| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2005 10:38:08 PM · #1 |
I'm new to DPC and to photography. I dont have a camera of my own yet but I borrow my uncle's SONY DSC V1 sometimes and other times my friends SONY P52. I prefer the DSC V1 anyday because of the sharper picture quality and better manual controls. I would be looking to buy a new camera soon but am still researching which is the best model to suit my needs. So this is where I need help.(atleast part 1)
Being an amateur I am still to learn to first get great photos with a fixed lens camera and through the LCD. I guess that rules out the the dSLRs huh? I look at photos posted here and other photoblog sites and I wonder what it takes to get that good. My photos are nowhere even close to what everyone posts. So I guess dSLR gets the quality but needs expertise to handle one and others dont give as good as results but are easier to use. I'm confused !!!??!!!
Secondly I do beleive the post processing dose half the job. So my questions are
1> If I start from a good fixed lens like say a Canon A95 or a Canon G6 and work my way up from there with stress on post processing and then move on to a dSLR later, would it be a better option or should I just begin with a dSLR and learn on the best tools?
2> Which good resources are available for me to learn post processing from. Cos I see the tools and I dont understand what each option is for. Any suggestions.
3> Suggestions as to what would you advise me to start with in terms of equipment and tips to follow on the this new exciting journey to become a better photographer.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers
Saurabh
A budding amateur photographer |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:53:15 PM · #2 |
The 2 or 3 top ribbon winners here do not use dSLRs. So you can do very good with 'lesser' cameras - it is not so much the tool as the photographer.
My thoughts: get a decent prosumer camera (fuji 7000, 717, etc) something taht you can add filters to, has zoom, does manual modes, can take an external flash, etc. If you think you might upgrade, buy used and in a year or 2 when you sell it (if you do) then you will 'lose' less $. I have a Fuji 602 i got for $400, and am selling for $200. It was great to learn on, but i have moved onto a Rebel. Great way to learn and not have to think so much on the camera part, comes with a MACRO mode ready to get, etc.
If you have the budget and are willing to carry more and spend more and learn more, then a slr will be very nice. if sports or night shots are you primary interest, then get an slr now not later.
edit: more answers..
PP: any camera will come with PS elements or similar. there are books and tutorials on CD and the web. you can ask here. best thing is to sit with someone and have them show you.
get a book or 2 on lighting, composition, basic photography, read and enter challenges here. try it, and you will learn.
Message edited by author 2005-02-14 22:55:22.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:55:45 PM · #3 |
Hi Saurabh -
Welcome to DPC!
I would suggest getting a camera that you can really afford. Remember, the camera does not make you a good photographer, it just helps with the results. There are people on here that I could never even imagine being as good as, and they aren't using a dSLR.
There are some good fixed lens cameras out there that are inexpensive, but still have a lot of manual controls, so you can learn. I started with the Minolta Dimage Z1, which is a decent camera. I believe there is a Z3 now which is like 4MP with a 12x optical zoom. Not a bad camera. Lots of manual controls.
There are a lot of good resources on here to learn post-processing techniques. Read the tutorials and How'd They Do That's for starters.
I would suggest Steve's Digicams and DPReview.com to review your different equipment options. I found these sites invaluable when I was making my decisions.
And lastly (but definately not least), all the knowledgable people here at DPC can help answer questions. Search the forums, as there has been a lot of questions asked that might be helpful to you.
If there is ever anything that I can help with, please don't hesitate to PM me.
Good luck on your journey!
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:56:08 PM · #4 |
Welcome Saurabh....
If you are serious about improving your phoography as much as possible, I'd suggest getting a camera that is very flexible with manual settings. There are nmerous cameras out there, I'm sure manuy others will post with recommendations. Get a book on basic photographic techniques. Doesn't matter whether it was written for film or digital, the basics apply to both.
Read that, experiment with your camera in manual mode, and above all, shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. Study the high-placing photos and the portfolios of those photogs. notice what camera settings were used, what post-processing techniques, etc.
It's not necessary to have a DSLR to produce great work. Sure, a DSLr can provide a wider range of creative options, but non-interchangeable-lens cams can also do some things that are difficult for DSLRs.
After a year or two of work, you will likely find that you understand very well what the limitations of your equipment are, and what you'd like to achieve that is outside it's capabilty. It's then time to upgrade.
Good, luck, hope to see your work in the challenges (competing is a great way to hone your skills). You'll look back in a year's time and be amazed at how much you have improved.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 10:56:28 PM · #5 |
seriously...and i'm not just saying this, but if you're anything like me, you're just going to want something 'better' and something you won't grow out of and will wind up wishing you got one step up or whatever.
In October, this past year, I couldn't tell you what a shutter was or how an aperture affected depth of field...or what a histogram was much less how to read one.
I say get a decent camera -- something you're not going to outgrow soon...like at least a fujifilm s5100 or at the most a 300d. No point in getting something you know you're going to outgrow in a few months.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:07:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
seriously...and i'm not just saying this, but if you're anything like me, you're just going to want something 'better' and something you won't grow out of and will wind up wishing you got one step up or whatever.
In October, this past year, I couldn't tell you what a shutter was or how an aperture affected depth of field...or what a histogram was much less how to read one.
I say get a decent camera -- something you're not going to outgrow soon...like at least a fujifilm s5100 or at the most a 300d. No point in getting something you know you're going to outgrow in a few months. |
I'll echo deapee's thoughts...
For me I started with a PowerShot s50...6 months later had a PowerShot Pro1...6 Months later and currently have a 20D...now if I had gotten a rebel originally...I would probably have some better glass now. The two prosumers at their original cost was at or near $1500. The father-in-law has the S50 and my Wife Shoots the Pro1 now.
The Prosumers were great cameras but not as flexible as a dSLR. I didn't know how much fun this photography was back then and chose what I thought was the safe path...and ended up taking the more expensive route to get where I am today.
Andy |
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:12:33 PM · #7 |
LOL, I guess I'm a slow learner. I shot with my nikon 995 for a year and a half before I made the jump to DSLR. I would echo the thoughts tht you should get at least a very good non-DSLR and when/if you decide it is time to upgrade (see my original post) then jump to DSLR.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2005 11:44:38 PM · #8 |
Firstly, Thank you so much for answering my queries.
secondly, I am a bit apprehensive on shooting from the view finder rather than previewing from the LCD because I like to see my picture as ai Shoot it and as I make manual changes to it. I understand that one cannot do that when using a dslr. Right? So my question is do you think its better to pick up say a canon rebel 300d now and learn on that since thats where one has to go anyway i.e. shoot directly from view finder. And I agree with andy since I reside in India where camera arent really cheap so to speak so I'll have to import them from say the US or Singapore. So my confusion is again is it easy learning the fixed lens way ie. a non dSLR or start with a dSLR and learn from there cos thats the destination anyway?
Saurabh
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 12:14:53 AM · #9 |
I shot with film way back, and my first digital i just used the viewfinder. The LCD was rarely used.
As i moved on up, i kept it that way. The Fuji S602 had histogram on the review so i used that more and more.
The Rebel wins hands down and gowing away on this score - the LCD shos the pic immediately after it is take, and can be seen with the histogram and any blown out (overexposed areas) will flash in the pic. touch the shutter button and you are back in ready to shoot mode...outstanding! But this is my third camera and i did not know it did this when i bought it. This feature has helped me more than you can imagine. others may not use it. You'll only know once you have some time in the saddle, so to speak.
All that said, any and all LCDs are low res, and show the pic too bright - it looks good there but is too dark when you open it up on a PC. I don't trust them. Other folks loce them, particulary the tils and swivel ones.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 01:04:57 AM · #10 |
With a great imagination and shooting locale you could win without having a dSLR.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 01:10:48 AM · #11 |
My gut says that if you are even thinking of the Rebel to tell you to go that way from the start. Prices are not that far off between highend Point and shoot and the Rebel. Use the kit lens and pick up a 75 dollar 50mm f/1.8 II and that will carry you a ways...till lens fever sets in.
Learn with ISO above 100 (200 and 400 on the point and shoots I had were noisy and worthless).
Learn with Apertures above 8, and a f/2.8 on my P&Sers was no where near f/2.8 on a dSLR.
Learn dof (depth of field) on a camera where you can control it and not have the camera dictate it to you.
Learn without the hinderings of EVF (electronic viewfinder) lag.
Learn the Parameter Settings now, Point and Shoots are made to be Sharp. Made to print right out of the camera. Go from point and shoot to dSLR and you will think your shots are soft and call your brand new dSLR names. On my point and shoots I had to use blur and tone the colors down they where so sharp and rich to get a photo and not a snapshot looking picture.
You can get technique from a P&S but you will have to adjust when you move up, I had to unlearn things when I did, those habits I developed on the P&S. Things like it is ok to use ISO 1600 and not worry about the quality or the first time I seen f/22 or shot something at 1/4000sec just amazed me. Sounds simple then again I still forget to check my white balance from time to time.
Any way you go you will find this to be an enjoyable hobbie and DPC a cool place to hang.
Andy
ED:Oops...cosmetics
Message edited by author 2005-02-15 01:11:48. |
|
|
|
02/15/2005 02:08:12 AM · #12 |
Ok. Here's my 2cts. You're getting very good advice here, but I think much of the dilemma boils down to money. If you are already hooked on photography, and can afford to go DSLR, do so. It's unlikely that you will be satisfied for too long with P&S, even with the amount of manual control they allow, which can be surprisingly high. They just don't have the flexibility of the DSLRs.
Prof Fate is pushing the Digital Rebel, which is a very good camera. I almost bought it when I was shopping to move up from P&S. However, I feel the need to comment on something he said:
"The Rebel wins hands down and gowing away on this score - the LCD shos the pic immediately after it is take, and can be seen with the histogram and any blown out (overexposed areas) will flash in the pic. touch the shutter button and you are back in ready to shoot mode...outstanding!" Just for clarity, the Rebel is not the only camera to do these things. My D70 does exactly the same thing. I can't speak for any other models, but this seems to be a standard function for DSLRs (I will be corrected if I'm wrong).
Hope that helps a little, and welcome to DPC. |
|
|
|
02/15/2005 03:18:26 AM · #13 |
I'll speak up for the prosumers. I'm a former working pro (25 years as an architectural photographer) and I use (and am happy with) a prosumer Nikon. Cameras like mine, in the 5 Mp range, can be had now for well udner 500 dollars, and they are incredibly versatile. Nothing much to add to them (a couple filters, maybe), they are easy to carry around, and they have all the manual controls available. The zooms are pretty extensive (8x-10x can be found easily), and they're very user-friendly.
It may well be that you'd be more comfortable with a smaller, less-obtrusive camera, and even when you DO move up to a dSLR, you can keep the smaller cam for casual carrying. Remember, all that Nice Glass you end up collecting for the dSLR is only of use to you if you're lugging it around with you. Lots of time syou just want a camera in your purse, ya know? My Nikon I can carry all day in one hand without a worry, it weighs very little and has hardly any bulk sompared to the dSLR cams.
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-02-15 03:19:22.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 04:07:07 AM · #14 |
Here's my view,
I've shouted for the use of prosumers/digicams during my first 6 months on this site. I had decided to purchase a Minolta A2 (still the best prosumer on the market in my opinion) at the end of 2004 when looking at my shopping list (flash and other add-ons) the budget came to CHF 2000. I had always discounted the purchase of a dSLR for two main reasons 1) I could not see what real advantage I could gain over an A2 and 2) price. Just before I made the purchase I saw an offer for the 300D which would mean that even after getting the needed add-ons it would still be within my budget thus negating the price argument.
So it came down to what cam would suit me better, I realised that I would have to lose the conveinence of the all-in-one solution that the A2 offers but the flexibiliy of the dSLR is attractive. I asked a few times what was better about a dSLR and got answers that didn't fully convince me, 'higher ISO', 'bigger sensor', 'just try one and you will understand' were typical replies. I did choose a dSLR and here's why you should too:
- More 'useable', this covers the high ISO ability, so many times I had to resort to a tripod or underexpose images (and post process something out of them later) due to a lack of light (and that was with f2.8 and IS). Being able to go up to 800 - 1600 ISO without having a concern for the noise is so very useful.
- Better out of the camera images, this may be subjective but I usually found that I had to do a lot of work on my images and battled against an overprocessed look, now I work with RAW images I can make the basic adjustments that I need without compromising the image.
- Perception, this is quite a big one, we don't live in a perfect world and people do jump to conclusions based on first impressions, I've done a bit of magazine work and I've seen first hand the difference it makes when you turn up with the 'right' tool. If you are looking to make money with your camera where people will be seeing you at work then you do need to consider this point.
- Shutter lag, although I got pretty good at working around this (to the point that I was clicking too soon when I started with my dSLR), the benefits of being able to monitor a scene through the lens and get the image instantly is a major plus.
- Control, with my digicam I was already going well beyond it's limits, there is no comparison to being able to control every part of your camera rather than being controlled by it.
- The feel, just try one - you will understand :)
I chose the D70 due to the fact that when I compared like-for-like with the 300D the D70 was of little difference in cost, after trying both cameras the decision was simple.
If you have not used a dSLR I fully recommend trying one before you spend your money.
Darren
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 07:47:57 AM · #15 |
I have been using my camera for about 2 years now. I have the minolta dimage 7. I have been very happy with it. It is diverse enough to realy get what you want in a shot. The megapixes are pretty good. I have had no breakdowns. It has however acted a little funny in the cold. I an hoping that within the next year of so that I can move to a cannor or Nikkon. If I can't afford to I still have a prety good camera. The biggest draw back I have with the minolta is that It has a fixed lens. I I could buy some new glass for this camera. I probably wouldn't worry about getting a new one.....
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 08:08:51 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by saurabhv:
I am a bit apprehensive on shooting from the view finder rather than previewing from the LCD because I like to see my picture as ai Shoot it and as I make manual changes to it. I understand that one cannot do that when using a dslr. Right? |
The SLR in many ways does better than that. You'll have a TTL (Through The Lens) view of your scene which isn't obscured by motion, and is sharp enough to tell for certain what parts of the image are in and out of subtle focus. It's not easy to picture how significant this is until you get used to it, but I'd never go back given the choice.
Your decision really comes down to budget. If you know yourself well enough to judge your commitment to photography, then decide whether you are tinkering with a new hobby or already hooked. If you know you're in it for the long haul, wait until you can save $1000 - $1500. By the time you get an extra battery, flash cards, a bag, a (bigger) tripod, you'll need that much. Then, go HANDLE the dSLRs you are considering and buy what feels right. They both take great images, so get the one which works best for you.
If you're still dabbling with it, and just want to have your own camera while you test the waters, then look at DP Review or the most popular cameras on DP Challenge. You won't go wrong. But understand that chances are very good you'll end up wanting a dSLR if you get hooked, thus my recommendation to consider saving.
If you're REALLY into photography but don't have a lot of money, you could also buy a film body and have your prints develped to photo-cd. It's incredible how much cheaper a good film body is. Yes, you'll spend more on processing, but you have to compare a film budget to things like Photoshop, a calibration device, a high end workstation, and a RAW converter. Once you develop consistency in your photography I don't think the cost savings of digital is huge. It's best on the learning curve where you'd burn through insane amounts of film.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 08:13:12 AM · #17 |
When I did get my rebel, from previously having the fuji s5100 -- the one thing I had the most trouble with (other than having to lug more gear around) was composing through the viewfinder. I actually wished that I had shot through the viewfinder instead of using the LCD...but you adjust fairly quickly.
You can still shoot through the viewfinder -- and then look at the shot right on the LCD afterwards. If you don't like it, hit delete and reshoot. :-D
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 11:16:53 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
If you're REALLY into photography but don't have a lot of money, you could also buy a film body and have your prints develped to photo-cd. It's incredible how much cheaper a good film body is. Yes, you'll spend more on processing, but you have to compare a film budget to things like Photoshop, a calibration device, a high end workstation, and a RAW converter. Once you develop consistency in your photography I don't think the cost savings of digital is huge. It's best on the learning curve where you'd burn through insane amounts of film.
Good luck! |
Some thoughts on that last paragraph:
I played at photography as a hobby back in the film days. To do more than just take pics (as in edit them, print them, crop them, modify the prints, etc) required a dark room and the equipment to go with it. I never got that far...i used the college dark room for a few years. Even today, unless you get the pics scanned or on photo CD you are in the same boat - big expenses there, and dedicated ones.
Alternatively, my computer serves many purpses as does the room it is in. Dark room costs are nil - depending on your plans: I already had PS 7, but elements is included with most every camera these days. so is a RAW converter. If you never print the pics, no more costs. If you do, then you do have control over the look, cropping, size, etc as if you had a darkroom to print in. I gave up on inkjets and use walmart - i am planning on trying a pro house for my next prints.
All that said, I am tempted to get a film SLR off ebay...printing costs shold be about the same, but the film and processing will run an additional 20-25 cents a pic, and you have no way to know if you got the pic right until a week later.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2005 01:17:08 PM · #19 |
So many opinions.
Here's one more.
As has been said before, a good camera does not make a good photographer. I am just recently getting back into photography after a short lapse. I learned on a fully manual 35mm SLR. I carried that camera for over a decade and I learned an incredible amount. I know it can be a bit cumbersome on some P&S digitals but I recommend using manual adjustments whenever possible. It's a great learning experience. You will learn what fstop to use for the depth of field you are trying to achieve. You will learn what shutter speed to use depending on the situation. You will learn when to overexpose or underexpose to suit your lighting conditions.
Just my $.02 |
|
|
|
02/15/2005 04:30:38 PM · #20 |
Well what can I say I am overwhelmed at the numerous responses. I do agree with you its a good place to hang for any one interested in photography. I would like to thank all of you for your kind advice. I do however promise you this is just the beginning and I shall be back every now and then to ask more questions.
I am more or less settled on a dSLR for now. I agree with cghubbell as to save up for it and then go for a good camera i.e. dSLR. Since one has to get it one day ultimately why not start with it. As for my interest in it I have been very interested in it for a long time. I have expreimented with those auto focus cameras which made me learn some verry basic rules of photography but beyond that I could only improve my composition nothing much. And I agree atleast here in India its very expensive getting into film photography. All these years photography has been a hobby I have been waiting to plunge into but couldnt ask my parents for a digicam for various reasons main being finance. So now that I am earning I would like to take the plunge with no holds barred. So yeah I am very very serious about it and plan to grow with it.
So thanks a lot for all the comments and I am still open for more comments and suggestions.
Cheers
Saurabh |
|
