Just dipped my toes in to DSLR

Hootanany

Bought a NEX5n standard lens and a 210mm one haven't a clue what to do any hints.

5uspect

You bought a what now? Have you read the manual(s)?

fret_wimp2

Did you buy the DSLR because

1. you had reached the limits of what you could do with an older/smaller/less complicated camera and wanted to grow as a photographer

or

2. did you buy one thinking it would give you awesome photos because it was a big camera like pro's use?

If the answer is 1, then you just need to learn how to use your camera, how to quickly control ISO, shutter, apature, bracketing, metering, and a few other things to make it useful.

If you answered 2 then you jumped in at the deep end and need to learn the basics of photography. This info can be gotten from online articles, blogs, books and most importantly, practice.

If you need some pointers to good articles to get started wtih, let us know and folks here will be able to guide you. People here need to know what level you are at first.

Good Luck

ArthurG

This probably won't help but I'm going to post it anyway ;-)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LApO_BDRE8M

Timfy

Moving up to a DSLR will have no immediate impact on your photography, in fact you are probably going to spend a good few months taking crap photos! If your photos were rubbish before, the purchase of a DSLR is not going to change this!

Learn the basics of photography, there are many good basic tutorials on the net.

When I decided that I had exhausted the bounds of my digital bridge camera, I purchased a cheap as chips manual 35mm film slr and a half dozen lenses from ebay as well as as much film as I could get my hands on. I photographed the same few subjects hundreds if not thousands of times, subtly changing settings and keeping notes... the photo processing company must have thought I was a madman as they developed another 360 photos of the same duck, 80% of which were out of focus, badly exposed or motion blurred!

I am still of the opinion that a good grounding in using film will make you a much better photographer although at the end of the day, the camera makes no difference if you cannot visualise a good shot. There was a great article that I read the other day where a top photographer (whose name I've embarrassingly forgotten) was given a Buzz Lightyear toy camera and produced some absolutely stunning shots.

The best photo that I ever took was taken on a cheap Panasonic compact... It's a little grainy and the focus is a little soft but the emotions raised every time I look at the picture are amazing. To me this is what photography is all about.

I did briefly join a camera club and this may work for you, but for me it was just a room full of gadget freaks discussing meaningless technicalities and taking mediocre shots! Critique was primarily about the camera and not about the shots.

In a nutshell, learn the basics, practise using your camera in the dark (to completely familiarise all the controls) and then try to forget that your carrying it. Then treat your photography as an art form, concentrating on the composition of the shot rather than the process of taking it.

fret_wimp2

Timfy wrote: »

Moving up to a DSLR will have no immediate impact on your photography, in fact you are probably going to spend a good few months taking crap photos! If your photos were rubbish before, the purchase of a DSLR is not going to change this!

So true.

My first camera was a 3.2 megapixel casio exim. My dad thought me about focus & dof on this camera and i have some lovely photos and memories of this time.

I then moved to a bridge camera, a panasonic lumix FZ-7. manual shuter, apature and a super long telephoto. I took awful shots for ages and really missed my little casio, but eventually i learned a bit about apature, shutterspeed, value of a tripod, long exposure shots, macro (using screw on close up lens's) and the limitations of a small sensor with regard to long exposure, high ISO and noise.

I then went to a Canon 400D. Again a period of horrible photos and i really regreted selling the panasonic. But I learned the value of good glass, low ISO, good tripods, and composition. I also learned that having a lens that is 20x or whatever is useless, and even this "x" value is meaningless. I learned a little about composition, and a lot about processing in photoshop. This camera gave me almsot 4 good years.

I then made the leap to a full frame camera to help eliminate noise during long exposures, which i had started to like, and also to give me more detail in landscapes.

Im still learning all the time, creatively &technically and learn more every day. Im nowhere near where i want to be but im getting there. Ive also learned that whatever you want to spend on a tripod, you need to double that value, and if its under 300 quid, double it again! thats a lesson a long time in the learning!

Point is it all occurs in steps, and a camera does not make you a photographer. Give a 99c point and click film camera to someone like ansel adams and they will take amazing shots, regardless of the camera quality.


A good camera will help you realize your potential, but without knowledge of the mechanics of photography, it will just be an expensive paper weight and your camera phone will be of much more value to you.

Take the time to learn, expirement, and give yourself the chance to improve at your own pace, and get gear as you need it.

Steve Reddin

As has been said already, don't assume a great camera will give great pictures, no more than a great arrow would always hit the bullseye. I still take photos with a medium format film camera and it's better in most respects than my dslr, despite the fact it is completely manual.

Assuming you have limited knowledge of photography the biggest advantage a DSLR is going to give you is immediate feedback on your mistakes with little or no costs. You should use this to your advantage to see how the different settings on your new camera affect your photography, over and over and over until you begin to understand how the setting correlate.

I don't know much about Sony's cameras so I can only assume it has full manual functionality (if it doesn't then put it into the bin, or maybe use it to hold up a wobbly table leg) but here's a (hard and fast) crash course on introducing yourself to photography. If there is terminology you don't understand, google it, read it, understand it and then come back to this.

Digital photography works on the same principals as film photography and circles around the trilogy of aperture / shutter speed / ISO and how they work together. Once you understand this you'll be a long way on the road to taking good images. There's obviously more than this but for now it's enough to get you started. If there is something here you don't understand then read up on it before you move on rather than glossing over it. Remember to take a notebook with you as you will have to record your settings for each image you take.

1. ISO

Film speed or sensor sensitivity. Set you camera on automatic and then take a load of images across varies iso settings, 100, 200, 400 and 800 being the most common in everyday use.

2. Shutter speed

How long the film or sensor is exposed to the light source. Set your camera to TV (time value) and take images across different speeds, using a tripod once you go over 1/60s or you'll introduce blur that will make the images useless (leave the ISO at 200 for the time being)

3. Aperture / f stop / depth of field

How much of the image plane is in focus. This is probably the hardest to get your head around so give it time. Set your camera to AV (aperture value) and take images across all the f-stops your lens permits, from f32 right up to f4.0 or bigger if possible (leave the ISO at 200 for the time being)

Load all the images up on your pc and critically assess them to see how they are different to each other. You're going to look for factors such as greater / lesser blur in the background and foreground (depth of field), changes in image noise, under and over exposed images (to some degree, you are only using semi manual to the camera will try to compensate) etc. Remember that the camera compensated for your different settings in order to achieve middle grey so look at what it changed in order to do this, e.g. it choose a particular AV when the shutter speed was 1/60s, what did it choose when you set the speed to 1/30s and why?

Now that you understand the effects of each setting on the image you can start to play with two or all of them at the same time to try and achieve a specific result. Reading and understanding the Sunny 16 Rule will give you a good place to start all your settings from, allowing you to change from there.

FYI, you may find the lens somewhat limiting unless the range is relatively large. I'm not really sure what you'd use 210mm for to be honest, once you leave aside sports and nature. It's too flat for landscape and not flattering for portrait. It will still let you learn the basics though.

Hopefully this will help you somewhat. Ask more questions as you think of them and don't expect a gentle learning curve...

Steve

Steve Reddin

And now after typing all that up, I just realised you didn't say you bought a camera and lens, you said you bought two lens...

Stick up the lens specs and we can suggest what they could be suitable for but, to be honest, ad hoc lens purchases can be like buying a tyre and then wondering what to do with it.

Wossack

fwiw, I found the below tool very handy for getting a bit more understanding of the iso/aperature/shutter relationship:
http://camerasim.com/camera-simulator/


from this thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81847333

Wossack

Steve Reddin wrote: »

And now after typing all that up, I just realised you didn't say you bought a camera and lens, you said you bought two lens...

Stick up the lens specs and we can suggest what they could be suitable for but, to be honest, ad hoc lens purchases can be like buying a tyre and then wondering what to do with it.

nex is a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera - comes in kit form with a 18-55mm, and sometimes also bundled with a 55-210. Can be used fully manual alright

Lens' are sonys e-mount:

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
55-210mm f/4.5-6.3

I presume thats what Hootanany has

magicbastarder

Timfy wrote: »

Moving up to a DSLR will have no immediate impact on your photography, in fact you are probably going to spend a good few months taking crap photos! If your photos were rubbish before, the purchase of a DSLR is not going to change this!

Learn the basics of photography, there are many good basic tutorials on the net.

When I decided that I had exhausted the bounds of my digital bridge camera, I purchased a cheap as chips manual 35mm film slr and a half dozen lenses from ebay as well as as much film as I could get my hands on. I photographed the same few subjects hundreds if not thousands of times, subtly changing settings and keeping notes... the photo processing company must have thought I was a madman as they developed another 360 photos of the same duck, 80% of which were out of focus, badly exposed or motion blurred!

i would not be so sure that the photos will be worse at first. maybe not better, but no reason they'll be worse.

whether it be through reading about it, or practice (the former was how i did it), learn the relationship between ISO, shutter speed and aperture (especially the latter two), and how aperture works on depth of field.
and make life hard on yourself. limit yourself to a certain number of shots, so you'll have to work harder for each one.

you don't become a good darts player by throwing darts randomly at a dartboard, and trying to work out why some were on target. you have to aim each time.

DaireQuinlan

Read enough about your manual to work out how to turn on the camera and put into some automatic mode. Go and start taking pictures. There. You're now a photographer, you're using your camera. Take loads and loads of pictures. Take pictures of everything you see that you want to take pictures of. Oooo and Ahhh over some of them. Delete most.

Once you start encountering difficulties taking specific pictures that you want to take come back here and ask more pointed questions.

Steve Reddin

Had a look at the tool...hmmm...it's pretty cool but I'm not sure about reliability. Sunny 16 works perfect, then move the slider to mostly sunny and the fstop has to drop to 6.3 from 16 for correct exposure? But like you said, it's a good starting point for understanding.

The lens...standard kit lens... obviously there are no definitive uses for any lens but my broad suggestions / categories are:

- 18/55 landscape / building work
- 55/210 portrait work up to 100mm, getting closer to points of interest after that...

The limitations will be relatively slow speeds on the longest focal length and potentially inferior glass as with all kit lens resulting in images not being crystal clear.

Do you know if the sensor has a crop factor or do the lens take that into account already?

Wossack

pretty new, so im not 100% certain of the question, but there is a crop (1.5) on the sensor of the nex, and that the focal labling on the lenses doesnt take that into account (so the 18-55 is full frame equilvalent to 27-82 or so)

Steve Reddin

That rules out using the 18/55 for buildings then.

Quick Google on the camera in question, seems it has built in HDR technology...someone hand me a bucket, I think I'm going to throw up...(and I use the term technology quite wrongly in this context of course)

wilsixon

Timfy wrote: »

Moving up to a DSLR will have no immediate impact on your photography

Not really true.

But even if you put it in auto mode and leave it there, you'd expect improved results due to the much larger sensor, better low light/high ISO performance and superior image processing power.

Of course it won't suddenly make you a pro - and you still need to learn to use the camera to its potential (as other here have said). A poorly composed photo of a boring subject will still be rubbish!

Steve Reddin

brookedave wrote: »

...even if you put it in auto mode and leave it there, you'd expect improved results due to the much larger sensor, better low light/high ISO performance and superior image processing power.

I would disagree with this.

- a film SLR already has an automatic mode and TTL metering, moving to digital will make little difference except you'd not pay to have for developing.

- If the size comparison is to 35mm film then the sensor in this camera is smaller, not larger.

- The image quality is possibly on par with 35mm film, assuming the standard Kodak 200 film you'd get free with your photos but if you compared to Ilford or Kodak Professional film then it's very debatable if the digital sensor in this camera provides higher quality. Photosites have their own shortcomings that are not present in film.

- I don't know enough about the camera in question to say whether it has better low light / high ISO performance but at entry level I doubt it once you go above 1,600 ISO.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with superior image processing power. The advantage in digital imagery is the ability to capture RAW files but unless you are taking very specific imagery you shouldn't need to rely on RAW and LR / PS, you should be taking the photograph correctly at source.

Suffice it to say, cost aside, a photographer will take an equally good photograph with a film or a digital camera. Too many though are using digital cameras as an excuse to delete poor images, mainly due to not knowing what they are doing in the first place.

AnCatDubh

Hootanany wrote: »

Bought a NEX5n standard lens and a 210mm one haven't a clue what to do any hints.

To quote or at least paraphrase Humberklog of once, "find something interesting, point the camera at it and press the button".

I know. It sounds obvious and probably not what you were asking, but it is the best way to improve / begin to take photographs. Settings, and all that mumbo jumbo is important, but not as important as finding something interesting and capturing it. Once you are shooting something, you will then degin to query, why is that bit of the image too dark / lost in shadows, why is the other bit too bright / blown, why is it blurred or is it just my style :eek:, and so forth.

Find something interesting, point the camera at it and press the shutter release. Then when you are getting curious with the kind of questions above, have a read of Understanding Exposure. It's a simplistic read, but grand to get you going in understanding what it is that gives you the technical parameters to achieve certain photographic qualities.

Oh, there's always photoshop /hides

Steve Reddin

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Oh, there's always photoshop /hides

:rolleyes:

Ben D Bus

I'm open to correction, but contrary to your thread title, I don't think you have actually acquired a DSLR

Hootanany

Thanks for all the advice, Time to start shooting & reading,
I quite like the time lapsed photos on Bridges and Motorways at night.
I used to have a OM 10 many moons ago I think it was the B mode for this.
Is it Ok to return her for some tips from time to time.
Again many thanks for the replies.

Steve Reddin

Ben D Bus wrote: »

I'm open to correction, but contrary to your thread title, I don't think you have actually acquired a DSLR

From the point of view that's there's no mirror and consequently no reflex, it's not a DSLR. From the point of view of taking an image, it has full functionality and interchangeable lens so it offers everything a DSLR does and can be approached in the same manner.

It's probably a little confusing to introduce a new photographer to the semantics part just yet.

wilsixon

Steve Reddin wrote: »

I would disagree with this.

- a film SLR...

Just to clarify, I was referring to the step up from digital point-and-shoot to DSLR (which is the more common upgrade) rather than the sidestep from film to digital.

davyjose

Steve Reddin wrote: »

From the point of view that's there's no mirror and consequently no reflex, it's not a DSLR. From the point of view of taking an image, it has full functionality and interchangeable lens so it offers everything a DSLR does and can be approached in the same manner.

It's probably a little confusing to introduce a new photographer to the semantics part just yet.

No viewfinder AFAIK. And shutter lag will be hell.

Wossack

top range nex (nex7) has an electronic viewfinder, as does the newer nex6 - not this one though unfort! very expensive optional addon...

kelly1

Timfy wrote: »

There was a great article that I read the other day where a top photographer (whose name I've embarrassingly forgotten) was given a Buzz Lightyear toy camera and produced some absolutely stunning shots.

David Hobby aka "Strobist"?

Leftyflip

kelly1 wrote: »

David Hobby aka "Strobist"?

That's the one, he did it with DigitalRev, the video is in the off-topic section if I remember correctly!

Steve Reddin

davyjose wrote: »

No viewfinder AFAIK. And shutter lag will be hell.

There is the option of a viewfinder that is added on top, so it can be there in so far as a non mirror camera can have one at all. Having to buy it though is probably indicative of the user type this camera is aimed at.

Steve Reddin

brookedave wrote: »

Just to clarify, I was referring to the step up from digital point-and-shoot to DSLR (which is the more common upgrade) rather than the sidestep from film to digital.

Fair enough

Steve Reddin

Hootanany wrote: »

Thanks for all the advice, Time to start shooting & reading,
I quite like the time lapsed photos on Bridges and Motorways at night.
I used to have a OM 10 many moons ago I think it was the B mode for this.
Is it Ok to return her for some tips from time to time.
Again many thanks for the replies.

B mode usually refers to 'Bulb', which basically means the shutter is open for as long as you'd like it to be, letting you get those really long light trails.

Post up some of your pics as you take them, you should get good feedback that way.

fret_wimp2

Im noticing the OP has not replied at all in this thread since opening it. Starting to smell of troll to me...

Hootanany

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Im noticing the OP has not replied at all in this thread since opening it. Starting to smell of troll to me...

Really I have why would you think I am a troll.

fret_wimp2

Hootanany wrote: »

Really I have why would you think I am a troll.

Generally a post on a photography forum of saying ive got a DSLR and no idea how to use it, or something similar, with zero detail outiside of that, will get a huge flush of replies stating things like you see in this thread such as:

-why did you start off with a DSLR, its overkill
-what camera did you have first
-whats your experience level like
-you need to understand photographic principals
-just get out there and shoot stuff

and so forth, getting folks generally excited.

But, as you replied, its less likely your a troll ;-)

davyjose

One thing I've started doing is browsing photo galleries. Not only is it good for ideas and inspiration, but (for instance with 500px) in many cases it'll tell you the ISO, aperture, shutter speed and focal length of the shot. Invaluable for a beginner like me.

Hootanany

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Generally a post on a photography forum of saying ive got a DSLR and no idea how to use it, or something similar, with zero detail outiside of that, will get a huge flush of replies stating things like you see in this thread such as:

-why did you start off with a DSLR, its overkill
-what camera did you have first
-whats your experience level like
-you need to understand photographic principals
-just get out there and shoot stuff

and so forth, getting folks generally excited.

But, as you replied, its less likely your a troll ;-)

I asked the question because I am looking for direction as the op stated will post up some pics tomorrow and please please point me in the right direction total newbie here.
And again many thanks to all.

brokenarms

Nice camera Hootanany.

If you stick with it, you will have a great oul time with it.

Just get out and start shooting. You should see improvement each outing. Not great weather now though. Im not liking the light lately myself.

Dont forget to show off your work here for tips , and advise.

If you can get a trial of Lightroom you can double up on your new interest with post processing fun on your computer.

Hootanany

Did some shots today light wasn't great will post them up tomorrow
Tally hoe

Leftyflip

Not sure if it was mentioned, if you can get some decent software (Photoshop, Lightroom, GIMP, and I think Picasa) and shoot in RAW, you can do some great changes and make your images really pop. RAW is great as it allows you to fine tune your exposure, contrast, highlights, shadows, etc.

This is probably gibberish to you - but look up some RAW processing tutorials and the likes - you won't look back!

brokenarms

Linda.com is great I found. And its everywhere for free if ya have a little bit of savy.

Hootanany

[IMG][/img]




Not great light

brokenarms

Hootanany wrote: »

[IMG][/img]




Not great light

No its not. But you may want to consider your cameras functions. Look in your manual in the white balance section. You can warm your image by simply selecting a cloud or shade option. Or use post processing programs like Photoshop or lightroom to warm the image. Camara Raw is perfect for this.

Its a great start . But what part of the picture should I be looking at?

Composition is also important

Have a look here. Think what eyes are going to see and where they will lead. I am also a hobbyist but have been at it a couple of years and these are a few pointers that where shown to me .
http://digital-photography-school.com/5-elements-of-composition-in-photography

dnme

brokenarms wrote: »

Its a great start . But what part of the picture should I be looking at?

Composition is also important

Hi brokenarms and everyone.. Great point but it got me wondering.

How do you know at composition / shoot time how you are going to guide the viewers eyes? I find it hard to squint through the view finder and the Liveview LCD is not much better. It reflects daylight and is also tough to see.

So it's tough enough to compose, but how (at shoot time) do people decide, "ah that's how I'll guide the viewers eyes on this one" ? How are these more holistic or more advanced decisions made when it can be tough to see the shot through the camera?

brokenarms

dnme wrote: »

Hi brokenarms and everyone.. Great point but it got me wondering.

How do you know at composition / shoot time how you are going to guide the viewers eyes? I find it hard to squint through the view finder and the Liveview LCD is not much better. It reflects daylight and is also tough to see.

So it's tough enough to compose, but how (at shoot time) do people decide, "ah that's how I'll guide the viewers eyes on this one" ? How are these more holistic or more advanced decisions made when it can be tough to see the shot through the camera?

I have recently been studying the same exact question. Again on a hobby level.
Loads of web based pointers I found. You tube, and even downloadable courses .
I know a good few of people here study this in collage to a whole different level . But here is where I am learning pointer from.
I think in this link the second picture of the flower in the 1/3 shot just looks beautiful. Have a goo at it. That website is fairly good.
http://digital-photography-school.com/rapid-composition-how-to-compose-a-photo-quickly

I also get great tips from here on the random pic thread Great forum when they are not arguing over copyright law. LOL

Steve Reddin

Hootanany wrote: »

My feedback:

- subject matter: it's both bland and complex at the same time, as has been mentioned it is hard to see what we should be looking at. The brickwork and arch could be an unusual subject but the tiles above the centre decoration shouldn't be in the frame at all, or should be framed correctly

- angle and composition: the angle is quite distracting, it may have worked better with a position that was perpendicular

- underexposed

- colour temperature - it's been suggested that this image should be warmed up, to me it's already much to warm and would benefit greatly from some reduction. The yellow brickwork has lost its subtle colour.

I'd not be overly concerned with the light at the time of taking, that's something all photographers have to work around and should not be a factor after a while.

I'd love to see this image taken again with feedback taken on board, or at least the feedback you agree with.

It's been suggested you shoot in RAW and use LR to post process. In case it's not already clear that I'm not a huge fan of PPing to make up for knowledge, I also think this would be detrimental to your learning.

It would be much more beneficial to visit ebay, buy a grey card, learn how to use it properly and take your images accordingly. If you can stretch to it buy a cheap light meter as well, Polaris or something. With these your images will be a lot better from the start and your knowledge and understanding of light will be a lot better off than if you start bastardising your work with LR and PS, which should be used to make minor adjustments to your 99% completed image.

ciaranr

davyjose wrote: »

And shutter lag will be hell.

Will it? Is this from your personal experience with this camera? Interested to know as I may be considering going to a NEX.

Hootanany

Thanks to all, will get out the weekend and start snapping again.
Will the 210mm lens be better for taking close ups

Hootanany

[IMG][/img]

Sorry this was another

ciaranr

The fish look interesting, is there any way you could get a better angle on them?

Hootanany

It's a out twelve foot up in the air Dublin Fruit Market.