Photography

[Styler]

Hello all,

I've been interested in taking up the hobby of photography for a while now and a visit to the wildlife photography exhibition at the Natural History Museum last weekend has spurred me into action. I'm thinking of getting a DSLR + accessories at some point soon, my 30th is coming up so hopefully I can persuade my wife to chip in to alleviate some of the cost!

I was just wondering if this is a hobby that any of you fine BOTL are already active in? I'd be keen on any thoughts about camera brands, DSLRs vs Bridge cameras, etc.

[Non chill filtered]

Styler- I am into photography myself at an amateur level. It depends how much time you are willing to spend to get the right shot as there is a lot of manual work with a DSLR.
There are plenty of decent compacts out there that can give you some amazing shots without the hassle of manual tuning like the Sony HX5V which is an excellent compact camera with HD video too.

Personally i dont like the idea of lugging around a DSLR and you need to use both hands which disables the user from enjoying a good puro at the same time

[spirit_of_will]

Hello all,

I've been interested in taking up the hobby of photography for a while now and a visit to the wildlife photography exhibition at the Natural History Museum last weekend has spurred me into action. I'm thinking of getting a DSLR + accessories at some point soon, my 30th is coming up so hopefully I can persuade my wife to chip in to alleviate some of the cost!

I was just wondering if this is a hobby that any of you fine BOTL are already active in? I'd be keen on any thoughts about camera brands, DSLRs vs Bridge cameras, etc.

Hi Styler... Photography is very much my thing and I do a fair bit of tuition & workshops so might be able to point you in the right direction - have a quick peek at www.willbartonphotography.com - what do you like to take pictures of? If it is wildlife you are wanting to work on in any seriousness, then a DSLR is the only route as you'll need (large) high magnification lenses.

If your aspirations are more all round, then you have a wider range of choices. Certainly take a look at the entry level DSLR's which would be a great introduction in photography - The Canon EOS 1000D or ESO 500D, Nikon D3100 or D5000 and Pentax K-r are all worth a look at. For competitive prices have a look at www.warehouseexpress.com or for some more personal help the shop I use is www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk

There are plenty of decent compact cameras on the market that will do fine, the main issue with compacts is their slower responsiveness - especially the focussing- certainly a consideration for any wildlife or fast action.

The other really important thing to consider if you do decide in a DSLR is some help/training on how to get the best out of it. Most local collages will run introduction sessions or courses - doing something like that will really help with understanding exposure, focussing and composition.

Shout if you need a further hand with anything!

Will

[monkey66]

I am a keen photographer and shot with Leica for many years.

I decided I needed something modern, fast with good low light performance for capturing mini-monkey. I went to buy a mid-level Nikon DSLR and came out with a Panasonic G1 and a 20mm f1.7 lens.

I had no expectation to buy this camera but I love it. The size and weight of the micro four thirds format is nearly half of a proper SLR. It does 90% of what I would use the SLR for for about 30% of the price. As you can tell I am a bit of a convert. With good glass it produces some great results.

[Tzusskin]

My wife has been into photography for ages far longer than I have known her. She started off (well started in digital) with a small 5Mpxl Canon something-or-other and got some amazing wildlife shots with that, in fact one of her pics of some pelicans was in one of the Flickr top visited lists for quite a while. She then moved onto a (Canon again) 350D with a couple of Sigma lenses before upgrading last year to a (yup, you guessed it) a Canon 50D. She is still learning how to set it up and use it fully and I doubt whether she will play with everything on it.

She subscribes to the shotgun method of picture grabbing in that she will take 100s (literally) of shots and then go through them on the PC and end up deleting 50%+. We went to see a group called Apocalyptica (4 Finnish guys playing metal on cellos - awesome) a couple of years ago at Rock City here in Nottingham and she took almost 600 pictures. They got pruned down to around 100 or so really decent ones.

If you are thinking of trying to get some portrait pictures then take a look into strobist photography, a couple of friends do a fair bit of that and their pictures have been fantastic.

[senor_robusto]

hey styler,
i've recently returned to photography as a hobby (i've a fine art degree, specialized in 'lens based media', graduated in 2002)!!! i can't recommend getting a DSLR enough!!! it's hard to take a bad picture with a dslr, even when you don't know what your doing, imo!!!

anyway, i've always been a nikon man, i bought the D60 kit with 18-55mm lens a couple of years ago (from tesco of all places)!!! got it at a great deal, i think ?250 or thereabouts (i 'snapped' it up quick, guess they priced it wrong)!! i was originally gonna buy the d40 or d80, but found out out that only the d60 & d90 go to ISO 100!!! picked up the 55-200mm lens on amazon for ?140 a few months ago!!! bargain!!!

hope this helps,

alex

[Watkins]

I am a keen photographer and shot with Leica for many years.

I decided I needed something modern, fast with good low light performance for capturing mini-monkey. I went to buy a mid-level Nikon DSLR and came out with a Panasonic G1 and a 20mm f1.7 lens.

I had no expectation to buy this camera but I love it. The size and weight of the micro four thirds format is nearly half of a proper SLR. It does 90% of what I would use the SLR for for about 30% of the price. As you can tell I am a bit of a convert. With good glass it produces some great results.

Have myself an e p1, m4/3 is certainly the best option for me as a dslr tends to scare people off/ give an impression I don't want while shooting.

for the money you can't go wrong picking up an entry level dslr over picking a top end compact in my opinion anyway. the m4/3 is one to consider though due to the lens and adaptors available.

a fixed compact isn't photography if its your only camera, it's far to limiting and you'd find yourself wanting an upgrade. They of course have their purpose and are very good at it, but when you look at some of the better models price wise an m4/3 or entry dslr are usually less when shopped around for.

Manual focus is something you should really learn if not already and will teach you alot, I find the best way to do so is buy a legacy lens + adaptor that forces you to learn and also saves you alot of ?? in the long run.

[Styler]

Thanks for the input guys. It seems to be one of those areas that combine lots of technical variation with personal preference so opinions can vary wildly.

SoW, love your site. I especially liked the tidal shots in Suffolk, your London scenes and the Scottish landscapes. I'm between extremes with what I'd like to shoot, on one hand I aspire to take some crisp Scottish landscapes (with a focus on the sky/clouds at sunrise and sunset) but I also really fancy trying out some macro shots of insects, flowers, etc.

I know that there are some great "super compacts" out there like the Canon G12 but I think I need something with much more scope in the lens department. Would you rule out bridge cameras altogether? They do seem to be a "jack of all trades" style making a lot of compromises but they seem reasonable for the price. The one thing that worries me about changing lenses is the possibility of getting dust/dirt trapped in the lens or the body, how often does this happen and how big a problem is it?

I think that If I was to be going for interchangeable lenses then I'd go for a full DSLR as opposed to a hybrid (M4/3), the extra bulk/weight does not bother be that much and I believe that DSLRs are still superior in low light conditions. My goal is to be able to take images that are as sharp as possible so I really want to avoid the granular texture that seems to be associated with high ISO settings.

I don't really have much experience with brands but from viewing many professional photos I seem to prefer ones taken on Nikon cameras, whether that preference filters down to their low/mid level devices though is another question. I'm looking at spending about ?600 give or take, that would hopefully include a kit lens as well or I won't get far! The Nikon D3100 seems like a really good machine for the price, I've seen it produce nice images and being a beginner I love the idea of the inbuilt function guide. A problem that a lot of previews point out though is that is does not have an internal AF motor so you are very limited with your lens choices compared to something like the D90, if only I could afford the D7000! There seems to be a good comparison between the D3100 and the D90 here, one other criticism of the D3100 I have heard though is that the AF can be a little slow. There seems to be a lot of debate over whether it's best to get lens or body based AF and vibration reduction. I was also looking at the new Sony A55 "SLT" camera but worried about the EVF instead of an optical viewfinder and sharpness at higher ISO due to the SLT system only allowing 70% of available light through.

I've had a look at a beginners photography course my local college offers but there seems to be quite a bit of time devoted to the developing of film which isn't really something I'm going to need. I realise that I'm rambling, I've had a large influx of camera related info over the past few days and I've just trying to process it all! Think I need a nice smoke the calm my brain this evening

[spirit_of_will]

Thanks for the input guys. It seems to be one of those areas that combine lots of technical variation with personal preference so opinions can vary wildly.

SoW, love your site. I especially liked the tidal shots in Suffolk, your London scenes and the Scottish landscapes. I'm between extremes with what I'd like to shoot, on one hand I aspire to take some crisp Scottish landscapes (with a focus on the sky/clouds at sunrise and sunset) but I also really fancy trying out some macro shots of insects, flowers, etc.

I know that there are some great "super compacts" out there like the Canon G12 but I think I need something with much more scope in the lens department. Would you rule out bridge cameras altogether? They do seem to be a "jack of all trades" style making a lot of compromises but they seem reasonable for the price. The one thing that worries me about changing lenses is the possibility of getting dust/dirt trapped in the lens or the body, how often does this happen and how big a problem is it?

I think that If I was to be going for interchangeable lenses then I'd go for a full DSLR as opposed to a hybrid (M4/3), the extra bulk/weight does not bother be that much and I believe that DSLRs are still superior in low light conditions. My goal is to be able to take images that are as sharp as possible so I really want to avoid the granular texture that seems to be associated with high ISO settings.

I don't really have much experience with brands but from viewing many professional photos I seem to prefer ones taken on Nikon cameras, whether that preference filters down to their low/mid level devices though is another question. I'm looking at spending about ?600 give or take, that would hopefully include a kit lens as well or I won't get far! The Nikon D3100 seems like a really good machine for the price, I've seen it produce nice images and being a beginner I love the idea of the inbuilt function guide. A problem that a lot of previews point out though is that is does not have an internal AF motor so you are very limited with your lens choices compared to something like the D90, if only I could afford the D7000! There seems to be a good comparison between the D3100 and the D90 here, one other criticism of the D3100 I have heard though is that the AF can be a little slow. There seems to be a lot of debate over whether it's best to get lens or body based AF and vibration reduction. I was also looking at the new Sony A55 "SLT" camera but worried about the EVF instead of an optical viewfinder and sharpness at higher ISO due to the SLT system only allowing 70% of available light through.

I've had a look at a beginners photography course my local college offers but there seems to be quite a bit of time devoted to the developing of film which isn't really something I'm going to need. I realise that I'm rambling, I've had a large influx of camera related info over the past few days and I've just trying to process it all! Think I need a nice smoke the calm my brain this evening

Thanks for the really pos feedback on my site!

Bridge cameras do fall into the jack of all trades bracket - good for some people but just not what I'd choose. Think of them as compacts on steriods!

The Canon G12 is a fab camera, I've got a G11 and I've taken more shots on that in the last year than anything else. But it just doesn't allow as much room for creativity as my DSLR.

Low-light and high ISO there is nothing at all that can touch one of the latest generation of DSLR's. In my view it is where 4/3rds, compacts and bridge cameras really fall down as the small sensors get noisy very quickly.

AF speed, again not a huge thing to worry about in any of the DSLR marques. Nikon & Canon are that cut about Pentax & Sony though. It's odd that Nikon are doing what they are doing in terms of compatability between certain lens & body combinations. Only Pentax & Sony have the vibration reduction built into the bodies - with Nikon & Canon any VR (or IS in Canon speak) is in the lens and can make some of the lenses pretty expensive.

In terms of value for money, you really won't go wrong with any of the beginner or mid range DSLR choices - they are really very good indeed!

In terms of courses, is there not something that describes itself as an intro to digital photography? A full course will offer you a lot, I teach certain modules of a City & Guilds course part-time with a friend of mine... going back to the basics of film really helps to ground your understanding about light sensitivity and there's something really magical about watching your first B&W print emerge in the developing tray!

Do shout if you need any further help - lots of the magazines are full of a lot of useful but sometimes conflicting (marketing!!) info! As a starting point why not consider picking up a D90 like you've been looking at off of ebay... it's still a cracking camera!

[snooky]

Hi Styler,well photography seems a bit like cigar smoking , you will always end up getting a bigger humi and you will always spend a bit more than you planned .
I think you need a reasonable DSLR , ive always had Nikons, start with a descent lens to cover a wide range of categories, i like my Nikor18-70mm portraits ,landscapes if i go out with only 1 lens that one will do . When you get good results and find your niche then buy those special lenses, like macro and close-up work or home studio stuff, dont try it all at once you may dissapoint yourself and cost a fortune, plus its always worth having a compact to stick in your jacket . I think without the right gear and lack of tuition is a bit like a good cigar with no draw, you'll soon give up . Hope you have fun learning and look forward to posting some of your pics.

[Styler]

Hmmm, lots to think about. Many thanks guys.

It's looking like I'm going to go for a D90 unless I can persuade my wife to spring for a D7000 (She's generous but I think that's pushing it!). I've found that there is a beginners digital photography course running here so I'm in the process of enquiring about that. It all depends on the schedule though as I do have a little one on the way.

I'll keep you posted and will happily share the results of my endeavours

[senor_robusto]

hey styler,
good choice on the nikon d90!!! as someone only starting out, this is MORE than enough to get you going!!! remember that it will be you taking the picture (with your vision & imagination), not the camera (it's a means to an end, only a tool)!!! once you master composition, aperture etc etc it'll not matter what dslr you use!!!

check out flickr, search for nikon d90 and see what results some people have achieved with this amazing camera!!! you'll not be disappointed!!!

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikond90club/

alex

[Deano]

I'm looking at getting a Sony DSLR - the Nex-5 compact. Any thoughts anyone? Won't be able to afford it for a while yet though!

[seanbeer]

i have got a D40 with stock kit lens, sees very little use after i bought a G11 which is garthering dust since i bought the iPhone4. hahahaha technology. Anyone interested in buying a D40 can give me a PM.

[Eddie]

If you looking at getting into natural history photography look at getting a 50mm f1.8 (non macro) lens and a set of extension tubes (jessops own brand will be fine). This is a dirt cheap way of doing incredible close ups.

The other tip is there is no such thing as it was good considering the circumstances (unless its journalism and there are no other shots takes). Its either good or its not. If you're incredibly self critical then you will get a good portfolio with little dross letting it down.

I used to work as a full time photographer and worked in some harsh conditions and i have always treated my pics with the above advice.