First DSLR - Please help me learn how to use it (1 Viewer)

[ManW_TheUncool]

Carlo,

Since you're hooked on the 50 f/1.4 now, you might wanna consider the 28 f/1.8 too for something wider. You don't necessarily need to spend the $$$ on an f/2.8 widezoom, especially one that's APS crop. And if you do get the 28 f/1.8 (or similar), you could consider adding the 17-40L f/4 or the like for a less expensive, non-crop widezoom instead -- or you might even consider one of the various cropped superwide zooms too.

Personally, if I'm gonna spend big $$$ on glass, I'd much prefer to do it on full 35mm lenses, not APS cropped ones, unless it's something much needed at either the superwide end or the long tele end. For the more regular focal length ranges, I think it usually makes more sense to stick w/ non-cropped lenses unless you're quite certain you won't want to upgrade to a fullframe (or even 1.3x crop) body in the forseeable future...

_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

I've taken a different approach to lenses than Man suggests. I like the 1.6x crop factor, since it allows me to get more reach with less focal length for wildlife shots. I do not foresee a move by me to a full frame sensor for many years, so I decided that the crop sensor-only EF-S lenses made sense for me if the focal length made sense. Therefore, I own two such lenses -- the 10-22mm super-wide zoom and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I figure that I can always sell these lenses later if my needs change and I do switch to full frame. Both are highly regarded lenses.

Primes may be the answer for you, though, Carlo, as Man suggests. If a lot of your photography will be indoor non-flash, primes are your only option if you need something faster than f/2.8. Primes have some advantages over zooms (smaller, lighter, faster, sometimes better image quality) and some disadvantages (more lens changes, focal gaps, no IS on wider focal lengths). Zooms are getting better in the image quality area, but they will always be bigger, heavier and slower.

 

[Citizen87645]

Yeah, I can see a difference there. I do have my monitor calibrated, which may be the reason for my seeing no (or a less dramatic) difference on my end.

 

[JohnRice]

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but, here is another thread wanting to learn about photography which has become about nothing but hardware.

Do you guys see where my frustration comes from?

Aside from that, I'm glad to see Carlo has discovered the importance of quality optics. I know a lot of digital "Pros" who still haven't figured that one out.

 

[Carlo_M]

Hi John,

To be fair, the first posts contained quite a wealth of information which I'm still trying to sort through. And despite the fact that the last few posts are hardware oriented, I want to assure you that I'm still trying to learn the art of photography, and not getting lost in the minutae of equipment. After now spending about $1800 (including bags), I'm pretty much set as far as equipment for the next 8-12 months [might get a flash]. So now I'm going to fully enter the learning phase as far as techniques and composition, but it was great to get some recommendations for future hardware purchases.

At this point in the thread I will welcome all comments, tips, tricks, techniques and hardware recommendations.

 

[Citizen87645]

John, I understand your frustration, but I don't think anyone is saying that hardware makes the photograph. Given the type of website we're on, I think it's only natural that things move towards hardware. As appreciative as I am that HTF has a photography section, I don't really consider it a place to learn about the aesthetic aspects of photography. Frankly, I don't know if I would expect that kind of thing from any mass, online forum.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John,

Believe me. I do understand where you're coming from, but I don't think we're *all* offering hardware suggestions just for the sake of talking hardware (and measurebating).

There are indeed pros and cons to going different routes say pro level quality zooms vs primes for instance. And the choice to go which way (or invest in multiple routes and then choose the right gear for the right application) is all part of the process me thinks. Yeah, one can certainly do a whole lot w/ any given piece of gear (and one certainly doesn't always need the best for the learning process itself), but it's good to understand how all the different aspects work together anyway and then have what works best for whatever task at one's disposal as one finds feasible.

Yes, it's not the tools that make the (good) photograph, but let's not overcompensate by suggesting there should be no talk about the tools either (and I'm sure that's not what you really meant to suggest). Certainly, since most of us are just amateurs (w/ an amateur's limited budget) not looking to do this professionally, it'd be good to give some careful considerations to what are the most suitable (and reasonably affordable) gear for what we wish to do for the forseeable future -- and that's probably also true to a good extent even if one is doing it professionally unless one happens to have a very big, virtually unlimited budget.

RE: the comment about understanding what the camera does "automatically", yes, I totally agree there. And I also find that I often only allow the camera to be as automatic as the situation requires and not become overly reliant on it. For instance, even though most folks don't bother to think about stuff like the Sunny f/16 rule anymore, I do try to keep such things in mind -- and occasionally go back to refresh myself on such -- as they do come in handy from time to time even though I do also regularly use features like Nikon's Auto ISO mode (even in the camera's so-called Manual "metering" mode). I agree it's best to understand and realize that whatever gears and features are just tools, and we need to use them as such. And sometimes, we might find interesting "new" ways to use them that we never thought possible (or useful) before in part because of tech advances and in part because we just weren't openminded enough before.

Carlo,

Despite all the gear talk, yeah, I think you should do just fine w/ that decent startup kit. Spend the time and effort to make the most of it before jumping into new gear, especially if it involves an actual upgrade. Yes, it's often too easy to keep lusting after the latest and greatest. And personally, I've been thinking about getting some new glass for quite a while now, but at the end of the day, I do find that the need to upgrade (or expand) just hasn't been compelling enough for my "needs". I did finally get a great new bag to replace the broken old one though (as I wrote in another recent thread). And I'm sure I'll revisit the idea of getting new glass or whatever else when something comes up again.

Cheers!

_Man_

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Well said, Man. I didn't mean to imply that gear was more important than understanding basic photographic principles or learning proper techniques. However, on the limited budgets of us amateur photographers, it is important to understand the pros and cons of different lenses before jumping in with our wallets.

Like Man, I've been lusting after some new glass, but what I currently own will suffice for what I'll be shooting over the next many months. I hope to work on my skills in capturing wildlife in motion over this summer. We'll be traveling to Maine this summer, and I'm looking forward to getting some decent whale photos and also hope to get some Peregrine falcon shots if I'm lucky. Now I just need to figure out how to convince my wife to get up early enough to get some sunrise shots in Acadia NP.

 

[Sam Posten]

The only link I put up there that is even half about gear is Rockhead, the first link in particular is all about technique and fundamentals =p

For the record, my favorite 'technique' author is Scott Kelby. Anything by him is pretty much gold.

 

[JohnRice]

I guess what I don't understand is the endless "lusting" after gear. Yes, I have a lot of photo gear, but a big part of that is because I have three separate systems, only one of which is digital. Did I ever mention that my DSLR is a Fuji S1? That stinking thing is 7 or 8 years old. So, I have the S1, a Tokina 20-35 2.8, a Nikon 35-70 2.8, a Nikon Micro 70-180 (GREAT lens that is no longer made and one of 2 pieces of gear I think are truly exceptional) and a Tamron 200-400.

I should point out that I don't do volume work (like weddings) and I treat my gear like it is solid platinum, so it lasts. My point is, the 35-70 and 70-180 cover 95% of my needs as a pro, so why do amateurs need so much more? I admit, a fixed, fast lens can come in handy.

I find it ironic that I work as a pro, yet I'm considerably less concerned with the gadgets. As long as they produce quality results, they're just hammers and nails.

 

[Scott Merryfield]

John,

It's probably part of the difference between a pro and an amateur. I'm in IT, and see PC's similarly just as a tool to get a job done. So when someone starts talking about his/her new wizbang home PC, I'm not very interested, either. However, photography is just a hobby, and part of the fun is in evaluating and acquiring new toys for that hobby. The real enjoyment is in using the equipment, but since it is just a hobby we probably do not have as much leisure time to actually play with our toys as we would like.

 

[Sam Posten]

What he said. =) I take pictures to amuse, entertain and intrigue one person, me. I have fun with it and it is never 'work'. I am serious about those things which I have fun with, and that includes both HT and photography. I push myself to learn more about both constantly and to get the best performance for the money out of the gear I am using in both hobbies. I dont spend money foolishly on either, but I research the hell out of my options and when I settle on something typically I get 3-4+ years out of it or more. My Paradigm speakers have lasted since the month DVD came to NJ. I dont intend to replace my projector until 1080p versions are well under $1k.

My 20D lasted a bit less than that average because of the incredible things that the D300 allows me to do that the 20D couldnt, chiefly use my collection of film nikkors that have patiently waited for Nikon to get a price/performance horse back in this market space. Add in live view, spot metering, wireless flash and more and it was a worthy upgrade, and there are features (like 8FPS) which are there but I dont use. I expect to use this as long or longer than the 20D lasted me.

 

[Sam Posten]

Found a great new photo tutorial site, I like the way this guy works:
Depth of Field in Photography | Tutorial9 - Tutorial Bliss.

Here's all his photo tuts so far:
Photography | Tutorial9 - Tutorial Bliss.

And ones on photoshop:
Photoshop | Tutorial9 - Tutorial Bliss.

 

[Carlo_M]

John,

Unfortunately I'm a hobbyist too. I'm sure great photographers could take a basic point and shoot and using their expertise get some great shots. I, however, need to have the tools make a lot of the decisions for me.

My first and foremost need is indoor, no-flash shooting. Primarily in museums. Busy, popular museums, where I can't spend a lot of time fidgeting in front of the piece of art before shooting, because of the dozens of people jostling for viewing position.

I don't have much money to travel, so when I do I want to preserve the memory as vividly as possible. A lot of my Paris pictures (The Louvre, Musee D'Orsay, Paris at night) were taken on a point and shoot with no flash, and came out very grainy due to high ISO and bad ISO performance, etc. Luckily I'm going to get a mulligan on that as my parents now want to go and I am going to be able to go with them later this year or next. But I swore I'd do it right this time, hence my pursuit of ideal low-light lenses and camera. Sure, a pro could probably have done well with my P&S from 2006, but that's not in my skill set. So I bought what I have now to try and have it mimic a point and shoot while retaining a high level of quality, and not have the monkey holding the darned thing (me) get in the way.

I practiced all day Sunday at the Getty Museum in L.A., trying to find the ideal lens/setting combination, so that when I'm back in France (and other places) where chances are I'll only go once or twice in my life, I can get the best shots possible with least amount of fuss. The gear won't compensate for my lack of true skill, but it will at least take decent shots even if I'm not the best photographer in the world.

I'll practice night shots later this month, so that I can get that beautiful shot of the Tour Eiffel lighting up the Paris skyline!

I realize that tools don't make up for all the shortcomings, but I think it's a two-way street: good equipment forgives a bit of poor execution, and good (or great) execution can make great photos out of almost any equipment. After all, I'm pretty sure Ansel Adams didn't shoot with a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and L lenses

But I fall in the former category, rather than the latter. I'm not going to give up trying to get better at the craft, but I'll never be a true professional photographer so I'm going to need to get better equipment to make up for my lack of skill.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I think Scott and Sam are probably correct w/ their replies (at least to a good extent). Like Scott, I too also don't care too much about the latest and greatest in the computing world anymore. There just isn't the same fun factor w/ equipment that's used in my career field after so many years of doing it professionally -- that wasn't always the case though, ie. back in my earlier days in the field. And w/ my own computers at home, I'm plenty fine w/ just getting by -- it's been that way forever now.

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

Probably because, to me, even the best DSLR is still scraping the bottom of the barrel. I never would have remotely considered shooting a full page magazine ad with 35mm, but now I am pretty much forced to do it with digital. I admit, I have been able to make it work better than I ever expected, but part of it is because most of the competition doesn't even seem to produce sharp shots. I don't mean they are out of focus, because nothing is IN focus.

When I want actual quality, I shoot film. I still occasionally (far too rarely) use the view camera, though these days I almost always shoot 120 in it with roll films backs. Still, I can shoot a 6x9 on Astia and do a 60 MP scan that will put the best DSLR to complete shame, and I'm not even pushing the resolving power or the film at that. I'm starting to sound like Rockwell. Plus, the "major" advancements in digital over the years have been miniscule to me, when compared to film, of course. Probably most of all, the entire idea of photography as a "profession" has been dying a lingering death, and it is not wise to invest in it anymore.

Anyway, I find it interesting that photographers produced absolute works of art for so many decades with the most basic, limited, though extremely high quality equipment. In almost every case there was far more "sophisticated" equipment available, but they didn't use it. Diane Arbus almost exclusively used a Rolleiflex TLR. Basic camera, with a barely functional meter, square format and unchangeable 80mm lens. W. Eugene Smith and Edward Weston shot with almost nothing but Leica rangefinders and maybe 2 or 3 (fixed) lenses. I see no indication all the fabulous technology available today has produced anyone to touch them. If they are "David Lean", the advanced equipment used today has produced ten million "Michael Bays".

I am quite certain I will never convince a single person. The power and creativity of technology is driven too far into our thick heads.

 

[Carlo_M]

If I had the time, I would.

But photography for me, as I said, is a hobby. The next step up (for me) is a passion. That's where I throw myself fully into the thing I'm passionate about and do exactly what you suggest. Unfortunately, between work and private life, I only have a finite amount of time for "passion" type activities, the others fall into hobbies, which get much less of my learning time.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

John,

I think there's a whole lot to be said for the "minimalist" approach when it comes to creativity, art and such -- and I suspect that's more or less what you're describing. And yes, I agree w/ that at least in principle. I think when we're given too much "power" (or advances in tech, etc.) to do stuff, we often end up choking (out our actual creativity, "seeing the forest, not just the trees", etc) on it all and maybe shoot ourselves in the foot w/ things that are actually not needed.

Many good programmers feel the same way about the "tools" in our field too though our work is definitely far more strictly science/math and craftsmanship (w/ some bits of creativity thrown in) while photography resides toward the other end of the spectrum.

For instance, when it comes to photography, at least this (semi-)serious amateur finds it very helpful to learn whatever it is via some sort of "minimalist" approach, ie. stripping away all the extra stuff that's not needed. Well, not that I always (or even often) deliberately do so, but that's how things tend to work out, ie. one step at a time. And same is true w/ other things like the violin, which I started learning a couple years ago.

Anyway, one example is learning to see what the lens sees (and to improve on composition and visualizing the shot). I find it much easier to learn to see (and work more quickly) w/ a fixed lens than a zoom lens -- or at least, keep the zoom lens at a fixed focal length (or two) for similar results. While the average person might assume that zoom lens is more convenient and quicker to use, well, it is to a degree (and is mostly a surface level thing, IMHO). I find that a fixed lens (at least in the slightly-wide-to-short-tele ranges) frees me to see the shot I want far more quickly, and then if need be, just zoom w/ my feet -- this latter bit doesn't work as well for the very wide end nor the long tele end. There are also other smaller side benefits as well, but that is the biggest one for me. And in the process, I learn to visualize better and more quickly for the focal lengths I tend to use.

And even w/ a zoom lens, it's not like I often need all the in-between focal lengths that my fixed lenses don't cover -- I (and it seems most people) end up using the 2 extreme ends of each zoom lens (and maybe 1 other middle point) for maybe 80-90% of the time anyway unless we're talking about some sort of superzoom. In fact, I don't even like my Nikkor 18-70DX enough to bother to use its short tele end at all -- I only put it on my camera when I expect to need the wide end (and usually end up only using it as an 18-35mm lens) mostly because I didn't have a good alternative. I had actually been toying (for a long time) w/ the idea of getting one of those 12-24mm (or similar) APS crop lenses to replace the wide end of my 18-70DX for exactly that reason -- well, that and better quality optics -- (and just stick w/ my 35mm prime for the next step in the range).

Anyhoo...

BTW, I just took the plunge on a Nikkor 70-300mm VR -- it's supposed to be a good quality consumer telezoom. If I like it enough, I will probably sell off either my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (most likely) or my Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 prime. Ideally, this would let me go lighter (and add IS capability) w/out losing too much in quality -- I'll still have a good f/2.8 lens for the circa 180mm point whichever I sell off (plus I still have my 85mm f/1.8 prime for the shorter end). Ok, enough of this "shop" talk before I reaffirm John's suspicions about me...

But seriously, John, I do think at least some of us are hearing you though putting things to practice well could be another matter entirely. Don't give up on us.

_Man_

 

[Sam Posten]

Man-fai, I just borrowed a 70-300 last week. I liked it well enough for Soccer and baseball:
08-Baseball - a set on Flickr

But the purple fringing that I was getting on anything that was even just a little backlit drove me nuts. I definitely need to practice more with it, was tracking a local pair of Ospreys and was happy with the focus tracking on the D300, but I had trouble getting usable detail out of them.
08-Osprey - a set on Flickr

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sam,

With the bad PF problem, were you shooting at 300mm wide open (ie. f/5.6)? Based on Thom Hogan's review, PF should not be a big problem in most instances unless you shoot near 300mm wide open. It should be minimal otherwise, if it shows up at all.

_Man_