Advice please on where to start

[GeorgiaAristocat]

Okay, I really want to get a digital SLR, but before I go to that expense, will I be able to learn how to take good photos (changing ISO and all that other stuff) without taking a photography class?

Does anyone have any good book recommendations to learn the fundamentals?

I know I don't want to buy an SLR and then just put it on the "automatic" feature as that somewhat defeats the purpose, and I may as well just buy a really good P&S if that's all I will be able to figure out how to do!

Thanks in advance for any advice/recommendations you can make.

(And will I have time to learn it before our trip in October? Not expert or professional quality or anything, just enough to make a difference?)

ETA: okay, I just saw the thread recommending "Understanding Exposure," "The Negative," and "The Print." Any other recommendations, or could I consider these comprehensive?

 

[crazyme5kids]

I would love some dSLR recomendation too. I really don't like automatic settings, and when I used to take more creative pictures (a long time ago) I never used a flash. So any really good, non-complicated dSLR that work really well on manual setting?

 

[Greg K.]

A couple months back, I bought a Pentax *ist DL kit for a little over $500 at www.buydig.com. (Their prices are the best I've seen anywhere, mostly because they dont' charge shipping or tax.) The 18-55 lens that comes with the kit is more than adequate to start out with (it translates to about 27-80 in film lens measurements.) I also bought online a Sigma 18-125, which I use most of the time. It's only a bit bigger than the Pentax, and covers most of the bases for me.

Anywho: I've found that the Pentax is a great learning tool. The menu is fairly straightforward and easy to navigate, and it takes superb pictures.

Like this one, at iso 200:

Or this one, iso 1600:

Or this one, iso 400:

All handheld, btw, just using available light. I'm gradually starting to figure out the varius manual settings -- cold weather has kept me from snapping a lot of stuff! -- but, as I said, I'm learning. IMHO, it's a great "starter" dSLR -- particularly because it's so cheap! I'm looking forward to taking it to WDW this summer and putting it through its paces.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

So any really good, non-complicated dSLR that work really well on manual setting?

THEy all work the same way. The difference is in the ergonomics. I personally love the ergonomics on my Canon, but that's also party because I've been using mostly Canon for the past 14 years (I've also used Kodak, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta).

IMHO, once you get used to a camera's ergonomics, none of them is complicated... unless if you're a lefty. Canon cameras are not 'lefty-friendly'. Nikon is more of an ambidextrous camera.

Oh and please note that each camera's ISO noise level are different. Some are higher than others.

examples:

Canon, in the order of ISO level from high to low (all compared at ISO 1600)

300D (Rebel) and 10D
350D (Rebel XT)
20D
30D
5D

Nikon, in the order of ISO level from high to low (all compared at ISO 1600)

D70
D50
D2X

 

[crazyme5kids]

Greg K very nice pictures! When I was in Mexico I spent a lot of time in Churches (and I'm not religious), really nice old ones. I took so many pictures, but because of the lag time on a point and shoot and not being allowed to use the flash, I have a lot of very blurry pictures. Some of them I actually like blurry, but most just stink.

Kelly what the heck are you taking about!!!? What is the ISO!!!!? You mean I need to know that stuff? I can't just turn this knob, turn that knob like I used to on my K1000 pentax?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

y'know when you buy the 200 speed film, or 400 speed film? that's ISO. The higher the ISO, the higher the light sensitivity going to be, but also the higher the grain levels going to be.

Just like film, depending on the brand and model, the level of grain varies.

 

[Anewman]

I know I don't want to buy an SLR and then just put it on the "automatic" feature as that somewhat defeats the purpose, and I may as well just buy a really good P&S if that's all I will be able to figure out how to do!

Any current dslr, even in auto mode would still be miles ahead of a really good P&S camera in many areas.

But on that note I do shoot manual mode about 99% of the time.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

true what Anewman said. I will even go a step further that even the cheapest true dSLR (none of those Kodak dSLR-look or Canon dSLR-look camera) will be miles ahead of THE ABSOLUTE BEST P&S camera in ALL areas (optically, I mean).

 

[JR6ooo4]

But............
with the SLR comes a virus known to many as "lens envy". Canon has a great 50mm prime (no zoom) lens for $80 US. From there the prices go up quickly. The kit lens does very well within its limits.

One point to remember is what lenses will work with what camera. Try to choose your brand before you start collecting lenses.

Of course you can survive without collecting lenses. I only bring two on vacation. Oh wait, it was three including the $80 50mm lens.
Mikeeee

 

[Kelly Grannell]

don't assume with P&S there is no envy, actually there are lots of envies:

1. fast-startup envy
2. no-shutter-lag envy
3. clean-high-ISO envy
4. interchangeable-lens envy
5. external-flash envy
6. buying-another-camera-because-of-problems-1-through-5 envy
7. dSLR envy

 

[ducklite]

IMHO, once you get used to a camera's ergonomics, none of them is complicated... unless if you're a lefty. Canon cameras are not 'lefty-friendly'. Nikon is more of an ambidextrous camera.

Not sure I'd agree, at least on the D70. If I was a lefty I'd have a terrible time trying to use the multi-selector to adjust the dynamic focus field with my thumb while partially depressing the shutter-release. Additionally all the "wheels" to adjust ISO/shutter speed/etc. are mounted for a "righty". I suppose it's something you'd get used to over time, but I think it would be very clumsy feeling for a "lefty."

Oh and please note that each camera's ISO noise level are different. Some are higher than others.

Nikon, in the order of ISO level from high to low (all compared at ISO 1600)

D70
D50
D2X

Absolutely, the D-70 gets very noisy at higher ISO's, which is one of the primary reasons I'm moving to a D2X. However the D-70 has some features that the D-50 doesn't have, so you need to weigh out the options to determine which camera has the options most important to you. The price point isn't all that different between the two that it should make a huge impact on the purchase choice.

Kelly--do you know where the D-200 stands in "noise" factors? That's probably a really good "intermediate" DSLR for someone ready to move up from a lower end DSLR or even a P&S digital. The biggest issue is the wait list to order them at most retailers. The price point is pretty reasonable if I recall. I looked at it briefly before I decided that my next step will be to the D2X.

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Ducklite, sorry can't answer your question. My comments on the ISO levels are from my personal experiences from testing those cameras for my friend's stores. Strangely enough she never asked me to test the D200.

Also maybe because of the area her store is located, she sells Canon dSLR 3:1 to Nikon dSLR, according to her, she sells tonloads of D50, followed by D2X, then D70s, but have only sold two D200 so far. Dunno why.

PS: have you tried playing with Canon 5D? I find that camera is more righty than Nikon. more than 95% of the controls are for the right hand. Canon is sooooo righty-centric.

 

[tinksdad]

Kelly--do you know where the D-200 stands in "noise" factors? That's probably a really good "intermediate" DSLR for someone ready to move up from a lower end DSLR or even a P&S digital. The biggest issue is the wait list to order them at most retailers. The price point is pretty reasonable if I recall. I looked at it briefly before I decided that my next step will be to the D2X.

Anne

Here is a quote from Thom Hogan site about the D200 noise levels;

At high ISO values, the shadow noise problem starts to sneak in at values of 75,75,75, though there's still good news to report here. Even with NR off the D200 manages the higher ISO values somewhat better than the D2x (the charts here are from such a test: basically tested the way I set up my D200 most of the time, also with a higher sharpening level than normal, which would emphasize noise a bit). Of interest at ISO 1600 is that the variance of noise across channels is extremely low, which indicates to me that even if NR is off there's some form of NR running in the JPEG engine. Indeed, when you examine the results for individual ISO values, you can almost see this kicking in at ISO 800. Below that value, the blue channel is consistently producing higher noise levels than the other channels in my wicked test. Above that value and suddenly the blue channel looks just like the other channels.

I've been pretty impressed with mine so far. And compared with the cost of the D2x or the Canon 5D it's a great deal.

 

[ducklite]

Ducklite, sorry can't answer your question. My comments on the ISO levels are from my personal experiences from testing those cameras for my friend's stores. Strangely enough she never asked me to test the D200.

Also maybe because of the area her store is located, she sells Canon dSLR 3:1 to Nikon dSLR, according to her, she sells tonloads of D50, followed by D2X, then D70s, but have only sold two D200 so far. Dunno why.

PS: have you tried playing with Canon 5D? I find that camera is more righty than Nikon. more than 95% of the controls are for the right hand. Canon is sooooo righty-centric.

It's possible that she can't get the D-200 in stock--there's a huge backlog on them right now, which is why she isn't testing or selling them.

I think that Nikon is heavily marketing the D-50 as a "good first DSLR," along the lines of what Canon is doing with the Rebel. Between that and the slightly lower price point over the D-70(S) I'm not surprised many are being sold. Some shops just tend to lean Canon v. Nikon or vice versa, I think it greatly depends on the store owners/sales person's preference. They are both great cameras. Canon generally gives a bit more bang for the buck on the bodies, and the glass is less expensive, but Nikon has superior optics.

I bought a Nikon because the person who was mentoring me at the time suggested it. That "relationship" is long over, but I'm still happy with the Nikon line. A lot of the guys I shoot with regularly drool over my 80-200 ED AF glass over their comparable Canon lens. For the type of work we do, it does seem to be superior. The fact that it's a metal housing makes it sturdier than some of the other lenses, and that has been important a couple times.

I have played with the 5-D. One guy who I shoot almost every show with and I switched cameras during an opening act once--and both failed miserably in our experiment. But I know what you mean about the 5-D and be right-centric. I wasn't saying that it wasn't, just saying that the Nikon is also right-centric, although over time I would agree Nikon would be easier for a lefty to manage. But off the bat it would be very clumsy--like shooting with work gloves on your hands...

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Supposedly, stores in downtown area sells more Nikon than Canon dSLR. I guess it's a demographic thing. I don't know.

You maybe right about the D200, if she can't get enough D200 to sell, there is no way she's going to let me use one for testing purpose. She'd rather sell it than have me play with it.

As far as Nikon have superior optics, I don't know (never done any comparison)... but I'm waiting to have enough cash to buy a D50 with 18-200 VR if Canon doesn't get their act together and produce at least a 18-125 IS (their 17-85 IS is horrible, I can get one for only CAD$500 and I'm not taking it. From 17-24 range, the 17-85 IS is unuseable, super-duper CA and vignette)

 

[ducklite]

but I'm waiting to have enough cash to buy a D50 with 18-200 VR

My problem with this lens is that the aperture only goes down to f/3.5. I need minimum f/2.8 because on the D-70 I get too grainy above 800 ISO.

That will possibly change once I get the D2X, I can bump up the ISO and should still be able to let in enough light on f/3.5 to get my shot.

Nice price point makes it even sweeter.

Anne

 

[WillCAD]

Okay, I really want to get a digital SLR, but before I go to that expense, will I be able to learn how to take good photos (changing ISO and all that other stuff) without taking a photography class?

Does anyone have any good book recommendations to learn the fundamentals?

I know I don't want to buy an SLR and then just put it on the "automatic" feature as that somewhat defeats the purpose, and I may as well just buy a really good P&S if that's all I will be able to figure out how to do!

Thanks in advance for any advice/recommendations you can make.

(And will I have time to learn it before our trip in October? Not expert or professional quality or anything, just enough to make a difference?)

ETA: okay, I just saw the thread recommending "Understanding Exposure," "The Negative," and "The Print." Any other recommendations, or could I consider these comprehensive?

Reading, learning, and doing research ahead of time are all wonderful things, but there is no substitute for actually doing.

Photography is a very hands-on art form, and it's one that demands constant learning; you can "learn how to drive" in a week or two, but there is no way you can ever "learn how to take pictures" or "learn how to use an SLR". Ask the pros and serious amateurs here - I bet that every one of them will tell you that after years or even decades of photography experience, they are still learning new things about lighting, exposure, composition, and camera operation.

So don't worry too much about getting really good with your new SLR before your next WDW trip. Pick up a more basic book, like "Digital SLR Cameras and Photography for Dummies", get a handle on the basic functions of the camera, and pick up a few tips on basic composition, then start taking pics.

I bought my first SLR in 1999 a month before my first solo WDW trip. I shot three test rolls at home, and was not pleased at all with the results, before taking the camera to WDW. But when I got back, I discovered that the 10 rolls I had shot on vacation were the best pics I had ever taken in my life. I had hit upon the Program AE mode, and there I have stayed for the past 7 years. Sure, I have learned how to use the other modes, and I do when a situation calls for them, but Program AE mode is my friend and has seldom failed me.

The camera is smarter than I am in almost every situation, so I let the camera do the thinking most of the time, leaving me free to think about composition.

So don't try to become an expert on DSLR photography before you take your trip. Just get the camera, learn a few of the basics, and start shooting.

Here are a few of the shots I took in 1999 (they were film, so the scans are a little grainy):

 

[Anewman]

More off topic conversation.

Canon generally gives a bit more bang for the buck on the bodies, and the glass is less expensive, but Nikon has superior optics.

I guess it really depends on your point of view, but I am sure there could be dissagreements with all of the above.

Best bang for the buck today is a NIKON body(actually top two), IMO.
Canon L Glass is not less expensive, both cameras accept tamron and sigma.
And as far as superior optics go, I guess it depends on what brand you shoot. Some Pentax and Oly users would not even agree that it is a two horse race.

 

[ducklite]

More off topic conversation.



I guess it really depends on your point of view, but I am sure there could be dissagreements with all of the above.

Best bang for the buck today is a NIKON body(actually top two), IMO.

Only if you are comparring apples to apples.

Canon L Glass is not less expensive, both cameras accept tamron and sigma.

I was referring to the bodies, not the glass as far as being less expensive. Although if you were to take the top six lenses that a pro would have in their kit and buy top of the line in Canon and Nikon, the Nikon would be more expensive.

I simply will not use third party glass. To me I compare it to the following scenario:

It's one thing to use generic aspirin. It's another to use generic birth control pills. I'll take the chance that my headache doesn't go away, but I'm not going to take the chance that I've got a "mistake" that I have to live with for the rest of my life.

The only non-Nikor glass on my camera is Hoya UV filters for protection.

And as far as superior optics go, I guess it depends on what brand you shoot. Some Pentax and Oly users would not even agree that it is a two horse race.

At one point in time a couple-few decades ago, Pentax and Olympus were comparable in many ways to Nikon and Canon. In the past 10 to 15 years, Canon and Nikon have pulled forward and left the others in the dust. They no longer even come close--which is why those brands are almost never seen in the hands of professionals anymore.

Anne

 

[Anewman]

Only if you are comparring apples to apples.

Well there are no apples to apples comparisons. I am not saying there was intent to have Nikon lines and Canon lines become tweeners, but none of the lines really match up.

There will always be those that say no you should not compare the D70s to the REBEL XTand there are some that dont want it compared to the 30d, both have valid points. IMO there will never be universal agreement on which Nikon Body should be compared to which Canon body.

I am a Canon shooter since the 80s but if starting from scratch today it would be the D200, BEST BANG FOR BUCK PERIOD. IMO of course and new models may change my stance.

If I was on a budget it would be the D50(refurb) @ $390.

I dont see any Canon giving me that kind of value today for my style of shooting. I can see other styles and needs differing that is why I stated, "it really depends on your point of view."

I was referring to the bodies, not the glass as far as being less expensive. Although if you were to take the top six lenses that a pro would have in their kit and buy top of the line in Canon and Nikon, the Nikon would be more expensive.

I missunderstood where you said "and the glass is less expensive", in a sentence about Canon.

You maybe right if we knew exactly what the top six lenses were, but we could obviously get a completely different type of "PRO" and in his/her kit Canon could be more expensive.

At one point in time a couple-few decades ago, Pentax and Olympus were comparable in many ways to Nikon and Canon. In the past 10 to 15 years, Canon and Nikon have pulled forward and left the others in the dust. They no longer even come close--which is why those brands are almost never seen in the hands of professionals anymore.

Anne

I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am just saying that no matter how many persons agree with you a blanket statement like "Nikon has superior optics", is still just an opinion and others may not agree.