ScientificNinja
Member
Jax said:
Can I ask what model and settings you're using?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Beginner DSLR AGE: What to start with?
- Thread starter The_Inquisitor
- Start date
- Status
Can I ask what model and settings you're using?
The_Inquisitor
Member
After reading up a bit, it seems a lot of people aren't too fond of focus and recompose with more modern DSLR cameras. And yeah, I learned about setting manual focus points with my XS. I think it will make a huge difference when I shoot around campus again tomorrow morning. I am learning an immense amount so far GAF, thank you for your help so far.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It's when you lock focus on an object, hold the focus, then recompose your shot and take the picture.The_Inquisitor said:
With the default settings on the camera, it goes something like:
Place focus point on subject
Hold shutter button halfway
Acquire focus lock
Keep holding shutter button halfway to maintain focus lock
Recompose your shot to place subject in a more pleasing location within the shot
Depress shutter button fully to take the shot
You would want to use this technique when using the center focusing point. Usually the center autofocus point is the most sensitive and reliable, so many photographers choose to use that point to lock focus, and then reposition the camera to get a more pleasing composition.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I've never had this problem. You should probably change your settings.Jax said:
The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:
I'll give it a try tomorrow. Thanks for the advice.
Also, I have left white balance on auto at this point. Is there much of a point in putting this in a manual mode too? Stupid question of course.
And w/ regards to ISO. My understanding is the higher the ISO the more light I will need since the sensor will not be very sensitive at all. The higher the ISO, the better the better the image quality. In low light situations higher ISO helps to get the image, but at the cost of image quality.
ScientificNinja
Member
The_Inquisitor said:
Really? That's news to me. Unless the subject is moving around a lot, the technique has always worked for me.
I don't know a whole lot about the white balance performance on your camera, but often, Auto White Balance can cause bizarre color biases like the yellow one an earlier poster mentioned. You should try the white balance presets and test the manual temperature settings as well to get an understanding of how it affects your exposure. Either way, you can correct your white balance in postÂ… which reminds me, are you shooting in RAW?
The_Inquisitor
Member
Another question haha. Do you leave the switch on AF? I am thinking of switching to manual focus.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Auto white balance will suffice for the most part. Here are some situations where you may want to try using manual white balance:The_Inquisitor said:
- when you are in a room that is lit primarily with incandescent lights (most cameras seem to have trouble auto white balancing incandescent light).
- when you are in a room that is lit primarily with fluorescent lights (fluorescent light is green and looks awful. It's still tricky, as there is a lot of color variation between different types of fluorescent lights. If manual white balance looks worse, just go back to auto).
-when you are taking pictures outside on an overcast day, you may have more success with the "cloudy" white balance option.
- if you taking a picture of something/someone who is in the shade, the "shade" white balance option may give you better results.
At any rate, since you are still a beginner, just try a few different settings and get a feel for how your camera performs in certain situations. Try something new - if it looks better, keep doing it. If it looks worse, stop doing it
The_Inquisitor said:
Always shoot at the lowest ISO you can get away with.
In broad daylight, stick to ISO 100 or so.
In the shade on a sunny day, stick to ISO 100-200 or so.
On an overcast day, stick to ISO 200-400 or so.
Indoors in a normal to dimly lit room, stick to ISO 400-800.
If it's really dark, then you gotta go up to 1600. More than that, and I think your particular camera has pretty bad image quality (as do most other cameras).
Of course, these are just guidelines. No hard rules. If the ISO thing is still confusing to you, just stick it on auto ISO.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Beginners will probably only confuse themselves with manual focus. Stick to auto focus.The_Inquisitor said:
As with any settings on your camera, just take it easy with the auto settings for now. Switch over to manual one by one until you get comfortable.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Beginners probably shouldn't shoot in RAW. It'll just add time, waste hard drive space, and add more confusion. He wouldn't have enough knowledge to do a proper RAW conversion anyway.ScientificNinja said:
The_Inquisitor said:
Depends on the lens and settings, particularly aperture settings.
If I'm shooting wide open on a lens with a really low aperture setting, I go to manual focus, because with that really shallow depth of field, you can't really trust AF to get it right. If the aperture is above f4 or so and the shot isn't a super close up, the AF generally does a decent enough job.
If the focal point is farther than 15 feet or so away, there isn't really any reason to use manual focus.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
For all intents and purposes, that article doesn't apply to you. You are not shooting with a very narrow depth of field.The_Inquisitor said:
For beginners, focus-and-recompose is a great technique to get started. Only when you have a more in depth understanding of focus do specialty technical guides like that one have any meaning.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:
Nah not yet. I have Photoshop CS4 to do RAW stuff, but I am sticking with JPG's for now.
When I shot today I realized it defaults to an ISO of 400 when it's left on auto. Ugh...
Anyways here is what I feel comfortable w/ in manual atm.
-shutter speed
-aperture size
-ISO setting
-focus point.
I'll fiddle with white balance via some of those presets and see what difference it makes.
ScientificNinja
Member
The_Inquisitor said:
Wow. With respect, I don't consider this a problem so much as a matter of common sense. It's plain mathematics that the distance between the sensor and the subject will shift slightly. You should be able to account for this by selecting a suitable depth of field. Naturally, if you're shooting at something like f/2 as they are in those examples, it's easier to fall into that problem.
The_Inquisitor
Member
The_Inquisitor said:
KK thanks. Haha I was just posting some dissenting opinions. :lol The Canon manual actually mentions this technique. Going to try it tomorrow.
ScientificNinja
Member
Rentahamster said:
This, plus:
In simple terms, ISO affects the camera's sensitivity to light. The higher the setting, the more sensitive it is to light. Having the ISO too high when there's a strong light source will result in blown highlights and lost detail. That's why it's generally recommended to ISO to a minimum: with under-exposure, you've still got the data captured. If it's over-exposed, you'll have no data and no amount of post is going to save it.
The_Inquisitor
Member
N2_ said:
Macro lens?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No.The_Inquisitor said:
The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:
Haha curious as to why this was posted then.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Dice said:
That's probably it. Well I am off to bed for the evening with a ridiculous amount of new knowledge in my head.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Jax said:
Could be the lens your using. Different lenses edge towards warm, cool or completely neutral.
Mustaphadamus
Member
Hello,The_Inquisitor said:
I purchased my first camera almost two years ago. It was the Nikon D40. At that time I didn't know much about photography, lenses etc. My father is a photographer and so was my mom so I always had a interest in it. Anyway, I had barrel distortion in my Nikon kit lens so my pictures came out a bit odd looking. I didn't know what that was "barrel distortion" and I thought it was the camera. So i jumped from Nikon and moved over to Canon. Well Canon for me was fine and dandy when I was walking around town taking shots of different things but now I am moving into photography as a career and I have to tell you, if I could go back in time I would have NEVER gone with Canon. Canon is a great company they make good cameras but for the type of photography I do, they just don't cut the mustard. Right now i am doing event photography. In low light, Canon's autofocus system really really really SUCKS! It also isn't the best for sports either (again because of its autofocus system).
Nikon has a amazing autofocus system and is excellent in low light. Especially if you get a body like a D200, D300 or D700 later on down the road. Don't get me wrong, Canon does have a decent autofocus system on their pro bodies like the 1d and 1ds but even that autofocus system doesn't stack up to the prosumer camera bodies from Nikon like the above mentioned D200, D300. If you plan to get into portrait work I will say the 5D MII has a very very soft and beautiful look in natural light. However, with a D700 and photoshop skills it isn't anything you couldn't reproduce on your own with some work.
On the lens front, canon does have more lenses but I mean how many lenses does a person REALLY need? Generally speaking your going to get the 16 - 35, 24-70 and the 70-200 L lenses (if you get serious about photography) and maybe a prime (fixed focal length) lens or two like the 135mm L (great for portrait work). On the flip side Nikon has glass around the same focal ranges that out class canon in terms of sharpness like the 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm.
Why do I bring all this up when you ask about a beginner level DSLR? Well eventually, IF you get serious about photography you are going to want to expand. You need to understand what is going on at the upper end of the DSLR spectrum for each system so you can make a intelligent beginner's decision. I didn't have anyone to guide me as my parents shot/shoot film with Nikons.
Lastly you need to also take time out to learn how to use your camera. YOu have no idea how many times I go to a event and see people pretending to be photographers (getting paid yet don't know what they are doing). For example, you might go to a event and see a photographer aim their flash directly at the subjects face (that is how you get pictures that look like mug shots). Or you will see their "processed" pictures and everything is under or over exposed or the white balance is off and there is a yellow or sometimes green tint to the picture. So take the time to learn the different stops for both shutter speed and fstop. Also learn how each affect the over all picture. Next learn the zone system which was created by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer. I can not stress this part enough. People have a tendency to point their camera at a subject and zero the light meter in their camera out on zero. That is NOT metering and makes little sense. There are tons and tons of books on the zone system and videos as well. Photography is a lot of hard work, it can be very disappointing at times and very rewarding at other times. If you are going to spend a few hundred (and in some cases thousands) of dollars on something, spend the time to really learn how to use it. Think of a master sculptor. He can't just jump out and create beautiful busts of subjects. He has to understand lines, dimensions, different chisels, chisel strokes etc. then he can use this knowledge to manifest his artistic vision.
for me, I will be selling all my canon gear (if they do not fix their horrible autofocus system) and going to Nikon by years end. They are due out for the new 1d series, so I really hope they have something sensible to say, its been a few years now and Nikon has been punching them in the face left and right when it comes to quality. I really hope canon can answer back with something worth wild. They really pissed me off with the 5d mark ii. The thing is a amazing video camera but the one thing it is supposed to do well (take pictures) it doesn't even come close in matching the D700's (its closest competitor) quality.
More specifically though if you can afford it go with a Nikon D90, you get good video, good ISO performance and great picture quality and a good Auto Focus system. If you want to go with canon and you can afford it pick up a 40D (if you can find one). Good image quality, good ISO performance up to ISO 500 or so. Fast frame rate for the sports photography you want to get into. You could also get the latest Rebel too, the new ones are pretty darn good. You should also look at the Sony Alphas. Sony is really killing it right now with their DSLRs. They took over Minolta which was a beast of a camera back in the days. Also Sony Alpha's can use those Carl Zeiss lenses and they are some of the sharpest lenses on the planet
Anyway man, good luck and I hope you enjoy your new hobby. It is expensive as hell but again it can be SO rewarding! If you ever have any questions don't hesitate to send me a PM.
P.S.
good site to read reviews is dpreview.com
The_Inquisitor
Member
Hey guys. It's been a few days since my last update. I have been busy with band camp (yes feel free to laugh :lol ) all week, and finally got a chance to do some photography tonight. I decided to try a night shoot. Things I learned tonight.
1) Take multiple shots for exposure
2) Even if you get your focus point right, refocus a few times
Anyways here are a few of my favorite shots. It's amazing how few you get from 2 and 1/2 hours of work...
1) Take multiple shots for exposure
2) Even if you get your focus point right, refocus a few times
Anyways here are a few of my favorite shots. It's amazing how few you get from 2 and 1/2 hours of work...
CharlieDigital
Banned
Anyone with experience with these or care to comment/compare to Canons?
I've been leaning Alphas because I have a few Sigma lenses for an old Minolta 35mm body. But I've been pretty amazed at the picture/lens quality of the Canons and I can't make up my damn mind.
I've been leaning Alphas because I have a few Sigma lenses for an old Minolta 35mm body. But I've been pretty amazed at the picture/lens quality of the Canons and I can't make up my damn mind.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
One of the things I do when it's really dark is to shine a small LED flashlight at my subject so that my camera has an easier time getting focus lock. This is, of course, in the unlikely event that the on camera AF-assist or the on-flash AF-assist lights aren't cutting it.The_Inquisitor said:
The_Inquisitor
Member
Rentahamster said:
I'll try to see if I can find a keychain LED. Night shooting is a lot harder than I thought it would be.
Jet Grind Radio!
Banned
The_Inquisitor said:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Just make sure you don't move the camera too much between the time you get focus lock and take the picture, otherwise your pic will be out of focus again.The_Inquisitor said:
If you don't have one already, get a tripod. Doesn't have to be expensive. To give you an idea of where to start, have a low ISO, moderate aperture (f5.6 - 8ish), and a long shutter speed (multiple seconds, if need be).
Set your camera up on the tripod.
Set your camera to shoot on delay (2 to 10 seconds should be fine)
Set your focus.
Depress shutter all the way.
Wait for your camera to take the picture.
The reason you use the shutter delay is so you don't introduce shake into the camera while you depress the shutter button.
Alternatively, if you don't have a tripod, just rest your camera on a wall or chair or something.
The_Inquisitor
Member
Arts District
Jet Grind Radio!
Banned
I didn't want to start a new thread, so sorry for the bump.
I'm wanting to get a DSLR for Christmas, but I don't know where to start. The number one issue for me is price. I don't want anything over $550. After that is picture quality and speed of taking the photos. I'm thinking of maybe getting this. Or maybe this.
Any direction would be greatly appreciated.
I'm wanting to get a DSLR for Christmas, but I don't know where to start. The number one issue for me is price. I don't want anything over $550. After that is picture quality and speed of taking the photos. I'm thinking of maybe getting this. Or maybe this.
Any direction would be greatly appreciated.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Jet Grind Radio! said:
I shoot with the XT which is a generation behind the XS. My personal opinion would be to go with the XS.
Here's my Flickr stream (so you can see the IQ you'll possibly be getting from the XS). All images are taken with an XT and Canon 50/1.4 Lens
www.flickr.com/bluetsunami
The_Inquisitor said:Hey guys. It's been a few days since my last update. I have been busy with band camp (yes feel free to laugh :lol ) all week, and finally got a chance to do some photography tonight. I decided to try a night shoot. Things I learned tonight.
1) Take multiple shots for exposure
2) Even if you get your focus point right, refocus a few times
Anyways here are a few of my favorite shots. It's amazing how few you get from 2 and 1/2 hours of work...
this in b&w = <3
Jet Grind Radio! said:
I was going to suggest just going for the biggest name in cameras, because you know you'll have a lot of options and selections of lenses and stuff.
Nothing wrong with other brands, but this typically boils down to Canon, Nikon, and to a lesser extent Sony, and then Olympus, pentax.
My gut feelings to just choose Canon (obviously biased, as that is what I have).
This is what I've been using. The words "nikon" or "cannon" don't appear on the body, so I expect it to disintegrate in my hands soon, and all the pictures I've taken disappear, right?
Because if it's not made by the market leader, or 2nd co., it's crap. Also, competition is bad. I'm sure if only the biggest companies are supported, they will give us the best possible product for the best possible price, right? (Not directed at you so much, as I see you're looking at an "off" brand, but those who feel camera = CaNikon)
Because if it's not made by the market leader, or 2nd co., it's crap. Also, competition is bad. I'm sure if only the biggest companies are supported, they will give us the best possible product for the best possible price, right? (Not directed at you so much, as I see you're looking at an "off" brand, but those who feel camera = CaNikon)
BronzeWolf
Banned
The pentax series do hold their own without the need for snarky comments
*Proud owner of a Pentax K-x*
*Proud owner of a Pentax K-x*
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Rolio said:
No one is discouraging getting the Olympus (or even Pentax for that matter) as bad as you're stating. Both manufactures make amazing bodies and lenses but the majority of users have only used Nikon and Canon DSLRs so they recommend what they know.
I personally like the way Pentax processes color when using JPEG output. Its very vibrant but not overly so. I know that Olympus makes some kickass primes too.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Not very much for beginners and hobbyists, but there's a reason you don't see too many professionals using Olympus and Pentax.Rolio said:
Jet Grind Radio! said:
Is that $550 your total limit? You'll need memory cards, a case, and other stuff as well. As far as pic quality, the Canon XS is less noisy at higher ISO's, but its burst rate is a bit slower than the Oly.
I'd suggest scraping up a bit more cash, and then look again.
Jet Grind Radio!
Banned
$550 is my CAMERA limit. I'm well aware about Memory cards and cases, but what other stuff would I need. I'm not concerning myself with lenses right now. I will buy them as I need to. The camera is going to be a Christmas present from my family, and any money I get for Christmas is going towards a case and stuff.Grimlock said:
As for memory cards, I'm waiting to see what camera I settle on. Usually SD memory cards are fairly cheap for a 4-8GB one. I wouldn't need more than, say, 8GB.
I think I'm going to go with the Canon Rebel XS since it seems to have a lot of very positive reviews. I may even see if I can get this since it comes with a case, extra battery and a UV filter.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
The Rebel's a good camera. I would highly recommend you get this lens: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007E7JU/?tag=neogaf0e-20Jet Grind Radio! said:
Only $100 bucks but it has excellent image quality and works well in the dark.
This is also a pretty good deal:
http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KH.html
$439.95
Nikon D40 Digital Camera/ Lens Kit w/18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Lens, Lexar Platinum II 4GB SD Memory Card, Nikon SLR system gadget bag And Nikon "Fast, Fun & Easy" DVD
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
koam said:
The packaged software (Canon Digital Photo Professsional) is pretty good. Allows you to use certain contrast and color profiles (like Standard, Portrait, Landscape etc). You can manipulate sharpness, curve adjustment and noise.
If you're gonna have a workflow to deal with and want something that'll catalog your photographs, there's Lightroom (or Aperture on the Mac).
As far as guides? Depends on what you want to learn (the technical aspects of the camera? or a mixture of technical and the process of taking a photograph?). I've always seen this book being thrown around for beginners...
Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0817437126/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Not for DSLR's per say but great anyway.koam said:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
Probably because the ones that do, their cameras are being hidden behind gigantic white lenses. ;-)rentahamster said:
Theres plenty of pro's using Olympus, they're definitely out there, they're just out there shooting more pictures and not arguing about inane camera stuff online.
Award winning john isaac uses the E system. http://www.johnisaac.com/
- Status