[Closed] Digital SLR question

no. the delay is about 100..120mS

No, they don't.

Woo hoo!

Cue the title of my next post..

"What digital SLR for a SLR noob?"

No, that's one of the best things about them. You'll find yourself snapping loads of frames like Austin Powers 🙂

If it's speed you want, may I make a suggestion?

The Sony a300 (or 310 or whatever it is now) might be worth your attention for a subtle reason. It has a great continuous autofocus feature, that works without you having to hold a button, and also works in live-view mode. So it's always focusing on whatever you're pointing at. Now lots of other cameras have this, but on mine at least you have to be holding the shutter button - which means you've got it up to your eye.

The Sony one works all the time (if you have it set to, you can turn this off) which has a useful side-effect. By the time you've seen the shot, brought the thing up to your face and looked through the viewfinder, [i]it's already focused[/i]. So the end result is the thing FEELS incredibly fast to use.

I really liked this when I was shopping, and I would've bought one on the spot if I had the money at the time - as it was I held off, and found a bargain Olympus instead. I still wish my Oly did that tho.

The Sony range represent excellent value for money. Dpreview.com thought they were bad in low light if you shoot in JPG, but if you look at their sample images they are being incredibly picky - a newbie would never notice, nor would I probably. Although I am only slightly less than a newbie 🙂

Cue the title of my next post..

"What digital SLR for a SLR noob?"

Go on, pleeeease. I'm bored of the Thatcher thread, and there's not much else of great interest on here today... 😉

@piemann: compacts generally have pretty minimal delay (called "shutter lag") [u]provided[/u] that you "pre-focus" them.

When you just hit the button on your compact it has to fiddle with the lens to get your subject in focus, then take some light readings to work out the proper exposure time, then some more readings to calculate the colour balance, and THEN it takes the picture.

If instead you half-press the shutter button and hold it then it will do all that stuff in advance, so when your rider comes past (or whatever) you can fully press it and it will take the shot almost instantly (or at least with a lit less lag).

I recommend you give this a go before splashing out on an SLR.

Or go for a bridge camera, I've got a fuji 9500 and it does everythgng an SLR does except change lenses.

OK the pics aren't quite SLR quality (lense strugles at it's wide and telephoto extremities, sensor is smaller etc), does have a fully manual mode (which is what you need for quick photos as you decide everything in advance, point it at where th riders going to be, wait for them to come past and click.

does have a fully manual mode (which is what you need for quick photos as you decide everything in advance

need ? I have 93000+ exposures on my D300 so far of which 5 were manual...

Out of interest TINAS, ever used a DSLR for more than a play in a shop?

simon, what lens(es) do you use on your D300, particularly interested in wide angle

D3100 ? Very easy to learn, I have had a DSLR for ages but I still liked their "on screen tutorials" .

On top of that you get a great range of lenses to choose from.

I'm considering my first DSLR as well. The Pentax Kx seems to be getting some good reviews and you can get one with kit lens for under £400. What's the STW verdict on Pentax, are they a credible alternative to Canon / Nikon?

What's the STW verdict on Pentax, are they a credible alternative to Canon / Nikon?

Excellent cameras, but lens range is much more restricted than the big two especially at the long end. They do make some great lenses, but very pricy and you are much more dependant on brands like Sigma and Tamron (make some good stuff though)

Harder to find secondhand although they will take all the older range of K mount lenses, mostly manual focus though

I used Pentax DSLR's for a while, but the availability and price of the lenses got too much and switched to Canon.

The Kx is supposedly a great camera for the money and if you are happy with the kit lenses its a great buy.Uses AA's which some people like for the availability and others don't because they need recharging more often

I just got a Nikon D3100 kit for £499.

Not had much chance to use it yet.

I previously had a Nikon D70 which I sold in favour of a high-end compact but I missed the SLR too much.

I had an extended play (a week) with the new Sony SLTA55 and was most impressed. Id seriously consider it if I was starting fresh

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

Yes,

90% of the time you can sue shutter/appeture priority like normal.
98% of the time you can get even more creative with both.
2% of the time the DSLR will do something the bridge wont, shoot 5 frames a second with auto focusing for example, the bridge manages 1.something and frequently messes up the focusing.

I find metering and focusing better and faster with my DSLR. Also, changing the autofocus target is just one button click when looking through the viewfinder.

But the main thing is speed. I can and often do rattle off three or four shots of a moving or changing subject and sometimes one of them is good. Two of my fave shots ever are of my daughter taken last Sunday - in both I kept the button down as she walked about or ran towards me, so I get a far better chance of a great shot. I'd almost certainly have missed those two with a compact. Also as she gurns at me when I point the camera, I can snap at the exact moment I want to and get the shot.

Don't underestimate the advantages of speed. And I have spent my time on compacts and was a big fan of my old Oly, but I'm glad I spent the £300.

simon, what lens(es) do you use on your D300, particularly interested in wide angle

just the one, the Nikkor 18-200 VR. The outside of the camera gets so routinely dirty from biking I prefer never to remove the lens as I always get crap inside and it's such a pain trying to clean the sensor.

98% of the time you can get even more creative with both.

pardon me but I think the limits of "creativity" in exposure/DOF are severely limited compared to the available range of subject matter 🙂

eed ? I have 93000+ exposures on my D300 so far of which 5 were manual...

And conversely I've got about 25,000 on my 400d, about 20% of which are on auto. Holiday snaps mainly. I can't see the point of an SLR if you use it like a compact on auto all the time. All the pics look the same.
And you try using a Vivitar 285hv remote strobe on auto and see what happens: Lots of pics of nothing!

 

But the main thing is speed. I can and often do rattle off three or four shots of a moving or changing subject and sometimes one of them is good. Two of my fave shots ever are of my daughter taken last Sunday - in both I kept the button down as she walked about or ran towards me, so I get a far better chance of a great shot. I'd almost certainly have missed those two with a compact. Also as she gurns at me when I point the camera, I can snap at the exact moment I want to and get the shot.

Don't underestimate the advantages of speed. And I have spent my time on compacts and was a big fan of my old Oly, but I'm glad I spent the £300.

Very true to be fair. That said SFBs Nikon will do 6fps or more, my Canon only 3fps and I kept finding I was getting a shot 'either side' of what I wanted, so I turned it to single shot and I've been trying to learn timing.... It's not easy though, I'm still a bit premature a lot of the time! (Stop giggling at the back! Tsk! 😉 )

Think he probably meant manual as opposed to shutter or aperture priority

Don't use full manual that much myself, but never use auto

Taken about 15,000 shots this year and 99% are manual. 😉

Which DSLR? Which EuroRepMobile, Vectra/Mondeo?

My personal choice is Canon because I like their lenses. Whichever feels comfortable in your hands and your budget will be good for you. Spend a bit more time thinking about which lenses will be good for you and get the camera which fits them.

All the pics look the same.

doesn't that depend more on what you point the camera at ?

doesn't that depend more on what you point the camera at ?

I know what you mean (Mr Pedantic! 😉 ) but I mean the feel of them rather than the content. I do like my blur.... 🙂

I've actually just uploaded some pics I took on the Chilterns on Saturday. There's a few of those which show what I mean. Let me get them on Flickr and I'll be back.... 🙂

pardon me but I think the limits of "creativity" in exposure/DOF are severely limited compared to the available range of subject matter

All the pics look the same.
doesn't that depend more on what you point the camera at ?

I agree with Barnes here.

I agree with Barnes here

That's because you're missing the point. 🙂

SFBs pics only look the same because all he ever points his camera at is the Lake District...!

Joke! JOKE! 😀

No I do understand what you are saying. Most of my early few 'rolls' with my camera looked boring and a bit of camera faffage might've helped.

I think what Barnsie is saying is that some subjects speak for themselves, regardless of camera. But you know that too 🙂

Give us an example of what kind of adjustments you might make? I mean, I do stuff like set portrait mode or whatever; turn flash on and off; change the autofocus or metering target; blanket under- or over-expose, but not very often.

Seems to be some confusion here between automatic and manual.

Auto (aka green box) attempts to do everything and leaves you very little control.
Scene modes (e.g. Portrait, Landscape, Party, Fireworks etc) are all just slightly more specific versions of Auto.

Aperture or Shutter priority some old schoolers call "auto" but really they are far closer to manual. Perhaps they should be called semi-manual or something.

Manual means manually setting the shutter speed and aperture yourself.

Personally I almost always use the priority modes, I very very rarely use Manual and I never use Scene or Auto as even a rank amateur like me can usually do a better job than those modes.

(then of course there is manual versus auto focus which is a different kind of auto/manual debate altogether).

I can't see a need for manual mode over the priority modes and the under/over exposure knob... ?

As for manual focusing - I'd be happy with that except it seems like it'd be pretty difficult without the old-skool split circle...

I can't see a need for manual mode over the priority modes and the under/over exposure knob... ?

Three possible scenarios:

• Anytime you want all your shots to be exposed exactly the same. Especially useful when you plan to stitch them together.

• Doing long exposure 'Bulb' shots where you keep the shutter open for say 15 minutes to get star trails.

• Studio work.

Anytime you want all your shots to be exposed exactly the same. Especially useful when you plan to stitch them together.

for which I press the "AE-lock" button 🙂

Ok, but for the first one I have exposure lock, or just keep the button half down; the second - well obviously 🙂 ; Studio work - explain?

for which I press the "AE-lock" button

That also works, but it can be a faff to try to keep it held while you try to swivel a tripod.
Or if you've reassigned the AE-L button to be AF-On as lots of folk do.

Studio work - explain?

Never done any, don't really know but I'm guessing studio guys use manual as they want to expose the pic based on the light when all the flashes etc go off - not on the light that is there before the shot.

In all fairness, Barnes would be fine with a decent compact. HE likes a DSLR because it allows him to use his 'machine gun' technique for getting at least one reasonable image for an action shot. he's got a specially modified D300B; the 'B' designation indicates it's got a special 'bottom' setting. But if he actually bothered to learn how to take pictures, then something like a GF1 would serve him just as well, I'd imagine.

The only DSLR I'd consider is a D700, for the full-frame '35mm' sensor. I'm hoping Nikon will bring out something a bit cheaper soon mind, 'cos the bastard thing's £1700 BODY ONLY. 😯

Even my white hair old D40 can AE-L with one press am sure most newer ones can also.

then something like a GF1 would serve him just as well, I'd imagine

I'm indebted to Elfin for this objective assessment of my meagre "talent" 🙂 I nearly bought a GF1 yesterday on impulse just to try out its fabled magical qualities! However I don't consider it suited to action shots, too slow to focus and shoot I think - though time will tell - and I'd miss my accustomed 10:1 zoom range 🙁

But if he actually bothered to learn how to take pictures

why spoil the habit of a lifetime? My careless scattergun approach works well enough for my needs and lets me pretend I know what I'm doing without [s]overtaxing my attention[/s] interfering with my perving...

Aww rats. I typed out a lovely long reply with about 8 pics in it as illustrations and then closed the browser by accident. Arse.

So. Basically, I took about 15-20 pics whilst riding along a ridge in the Chilterns before the final descent, changing the settings as I was going. The first few are OK, normal, in focus etc, but a bit boring. Then there's some blur, then a couple of crap ones, and then this one, which I really like. I like blur. And that's what matters. 🙂

[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/5103121930_4e4b65fa73_z.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/5103121930_4e4b65fa73_z.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5103121930/ ]IMG_0469[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

And then there's this freaky one, which if it had been centered on the rider, would have been fantastic. But I wasn't even aware I'd done it!

[url= http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/5102526657_bc8c330413_b.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1162/5102526657_bc8c330413_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/peter_atkin/5102526657/ ]IMG_0467[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/peter_atkin/ ]PeterPoddy[/url], on Flickr

I wonder if Mr Elfinsafety would kindly post the pic he took at The Tour in London that he knows I love? Pretty please? To my mind its one of the 2-3 best cycling shots I've ever seen, if not THE best. But that's just me... 🙂

Pft. I've shot fast action sports with manual focus, manual exposure, Barnes, so don't give me all that crap. It's about [i]technique[/i].

Manual control gives far more scope to be creative. In my time doing photography, I've never used Program mode on an SLR. Shot sports and reportage. Look a the work of greats like HCB, Don McCullin etc. All shot using manual focus and exposure. None of yer hocus pocus hold the button down and hope for the best malarky.

And they're better than any of us lot.

the new Sony a33 (translucent mirror) will be decent for action shots

http://www.sony.co.uk/product/dsi-body/slt-a33

Pentax k-x probably best DSLR for 400 quid

smaller interchangable cameras then maybe GF1 or Oly E-P1 or Sony NEX-3

And they're better than any of us lot.

IMO this is irrelevant. I only have me to take the pictures, not some famous dead bloke. Using a crapper camera won't help.

Poddy; I don't have a Photopic account atm. If I email it to you, maybe you could sort it out? Or use the one I emailed you?

That's incredibly flattering for you to say that btw.

the new Sony a33 (translucent mirror) will be decent for action shots

if you read the review on DPReview, you'll see the viewfinder cannot keep up with high shooting rates and movement, quite apart from wasting 30% of the incident light on the mirror...

I've lost it mate. 🙁

I love that shot. I'd like to print it out A4 and get it up on the wall somewhere. It plays with my brain. So much movement I sit waiting for the rider to get on with it!

So how d'you go about taking a manual shot? Do you start with the camera's own settings and adjust from there?

As Graham S says, manual is often the only option. I'm just back from shooting a foster kids' do - each pic had a kid shaking hands with Chris Cook (Olympic swimming chappie) and getting a certificate.

I wanted every single exposure (all 72 of them) to be exactly the same, so I don't need to spend hours on the computer later. It also gives a nice uniformity to a set of images and there is less to go wrong.

So I set up my remote flash, camera in manual mode, apperture set to f2.8 and shutter speed to 1/200th. White balance set to flash too (usually I just leave it on auto).

Now it doesn't matter if someone switches lights on or off, or if the sun goes down or anything else really, as I am controlling the amount of light hitting the subject with the flash and camera settings.

The camera's almost always on apperture priority for weddings though, unless I'm messing about with flash, in which case it's likely to be on shutter prioity.

Manual control gives far more scope to be creative

I wonder if you're confusing creativity with gimmickism ? Yes you can play about with DOF if you wish (yawn), add streaks or jimmy the exposure, but I prefer to be as true as I can to the original scene/subject(s), not try to add spurious "value"...

I'll email you it now Peter.

Sent, Peter; it's sent.

molgrips: you can do. There is usually a little exposure meter in the viewfinder. Or you can use a light meter, or work it out from the [URL= http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule ]Sunny 16 rule[/URL], or these days just shoot then check the histogram.

Yes you can play about with DOF if you wish (yawn), add streaks or jimmy the exposure, but I prefer to be as true as I can to the original scene/subject(s), not try to add spurious "value"...

It's not about recreating a scene falsely. If I use f2.8 to get a shallow depth of field, it accurately represents what the eye sees - look at the top of your monitor. Now look over the top of it, out of the corner of your eye - everything above the monitor is out of focus, no?

Very useful for separating your subject from a distracting background too!

Cheers mate. Computer is off now, I'll have a look tomorrow. 🙂

Do it on yer iPhone, innit?

I prefer to be as true as I can to the original scene/subject(s), not try to add spurious "value"...

Using an Auto mode means you will be less true to the original than if you "jimmy the exposure".

User-removed: save your breath, Simon has said before that he doesn't believe in shallow depth of field and ideally would like all his pictures to have infinite depth just like his eyesight 🙄

(ironically of course he would better achieve this goal with a small sensor compact)

Graham; it's all about the bokeh, remember?! 😀

[img] [/img]

Where has Ti29er disappeared to?

I'm intrigued elfinsafety, can you send that picture to me please? 🙂

everything above the monitor is out of focus, no?

everywhere I look is always in focus unless I forget my glasses

Using an Auto mode means you will be less true to the original than if you "jimmy the exposure".

then I spin the little dial or bracket 🙂

Simon has said before that he doesn't believe in shallow depth of field and ideally would like all his pictures to a infinite depth

well, if the subject is sufficiently compelling, you won't notice anything else anyway - just as if you were in the original scene 🙂

It's completely impossible to accurately capture what you see on film anyway. A best approximation would be a huge print that you wrapped all around the front of a person in a hemisphere. And then have it made out of all the things that the real world was made out of, instead of just paper, so the light looks right.

Not gonna happen.

Not gonna happen.

what, so give up?

Graham; it's all about the bokeh, remember?!

what bokeh for eyes ?

everywhere I look is always in focus unless I forget my glasses

OK, but my point was that the human eye has a fairly shallow DOF (at a total guess, it's probably quite close to f4?!) - have you tried the monitor thing?

SFB = white noise.

Again.

OK, but my point was that the human eye has a fairly shallow DOF

but it refocusses in real time and builds up an in-focus gestalt. The mental image is nothing like the real time info supplied by the retina - you eyes jump around constantly - if they didn't you'd stop being able to see as the photosensitive dyes were exhausted, and the focussed part of the visual field is only half a degree across - you unconsciously sweep this over the subject, and your brain only retains the sharp bits.

I'm intrigued elfinsafety, can you send that picture to me please?

No Poddy'll bung it up tomorrow; anticipation makes things exciting.

Poddy loves it, but tbh I wasn't personally that thrilled about it. You might see it tomorrow and think it's shit.

Barnes is simply an obtuse bastard, but I love him all the same. I do like a good photography argument thread now and then. 😀

then I spin the little dial or bracket

How does that differ from "jimmying the exposure" exactly (whatever that even means)?

what, so give up?

No, accept that you are creating a representation of what you see, and work with that. It's never going to look exactly right. If you just want a visual record of what you see, that's just holiday snaps isn't it? So you might as well get a compact?

the human eye has a fairly shallow DOF (at a total guess, it's probably quite close to f4?!)

The aperture varies with the available light just like a camera. I dunno how you'd calculate it tho. The sensitivity changes too I think, but it takes a while. Which is why your night vision continues to improve over 20 or 30 mins despite your pupils dilating more or less straight away.

How does that differ from "jimmying the exposure" exactly (whatever that even means)?

it's quicker 🙂

Which is why your night vision continues to improve over 20 or 30 mins

I think it's much quicker than this...

everywhere I look is always in focus unless I forget my glasses

I suspect you lack peripheral vision then.

if you read the review on DPReview, you'll see the viewfinder cannot keep up with high shooting rates and movement, quite apart from wasting 30% of the incident light on the mirror...

and heres their summary of the a55 (which doesnt differ much, 10fps instead of 7 and 16MP instead of 14) - hardly sounds bad to me
[i]
The Sony SLT-A55 is an excellent all-rounder with a comprehensive feature set. The translucent mirror technology gives it an innovative touch and the best live view AF on the market. Continuous shooting performance is the best in its class - just don't plan on shooting the Olympics with it.[/i]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/page18.asp

The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight

Hah! Bang on!

I read somewhere that the human eye could respond to two incident photons. That's sensitive.

Barnes is simply an obtuse bastard

it's not as simple as that. Whenever someone starts spouting received "wisdom" at me, I immediately assume they are more or less wrong. Look at all the stupid stuff people used to believe in - now we know slightly better, but it would be overarching hubris to assume we'd reached the end of knowledge and I figure about half of what we think we know is still crap. Work it out for yourself instead.

Conqueror - that's the thing with DP review. They pick a few negatives about some camera, however slight, and people on the forums seem to think the camera's awful despite the conclusion of the review saying it's overall really good.

Whenever someone starts spouting received "wisdom" at me, I immediately assume they are more or less wrong.

Why? Sometimes it's right.

The aperture varies with the available light just like a camera

Not sure about this - I think my eye's depth of field is the same on a sunny day as it is in a darkish room. Off to ask optometrist friend >>>>

Agree with Barnes about the speed of eye adjustment to the dark - if I take my dog for a midnighgt walk, I stand in the dark with my eyes closed for about a minute (haven't been mugged yet 🙂 ). When I open my eyes, my night vision is about as good as it'll ever be.

I suspect you lack peripheral vision then.

I said everywhere I [b]look[/b]. Unless I'm skenning down some lass's top to get a crafty perve, I look directly at things. Peripheral vision is for spotting predators.

Why? Sometimes it's right.

but nobody knows which 50%...

skenning down some lass's top to get a crafty perve

LOL! I told you he's a bastard, din't I? 😆

'Skenning' 😆

'Skenning'

the age old "not-looking" sideways look 🙂 Walking with a girlfriend she told me lots of women in the street were doing the same thing to me, never catching my eye but she could see them doing it 🙂

No that's just a horrified double-take, Simon. Different.

No that's just a horrified double-take, Simon. Different.

well, she is in love with me so perhaps she's not objective ?

I said everywhere I look.

So if you want pictures where everything in the field is in focus then presumably you look at everything.

Personally if I want to take a photo that accurately reflects reality then I want it to be a picture of what I see, not what I [I]could[/I] see if I swivelled my eyes around like a loon.

I am sitting here typing this on my phone. The bright phone screen is perfectly sharp. I am vaguely aware of the shape and colours of the items in the room behind it, but they are not sharp or detailed and they are artificially dark.

If I wanted to take a "realistic" picture of what I see in this moment then I wouldn't want the rest of the room in focus because that is not what I am perceiving.

There you go. I've re-examined the "received wisdom" from first principles and funnily enough it turns out that it is right and you are wrong. 😀

When I take pictures, I usually want to reproduce the feeling I'm getting from what I see.