|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hey Idonojacs--
I am honestly curious about your position because I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
Your other post said
| Quote: |
If you are a beginner photographer, I question whether a DSLR is the best choice for you. |
Then....
| Quote: |
But if these questions mystify you, you may be jumping the gun by buying a DSLR. If all you are going to be doing is shooting in Auto mode and pumping the zoom lens around, why bother? To make use of the features of a DSLR, you need to know these things. But, except for the prime lens issue, you can do all the rest with an advanced digital camera. And take movies. |
And now...
| idonojacs wrote: |
| Now you don't have to spend a month or two's wages to get a real nice camera. Digital cameras have opened up high quality photography to the masses. But I can't help thinking some people are still stuck in 1960s camera mode. |
What is 60s camera mode?
| Quote: |
| Yes, I learned photography with manual exposure, sometimes using a hand held meter. If you want to become a pro, or shoot like a pro, it is a good way to learn. But how many pros use manual exposure these days? Why would you when you have EV compensation, shiftable program mode settings, aperture priority, exposure lock, etc.? |
So....learn like a pro and then f it all like a pro? Is that your point? How do pros shoot? Do they "shoot like a pro" with manual exposure or not?
| Quote: |
Yes, if you really want to learn to become a photographer with an understanding of technique and a mastery of the artistic side, a fully manual camera is a good thing. In that case, maybe you should buy an old film SLR. But a DSLR would work too, if you have the restraint to use it in manual. |
So you want them to "maybe" get an old film SLR? Or get a DSLR if they have restraint. What is the other choice you'd suggest? (I have a friend taking a photography course right now. They had to get ALL manual cameras. She had to borrow someone's from the 70s.) The advanced digital camera?
| Quote: |
| What was the most important to me in learning to take pictures was using a camera with a non-zoom fixed focal length lens. Zooms are the worst innovation when it comes to learning to be a really good photographer. |
Emphasis on you.
| Quote: |
Why? Just think about it for a moment. When you have a fixed focal length lens and you use the same lens every day for months, you learn to see pictures with your eyes, to see possible framing, alternative frames, composition, around you. |
So now we're up to a fixed focus lens for learning and never stray from it? When do you get the right to play with a zoom? Then you run into the advanced digital camera prime lens problem you mentioned.
| Quote: |
With zooms, you don't learn to see the frames of the camera without the camera. You have to look through the camera. You don't learn composition. Your consciousness is not turned into a camera, into film, seeing lightness and darkness, lines, angles, composition, texture. |
I don't buy this. You compose a busy, cluttered, junky scene and zoom in on it, depending on how you do it you just bring the junky background CLOSER or crop out SOME of it while leaving it still junky.
Cropping has been done since looooong before zoom lens to change composition.
How zoom affects lighting and angles and texture is beyond me. With or without a fixed lens you use your eyes to see, whether looking outside or through the camera.
I don't buy this. But you obviously do, so I don't see how a digital camera to learn on helps solve your problem. Are there digital cameras without zooms in them? Maybe, I don't know.
| Quote: |
| With single focal length lenses you have to move around to try different shots, angles. A great photographer once said the first rule of photography is don't plant your feet in one place. Try different angles. With zooms, you don't need to move your feet, you just move your zoom ring. How many people with digital cameras take 10 shots all from the same spot? |
I still don't understand this argument either. A tree is in front of me. I have a fixed lens. I move 360 degrees around the tree to shoot it from every angle.
I have a zoom lens and suddenly it's rubber and it can reach around the tree and take a picture? You still have to move.
| Quote: |
Film is free now. Just turn on the rapid sequence shooting and let 'er rip. That's the second worst way to learn photography. |
And the first is?
| Quote: |
| I tried a motor drive after I had learned to shoot. All I got were a couple dozen lousy shots. |
So...did it make you a better photographer? Learning from your mistakes?
| Quote: |
You need to develop the instinct that links your eye, your mind, and your shutter finger. Digital photography weakens the discipline of film, but not irretrievably. Shoot single frame. Maybe shoot with a 64 mb card or so. Make every shot count.
That's what you need to learn photography. When you are learning to take pictures, less is more. When you learn, that's when you should buy a DSLR. |
So what do you suggest BEFORE a DSLR because above you only said MAYBE an SLR.
As teachers (most of us on Dave's are, at least) we know that everyone has a different learning style. There were, indeed, greats who shot off a gazillion rolls of films. Shoot 700 frames and learn from mistakes. What's wrong with that?
FILM is cheap. Take 36 pictures in a weekend. Two or 3 or great, 4 or so-so, learn from the rest. Instead, take 12 pictures. One is golden, 2 are so-so, the rest are crap...learn more from it? I don't get that logic.
I just don't understand it when people say there is ONE way to learn photography. There is ONE sequence you should go through when buying cameras. You MUST be like the pros (who are as varied as the non-pros in their shooting styles) or at least respect them (WHY?). You MUST... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
idonojacs
Joined: 07 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
.ili.
Last edited by idonojacs on Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:20 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Atavistic
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: How totally stupid that Korean doesn't show in this area.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| idonojacs wrote: |
If a picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps this will do:
i |
Nope. Doesn't answer a damn question, especially not how in the world a zoom makes you unable to see texture, lines, color, or how a zoom bagically gets behind a subject.
But that's OK, man, now I figure you were just ranting, babbling in your above posts about random thoughts and experiences.
Fair enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well it seems that I have had quite an education reading this and other camera threads here at Dave's.
I'm sure the Forums at DPReview might be more informative, however I can't register without an ISP Email account.
So what have a I learned. SLR digital vs. film. Apparently there is a concern of dust collecting on the photo detector, film cost more than memory. I think that's the nut shell comparison. These cameras are suitible for artistic enthusiast and photo studios, and have some uses in the news shutterbug world.
If your need for changing lens is less but you still want control over your technical and artistic functions the Advanced Point and Shoot models may be a better choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hepcat
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a D40 and a D80.
The D40 is great!
Buy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superdave
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: over there ----->
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hepcat wrote: |
I have a D40 and a D80.
The D40 is great!
Buy it. |
i've never heard a bad word about D40s either. but i don't understand why you'd have the 40 and the 80. i mean, they mostly have the same components, so the differences wouldn't justify owning both ... i could be wrong though, so i'd like to hear about it. a d80 and a d2x ... that i can understand. or a d200 and a d40 would be ok, if you wanted a second camera.
what do you get out of owning both? just out of curiosity!! no malice intended there! 
but a good point is that the d40 is geared towards beginners ... because many of the menu and settings teach you as you go. you can get a visual display of aperture and shutter speed, which will help understanding of how they work and how they relate to each other.
the consumer dslrs today are very beginner friendly ... meaning that slr photography is nowhere near as elitist as it used to be. that's something that the purists hate ... but to hell with them!
as far as camera brands? well, stick to maybe nikon or canon, since they can do the technology cheaper than most. olympus, sony, fuji and pentax also have good gear, but you'll find that there aren't as many options with regards to accessories, lenses and stuff compared to the big 2 companies.
buy an entry level camera: nikon d40 or d40x ... canon 400d. they'd be good places to start.
once you get your head around it all, consider upgrading later.
i'm an slr user from the start. my dad gave me an old pentax k1000 when i was a kid. i learned to use it and by the time i was in high school i was shooting and developing my own pictures ... my camera was manual focus too, so i was doing it all. in my senior year i spent as much time under a red developing bulb as i spent in real sunlight! LOL
all through uni i worked for the newspaper and was the only photographer who could use a wet darkroom.
but when i started traveling i gave photography away for a while ... when i came back to it i decided to go entry level. i bought a D50 ... just so that i could wet my feet and slowly get back into slr photography.
that camera served me well all through my travels in asia ... a year later i upgraded to the D200 (a professional camera) ... which is one of the most badass cameras on the market. damn i love that camera.
photography is fun, so don't be daunted by the prospect of moving into slr photography. just don't spend beyond your budget and enjoy the learning process.
one good piece of advice would be to participate in some kind of photographic group. a club, or a communal photographic website will be really valuable. there's nothing better than getting feedback on photographs and looking at how other photographers take their shots.
you'll learn a lot more this way, rather than working in a void by yourself ... you'll also find that it's a great way to inspire you to keep shooting or to try new things.
i'll check this thread often, because this is something i enjoy discussing.
good luck with it folks!!
cheers
david
ps ... for those interested, the d300 and the d3 are being released in november. that's some hardcore tech for people able to wield it ... and if anyone wants to lend me $2000 so i can get a d300, well, i'd certainly welcome the donation!!! LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hepcat
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| superdave wrote: |
| hepcat wrote: |
I have a D40 and a D80.
The D40 is great!
Buy it. |
i've never heard a bad word about D40s either. but i don't understand why you'd have the 40 and the 80. i mean, they mostly have the same components, so the differences wouldn't justify owning both ... i could be wrong though, so i'd like to hear about it. a d80 and a d2x ... that i can understand. or a d200 and a d40 would be ok, if you wanted a second camera.
what do you get out of owning both? just out of curiosity!! no malice intended there!
|
I bought my D80 as a second cam, to try it out by way of comparison, and for the extra features, especially flash. The D40 I may keep as a light weight running camera (I run 3 to 4 times a week up a local mountain), or I'll sell the D40 and use the D80 as my running camera, and the get the D300 for the 'serious' pix. To be honest, I wanted a new camera and had the $$$ so I bought the D80: it's good.
Hell, I may even get the new Olympus for its depth of field in macro, its weather sealing, and for those insanely attractive lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superdave
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: over there ----->
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmm ... interesting.
i'd recommend selling the d40 (i'm sure you'd find a buyer on eslcafe) and keep the d80 ... it's a beautiful camera.
since you have a camera, hold off until the d300 is widely available (next jan or feb) and get one. i've read the specs on the d300 and it's a freaking impressive camera.
i considered upgrading from the d200, but it's not worth the jump, compared to the cost. 5fps to 6fps, 10mp to 12mp.
once you own one, you'll never look back ... but there's not enough in it for me, unless i suddenly get a lot of money i can throw away! LOL
for people looking into which brand, i'd recommend taking a serious look at nikon.
canon used to be #1, but nikon now have a slightly higher market share (globally) and their camera lineup is very impressive.
the d3 is going to be able to fire up to 11fps, which is the first camera in the world to break the 10fps mark. it's also nikon's first full frame camera (which is an overrated accomplishment).
at the moment, and i'm trying to be unbiased, i'd say nikon have the edge over canon. but canon could come back with something new in the next twelve months to challenge nikon again. however, all of this competition is good for consumers.
as i said in my dslr buyers guide (see my signature), a d40 with lens is under $500. that's ridiculously cheap ... and a great way to enter the very big world of dslr photography.
... to keep the conversation going, hepcat, what lenses you carting around at the moment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrsquirrel
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hepcat wrote: |
| superdave wrote: |
| hepcat wrote: |
I have a D40 and a D80.
The D40 is great!
Buy it. |
i've never heard a bad word about D40s either. but i don't understand why you'd have the 40 and the 80. i mean, they mostly have the same components, so the differences wouldn't justify owning both ... i could be wrong though, so i'd like to hear about it. a d80 and a d2x ... that i can understand. or a d200 and a d40 would be ok, if you wanted a second camera.
what do you get out of owning both? just out of curiosity!! no malice intended there!
|
I bought my D80 as a second cam, to try it out by way of comparison, and for the extra features, especially flash. The D40 I may keep as a light weight running camera (I run 3 to 4 times a week up a local mountain), or I'll sell the D40 and use the D80 as my running camera, and the get the D300 for the 'serious' pix. To be honest, I wanted a new camera and had the $$$ so I bought the D80: it's good.
Hell, I may even get the new Olympus for its depth of field in macro, its weather sealing, and for those insanely attractive lenses. |
I looked at the price of those 'insanse' Olypmpus lenses after another poster told me the price I saw for one in Thailand was cheap.
2,000,000 for their 60-150 lense. That certainly ain't cheap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superdave
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: over there ----->
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrsquirrel wrote: |
I looked at the price of those 'insanse' Olypmpus lenses after another poster told me the price I saw for one in Thailand was cheap.
2,000,000 for their 60-150 lense. That certainly ain't cheap. |
2 grand?? ouch! that's not cheap. that'd be dedicated f2.8 right? it'd be a fast, sharp lens ... i'm guessing some serious glass and heavy as hell.
i take it you wont get one then squirrel?? LOL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrsquirrel
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
superdave
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: over there ----->
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
35-100mm f2.0 ??? that's freaking sweet. f2 is rare indeed, especially at that distance.
but have a look at that weight. 1.6kg. you wouldn't want to cart that lens around all day.
that $6000 is no surprise. dedicated f2.8 at 250mm is some serious engineering. and bam! 3.2kg ... no backpacking through europe with that in your bag!
i knew olympus gear was good, but i'd never looked at the specs on some of their new lenses.
fantastic kit, if you can afford it ... but i find the weight to be a massive turn off. just those two lenses and a body would weigh in at 5kg.
i've got my d200 and 4 good lenses, and they weigh less than that ... comfortably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
