An Understandable DSLR?

[ac12]

If you have trouble with the manual, and some manuals are terrible to try to understand, then pay a camera shop to give you a one-on-one training. ...............

Or just ask here........... for free.

IMHO, learning with a teacher one-on-one in real time, is more effective than the time delay involved with forum posts, where the answer could be hours or days later. And if there is a follow-up question, there is another delay of hours or days. This is why a business man that I know prefers to use the telephone than email. He can get done in one 5 minute conversation, what would take many back and forth emails over several days.

In person is also better, because:
- Teaching to me is easier when I can physically move the students fingers or hands.

I've instructed people by words, and showing/demoing for them. But some people just do not get it, until I physically move their body/hand/fingers into what I am trying to get them to do.​

- They can move around me to see how I am holding the camera or standing.
- The teacher and student can physically point out the item that the student has questions about, if the student does not know the name of it. As in "that button."

There is a reason cameras have icons on some buttons and the manuals have that icon in the instructions, cuz it is easier to find the button by looking for the icon, than saying "the EV compensation button." Because the next question will be, "which button is that?" Yes, RTFM.​

 

[480sparky]

IMHO, learning with a teacher one-on-one in real time, is more effective than the time delay involved with forum posts, where the answer could be hours or days later. ................

And on the flip side, the 'business man' may be more interested in getting you to part with your money than he is about really teaching you the facts.

Case in point: Peddling 'protection' in the form of filters.

 

[petrochemist]

If you could get good results from a film camera you can do exactly the same with a digital camera.

It doesn't take long to set up a digital camera to be fixed ISO, fixed WB, select JPEG output, and use it in manual or Av... mode as their previous camera did.

The extra features allow a photographer to do things you can't do with a film camera such as change ISO or white balance on a shot by shot basis, combine multiple shots in camera... but there is no requirement to use them. Very few people learn all the functions available from their camera.

 

[ac12]

IMHO, learning with a teacher one-on-one in real time, is more effective than the time delay involved with forum posts, where the answer could be hours or days later. ................

And on the flip side, the 'business man' may be more interested in getting you to part with your money than he is about really teaching you the facts.

Case in point: Peddling 'protection' in the form of filters.

Protection is not a bad idea.
I have had to clean the filters of the yearbook cameras, every week. Sometimes there is more "stuff" to clean off than other times. If it wasn't the filters, I would be cleaning the front element of the lenses.
I've also had to do surgery to remove a jammed filter ring of a shattered filter, from a lens. What would have happened to the lens if the filter wasn't on, I don't know.
Cheaper to throw away a filter than a lens.

So I have seen first hand that a filter does protect the front element of the lens.
But with optics, you do need an optically GOOD filter, not a cheap piece of glass.

But to your point, yes, you need to get training from a shop/teacher who will teach you, and not try to sell you stuff that you don't need.

 

[Destin]

IMHO, learning with a teacher one-on-one in real time, is more effective than the time delay involved with forum posts, where the answer could be hours or days later. ................

And on the flip side, the 'business man' may be more interested in getting you to part with your money than he is about really teaching you the facts.

Case in point: Peddling 'protection' in the form of filters.

Protection is not a bad idea.
I have had to clean the filters of the yearbook cameras, every week. Sometimes there is more "stuff" to clean off than other times. If it wasn't the filters, I would be cleaning the front element of the lenses.
I've also had to do surgery to remove a jammed filter ring of a shattered filter, from a lens. What would have happened to the lens if the filter wasn't on, I don't know.
Cheaper to throw away a filter than a lens.

So I have seen first hand that a filter does protect the front element of the lens.
But with optics, you do need an optically GOOD filter, not a cheap piece of glass.

But to your point, yes, you need to get training from a shop/teacher who will teach you, and not try to sell you stuff that you don't need.

I disagree with all of this. The front element of your lens is much stronger than you give it credit for. Cleaning it properly would take thousands of times to cause even the slightest noticeable damage.

The filter can cause more damage in an impact because the shards of glass can scratch the coatings on the front element. The filter can also introduce more glare into the photo than you’d get without it, and no matter how good the glass is, it will always soften the image to some degree.

Most pros use nothing but lens hoods to protect their lenses.

UV filters are no longer needed in the digital age because the UV rays don’t affect sensors like they did film.

UV filters are something that photography stores use to upsell you. Period.

 

[Derrel]

I disagree with all of this. The front element of your lens is much stronger than you give it credit for. Cleaning it properly would take thousands of times to cause even the slightest noticeable damage.

(emphasis added by Derrel)

The filter can cause more damage in an impact because the shards of glass can scratch the coatings on the front element. The filter can also introduce more glare into the photo than you’d get without it, and no matter how good the glass is, it will always soften the image to some degree.

Most pros use nothing but lens hoods to protect their lenses.

UV filters are no longer needed in the digital age because the UV rays don’t affect sensors like they did film.

UV filters are something that photography stores use to upsell you. Period.

Stronger than given credit for, indeed!!! .Witness the multiple, vicious ballpoint pen strikes, and the the repeated claw hammer blows this cheap Canon 50/1.8 takes and takes--without any significant damage until the end of the severe,deliberate abuse!

 

[480sparky]

Protection is not a bad idea..................... What would have happened to the lens if the filter wasn't on, I don't know....................

Not to change the subject, but you single-handedly just shot your own opinion down.

 

[ac12]

Protection is not a bad idea..................... What would have happened to the lens if the filter wasn't on, I don't know....................

Not to change the subject, but you single-handedly just shot your own opinion down.

I preferred the situation where I removed the broken filter, and still had a nice round front of the lens, and could screw on another filter. As opposed to having a lens with a dented/damaged font, where a filter could not be screwed on.
I value the option of being able to screw on a filter (polarizer, 10-stop ND, etc.), because I use these filters.
On the other hand, if you do not use any filters, then the filter threads do not have a value to you, and a dented front won't matter to you, except for resale.

But would the font of the lens have been bent/damaged by a direct hit?
I don't know, because the filter ring took the impact, and bent, not the lens.
And I am not going to damage the lens trying to prove or disprove a point.

 

[SCraig]

It's amazing to me that so many topics around here eventually devolve into the completely off-topic Filter vs. Non-Filter argument. I'll never understand why.

 

[480sparky]

On the other hand, if you do not use any filters, then the filter threads do not have a value to you, and a dented front won't matter to you, except for resale.

But would the font of the lens have been bent/damaged by a direct hit?
I don't know, because the filter ring took the impact, and bent, not the lens.
And I am not going to damage the lens trying to prove or disprove a point.

Again, you're assuming that the beefy lens will be just as damaged as a flimsy, thin filter.

 

[pip_dog]

I'd recommend the fuji mirrorless cameras too. The XT-2 has physical dials for shutter speed, ISO, and exposure comp. Lots of the fuji lenses have physical aperture rings and it is also easy to do what I do with my XT-10 and adapt manual focus lenses and focus with focus peaking. Maybe you could try renting one for a while before committing?

 

[Cortian]

I've read the pros & cons of employing filters. I've reviewed tests that show they don't degrade image quality, tests that show they do, and others that find "it depends." In the end I believe them to be a net benefit, but only with the top end examples, such as Hoya HD3 or ProMaster HGX filters. They're allegedly tougher than lens glass.

I know the HGX filters I use shed dust, dirt and moisture like nobody's business. Went to swap one to a new lens a week ago and had to look twice. Even after being on a lens for a couple weeks or so, it was a still so clear it didn't look like there was a filter on there.

 

[TCampbell]

Protection is not a bad idea.
I have had to clean the filters of the yearbook cameras, every week. Sometimes there is more "stuff" to clean off than other times. If it wasn't the filters, I would be cleaning the front element of the lenses.
I've also had to do surgery to remove a jammed filter ring of a shattered filter, from a lens. What would have happened to the lens if the filter wasn't on, I don't know.
Cheaper to throw away a filter than a lens.

So I have seen first hand that a filter does protect the front element of the lens.
But with optics, you do need an optically GOOD filter, not a cheap piece of glass.

But to your point, yes, you need to get training from a shop/teacher who will teach you, and not try to sell you stuff that you don't need.

It turns out the glass is pretty tough. But one thing that can scratch glass... is other glass. If you bump the front of a lens on... say the corner of a piece of furniture... you're probably not going to damage the glass (on the Mohs scale of hardness Mohs scale of mineral hardness - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia glass rates in the 6-7 range). But if you bump the filter, the filter will shatter and now you've got sharp edges of glass smashing against the glass... and that might leave a scratch.

I wouldn't bother cleaning lenses every week.

Keep in mind, dust on the front of a lens wont show up in your image. To prove this point... I did an experiment.

1. I took a photo with a clean lens.
2. I took a "post-it" note and cut it down to a small bit about 1/4" square to serve as my simulated "dirt" and stuck it to the front element of a lens and took another photo.
3. Compare photos 1 & 2.

The prediction was that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And it turns out... you can't tell the difference.

Light from any point in your scene passes through all points of your lens and re-converges on the sensor as a focused image. When light is partially blocked by dirt in one area, there are lots of other areas where the light can still pass. This means with precise measuring instruments you might detect a small loss of contrast. But you're not actually going to see a smudgy area in your photo where the "dirt" was located.

I do have a number of high quality UV filters (one in each size needed for any lens)... but I hardly ever use them. A few of my weather sealed lenses suggest that a filter should be used to "complete" the weather seal. So if I'm shooting in a place where I suspect this might occur... I bring along a filter. But the rest of the time I don't use them because they will generally just degrade your images.

A "high quality" filter will have quality anti-reflective coatings. Another experiment I did a while back was placed a high quality UV filter and a low-quality UV filter side-by-side on a piece of black card-stock. I placed a desk-lamp out of frame so that it's light was shining on the two filters. I took a photo of the two (side-by-side filters). The result is that the high-quality filter was nearly (but not quite) invisible. It almost looked as though I placed the ring on the card with no "glass" in the filter ring. The "black" card stock behind that filter photographs nearly as black as the surrounding areas of black yardstick that had no filters at all. Meanwhile the low-quality filter (that didn't have anti-reflective coatings) was easily visible as a shiny piece of glass. The "black" card stock below lost a lot of contrast and photographs "gray" in comparison to the other filter (where it photographed closer to the original black).

If you can see a reflection, it means that you're not getting 100% of the light to pass through... something has to be reflecting back or wouldn't be able to see a reflection. These reflective filters not only result in a loss of light and a loss of contrast, they also create reflections that show up in your images as "ghosting" (including people reporting objects in photos that they claim to be actual ghosts -- but are really reflections caused by low-quality filters.)

I used to be a filter believer. When I started in photography, we used film... film was sensitive to UV. UV focuses at a different distance than visible light... you'll get better images if you block the UV. But digital cameras already have a UV & IR filter in front of the sensor. There's no benefit to the "UV" blocking part of the filter. That means a clear filter would be just as good if you only want it for protection... but I find the trade-offs are just not worth it. If you want to prevent the front of the lens from being banged and scratched... a lens hood does a better job ... without all the side-effects of poor quality glass.

I have subsequently become a convert and no longer recommend using a filter for most photography needs (I still own them... for those rare times that it might come in handy. They just stay in my bag.)

 

[ac12]

Since we each have our own opinions on filters, I suggest we just put that topic to bed, as there will not be an answer that everybody agrees on, and it will just be a "rat-hole" of disagreements.