impressive claims about megapixels and 4K resolution.

So, what should you do if you have a child under 10 years old who’s starting to show a real interest in wildlife photography?

The answer lies in the second-hand market. If you're patient and avoid jumping on the first deal you see, you can find older bridge cameras for under $100.

I’ve been searching for a decent camera, with a good zoom and the shape and feel of a DSLR—something that’s really important when buying for a 10-year-old who’s constantly watching you use your gear and already has a sense of what a "real" camera looks like.

After some research, I’ve narrowed my options down to two Fujifilm models (Amazon links do not represent the best price for used cameras):

•     The Fujifilm S4200, with a 576mm zoom
•     The Fujifilm S8200, with a 960mm zoom

You can find more technical details about both cameras here. 

I'm not claiming these are the best options out there—if you have any recommendations, feel free to leave a comment below.

Keep in mind that for a kid, a camera is, among other things, a toy—and toys tend to take a fair amount of abuse. That’s the main reason why, in your first attempt to introduce them to more serious photography, you probably don’t want to spend more than $100.

Depending on how long the camera lasts (and how interested they stay), you can always move up to a higher price range with better features and image quality later on.

Real life comparison

Yesterday, I was writing about the ongoing controversy around the idea that “a good camera gives you good pictures,” and I briefly compared DSLR cameras to smartphones. However, I didn’t go too deep into that comparison. While it might seem like a no-brainer at first, this video dives into the details and explains it thoroughly.

 

A good camera doesn't mean good pictures

A good camera can certainly help in taking better pictures, but it's not the only factor. ;

This is an old debate that I often come across online—and even at home. Part of the confusion comes from us photographers, of all levels, who buy a camera with a lens and then keep buying more lenses and even more cameras. To an outside observer, this behavior may look like proof that, in order to take a good picture, you need an expensive camera and a high-end lens. But let’s try to clarify the reality.

One day, you decide to take up photography as a hobby—or maybe even professionally—after using your phone for a while and reading online that the image quality from a DSLR or mirrorless camera is far superior to that of a smartphone. By thinking this way, you're already validating the myth that buying a better camera means taking better pictures. Yes, it’s true that a phone simply can’t house a lens and sensor large enough to match the quality of a dedicated camera. But today’s smartphones are equipped with powerful software, including AI, that captures multiple images in milliseconds and merges the best parts of each one. That’s how you get those beautiful, balanced images straight from your phone. Still, these images often lack the sharpness and detail you can achieve with a DSLR or mirrorless camera, which uses larger, higher-quality lenses and sensors.

So, you buy your first DSLR—but your photos don’t look as good as the ones from your phone. Why? Because modern cameras still don’t include the kind of advanced AI software that your phone uses. Why not? Simply put, your phone contains expensive, high-performance hardware designed to run those AI applications. Including similar processing power in a camera would drastically increase its cost. Camera manufacturers believe that you, the photographer, should make the creative and technical decisions—by configuring the camera properly and editing the photos afterward—to achieve great results.

To take great pictures with your new DSLR, you need to know your camera inside and out, and you need to dedicate time to post-processing. Now you understand why photographers who take amazing images with big cameras and long lenses often feel frustrated when people assume that it’s all about the gear. It’s not.

Another factor that feeds this myth is that your newly bought camera might not actually match your specific photography needs. You might buy a crop-sensor camera, only to find that you mostly shoot in low-light conditions—where a full-frame camera would perform better. Even among full-frame models, not all have the same dynamic range or low-light capabilities. You’ll likely discover these differences after taking hundreds or thousands of photos. But those who see you switch gear might think it’s further proof that better cameras equal better pictures, without understanding the importance of choosing the right tool for the job.

The same misunderstanding happens with lenses. Lenses are built depending on the task, they could be designed specifically for portraits, landscape or wildlife photography. People assume that you're buying a new lens because a "better lens" guarantees better pictures. That line of thinking completely ignores what makes a photo superb.

A good photo usually has a clear subject, strong composition, appropriate lighting, sharp focus, accurate or intentional color, emotional or storytelling value, and a degree of technical and creative skill. None of these depend solely on your camera. Your camera is a tool—and like any tool, it’s only as good as your ability to use it well.

A good camera can certainly help in taking better pictures, but it's not the only factor. While a high-quality camera with advanced features can offer more control and potentially better image quality, the photographer's skill, also play crucial roles.

Canon added password protection to some cameras

Canon has added password protection to 10 of its cameras: EOS R1, EOS R3, EOS R5 Mark II, EOS R5, EOS R6 Mark II, EOS R7, EOS R8, EOS R10, EOS R50, and the EOS R50V, according to news posted here.

While some level of protection has been requested by photographers, imagine a wildlife photographer having to enter a password just as a bird or animal suddenly appears in view. A password prompt when turning the camera on for the first time might make sense—but not when waking the camera from sleep mode.

 

Use a real camera instead your Phone

Phones have come a long way in the past two decades, but I still advise my friends to use a real camera instead of their phones.

The following video explains why. 

The reality of Instagram

 Instagram came from a page for photographers to be another TikTok. 

A quick timeline:

• Launched on October 6, 2010, Instagram started as a photo-sharing app with built-in filters that made it easy to stylize mobile photos.

• You could only post square images (1:1 aspect ratio), and videos were not part of the platform at all.

• The focus was entirely on mobile photography, creativity, and visual storytelling.

Evolution:

• 2013: Instagram introduced video sharing (up to 15 seconds).

• 2016: They added Instagram Stories (inspired by Snapchat).

• 2020: Reels were launched to compete with TikTok

From what I have experienced in my comeback to use it since 2020 when I created my account, it's not longer a tool for photographers. If you do not create videos, basically it's hard for you to get any exposure and followers. 

At this point, only Flickr remains an option for photographers.  

Do you use a tripod?

 I do not. Do I own one? I do. I feel that it limits me from moving around when needed, especially if I'm doing wildlife photography. Besides, current cameras and lenses with image stabilization are really good nowadays. 

Is using AI cheating?

Here’s a very interesting debate: Using AI make the work of wedding photographers easier. Where they once had to manually edit hundreds of photos, AI can now learn their editing style and apply it across all the images automatically. But is that cheating?

I don’t think so. AI is just another tool designed to make your life easier, and that doesn’t mean your final work should be cheaper. Pricing isn’t determined only by the tools you use, but by the demand and the quality of the final product, within other facts. 

Three New Sigma Zoom Lenses

According to a report published by The Phoblographer, Sigma has filed patents for three new zoom lenses: a 300–600mm f/4, a 400–800mm f/8, and a 180–800mm f/5.8–8.4.

The 300–600mm and 400–800mm ranges aren't ones I’d consider for myself, as they seem to be aimed at photographers who need long reach without the need to also capture subjects that are much closer. The 180–800mm is more appealing for that reason—it offers more flexibility.

The bad news is that there’s no mention of Canon RF mount versions. It appears these lenses are primarily being designed for the Sony ecosystem. 

The first Canon mirrorless camera using the RF mount was released in September 2018, and here we are in 2025—with still no widely available third-party lenses for the system, despite ongoing rumors of a possible release from Sigma. This pushes Canon users to buy EF-mount lenses and adapt them to the RF mount, as it remains the only viable option for purchasing lenses that are more affordable than the newer RF lenses.

Is this Canon’s marketing strategy the right one? Apparently, yes—because it hasn’t changed since 2018.

Camera gear that improved my photos

I’m sure everyone has bought a piece of gear that, at least in their mind, improved their photos. For me, it’s the Canon EF 100-400mm L Mark II, which I bought used but in very good condition. What’s that piece of gear for you?

If you want to know which one it is for Duade Paton — a wildlife photographer and influencer with around 100K followers — you can check out the following video.

 

Tariffs will Spike Camera Costs 35%?

I knew it. It was expected. Unless Japan lowers or removes part of their tariff, the outcome is certain. We are witnessing an unprecedented war.

Nature is my sanctuary

Nature is my sanctuary. When I'm outside in nature, I feel like I'm visiting a church. The calm I receive is similar, and I feel it’s healing. This is why I completely agree with Kate Middleton, the Princess of Wales when she said:

Quote: "Over the past year, nature has been our sanctuary.

This Mother's Day, let us celebrate Mother Nature and recognize how our bond with the natural world can help not only nurture our inner selves, but remind us too of the role we play within the rich tapestry of life," 

Picture taken using a Canon R6 Mark I.

 

Do watermarks protect your pictures?

The short answer is NO. 

 

Watermarks can provide some protection for your photos, but their effectiveness depends on your goals. Here’s a breakdown of their pros and cons:

Advantages of Using Watermarks

✅ Discourages Casual Theft – A visible watermark makes it harder for someone to pass off your work as their own.
✅ Branding & Recognition – If done subtly, a watermark can help people recognize your work and find your portfolio.
✅ Proof of Ownership – If a dispute arises, a watermark can serve as initial evidence that you are the original creator.

Limitations of Watermarks

❌ Easy to Remove – Anyone with basic editing skills can erase a watermark, especially if it's small or placed in a corner. An example of that is that Google's latest Gemini includes an AI feature to just do that.
❌ Can Distract from the Image – A poorly placed or overly large watermark can detract from the visual appeal of your photo.
❌ Might Not Stop Serious Theft – High-quality images are still vulnerable to unauthorized use, even with a watermark.

 Bottom Line

Watermarks provide a layer of deterrence but are not foolproof. If you mainly want credit and visibility, a subtle watermark may help. If preventing theft is your primary concern, combining multiple protection strategies is a better approach.

are Macs better for photo editing?

 

I asked this question to ChatGPT and carefully analyzed the response to ensure it aligns with my own thoughts and opinions. Here is ChatGPT response with some of my notes in Red:

 Macs are widely considered excellent for photo editing, but whether they are "better" depends on your needs, preferences, and budget. Here are some key reasons why many photographers prefer Macs for editing:

Advantages of Macs for Photo Editing

✅ Color Accuracy & Display Quality – Mac displays (especially Retina displays) are known for their color accuracy, which is crucial for photo editing. macOS also has excellent color management. Important point for Photographers.

✅ Optimization & Stability – macOS is highly optimized for creative software like Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop, and Capture One, leading to smooth performance and fewer crashes. In this point I need to add that in my Dell 7200 i7 Windows PC Lightroom crashes very often. I have been using it in my M3 Macbook Air and it has not crashed even one time.

✅ Hardware & Software Integration – Apple designs both the hardware and software, ensuring seamless performance and long-term stability. And this is to me a key point. Because Apple hardware is a "closed or controlled" system everything is optimized to perfection something that in Windows PC is hard to achieve. Apple devices just work.

✅ M1/M2/M3/M4 Chips – Apple's custom silicon (M-series chips) delivers impressive speed and efficiency, handling high-resolution RAW files smoothly while maintaining good battery life on laptops.

✅ Build Quality & Longevity – Macs tend to last a long time, making them a solid investment for many photographers. Another key point. It's true that in the last few years since Microsoft Surface machines were released the market has seen an improvement in quality but still, Apple is dominating the market in important aspect.

Potential Downsides of Macs

❌ Expensive – Macs generally cost more than equivalent Windows PCs with similar or better hardware specs. Here I have to say that I doubt that I can buy any Laptop for $759 with similar performance than the M3 MacBook Air.

❌ Limited Upgradability – Most newer Macs have non-upgradable RAM and storage, so you need to choose wisely at purchase.

❌ Software Compatibility – While most mainstream photo editing programs work fine, some niche software or plugins may be Windows-only.

Windows vs. Mac for Photo Editing

•     If budget is a concern, a well-built Windows PC can often deliver better performance for the price.
•     If you prioritize color accuracy, stability, and seamless workflow, a Mac is a solid choice.

As a photographer, do you find yourself editing a lot of RAW files? If so, from my experience the M-series Macs handle those quite efficiently.

To end this article here is a video that I recently found that summarizes my experience with MacOS. 

I'm not ready to dish my Windows PC yet, more than 30 years of using Windows have created a dependency that is hard to break specially if you are an IT person whose actual job is in some way supporting Windows Applications. But for sure I'm enjoying MacOS adventure.