Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by ChinoD, Feb 15, 2018.
If you can use a film SLR you can use a DSLR easy. You will need to read the manual.
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.
There are also some decent 3rd party books out there. They make money because the manufacturers camera manual is not easy to understand for some/many people.
The basics are somewhat simple, it is going into the additional capabilities that gets complicated.
And if you don't use those functions regularly, you forget how to use it. Use it, or loose it.
My first dslr, a Nikon D70, I used less than half of its functions and never learned to use some of its functions, before it died 10 years later. So don't worry about having to learn everything, you don't need to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.