Photography courses & Digi SLRs 2 Questions....
Discussion
I am interested in furthering my knowledge of photography, I have been keen on taking photos for some time but was always point & shoot stuff. I got myself a Panasonic FZ7 about 18 months ago and have been using the manual features to experiment with.
The advice I am looking for is:
Is a photography course worth it? How can I further my skills (without knowing anyone who is a pro)?
At what point is it a good point to step up to a Digi SLR? At the moment, i dont think my skill at taking a photo exceeds the ability of the camera however is that irrelevant?
The advice I am looking for is:
Is a photography course worth it? How can I further my skills (without knowing anyone who is a pro)?
At what point is it a good point to step up to a Digi SLR? At the moment, i dont think my skill at taking a photo exceeds the ability of the camera however is that irrelevant?
If it is a college course, they will generally loan cameras for when you require them. However, I expect you would majorly benefit from having your own as you would be able to go out and be creative whenever you feel like it, rather than when you are allocated a camera.
If you really want to further your knowledge of photography then an SLR or some sort is essential. Afterall, the SLR is the most common tool of the trade. If you dont know how to use it, you wont get very far.
As far as a course being worth it. That depends what you want to get out of it. I have put off doing one as in all honesty, I dont think I will learn much more than I already know. I used to work in a photographic lab and studio and learnt on film rather than digital. I have no qualifications in the subject whatsoever. I don't really think you need them either.
If you want to be a photographer by trade, all you need is the motivation to get out there and do it. obviously you need the tallent and the skill but alot of it is being in the right place at the right time and making good contacts. Having a decent portfolio with a get up and go attitude will say alot more than a piece of paper that says you have an A-level in photography.
If you really want to further your knowledge of photography then an SLR or some sort is essential. Afterall, the SLR is the most common tool of the trade. If you dont know how to use it, you wont get very far.
As far as a course being worth it. That depends what you want to get out of it. I have put off doing one as in all honesty, I dont think I will learn much more than I already know. I used to work in a photographic lab and studio and learnt on film rather than digital. I have no qualifications in the subject whatsoever. I don't really think you need them either.
If you want to be a photographer by trade, all you need is the motivation to get out there and do it. obviously you need the tallent and the skill but alot of it is being in the right place at the right time and making good contacts. Having a decent portfolio with a get up and go attitude will say alot more than a piece of paper that says you have an A-level in photography.
Edited by Deluded on Monday 30th June 10:30
They are generally just more flexible. better ISO range, better apeture range (obviously dependant on the lens), faster shutter speeds, less noise, better quality in general. Also the ability to upgrade where you cant with a bridge.
Also a true optical view finder. You will wonder how you ever managed using that silly screen on the back for taking photos :-)
Bridges in general are a compromise between a compact and an SLR. Basically a compact with extra features rather than just auto everything in a case that makes it resemble the shape of an slr.
Also a true optical view finder. You will wonder how you ever managed using that silly screen on the back for taking photos :-)
Bridges in general are a compromise between a compact and an SLR. Basically a compact with extra features rather than just auto everything in a case that makes it resemble the shape of an slr.
Edited by Deluded on Monday 30th June 11:27
Rob13 said:
In which way does a digital SLR differ from a "Bridge" camera when taking photos? The FZ7 has Aperture, Shutter, Manual, Macro settings etc.
Interchangeable lenses, virutally instant shutter release, bigger sensor for better noise performance, faster focusing, the basis of a system that can be expanded - those are the obvious one to me.Rob13 said:
Yeah I appreciate that the Digi SLRs are without doubt better quality, after all you get what you pay for. I just wondered whether it was actually any different when taking a picture
Yep - speed of focus, speed of shutter release, optical viewfinder as has been said, general handling. Just nicer and faster to use IMHO - but a bigger learning curve to get good results.I dunno, I got no idea of which lenses to go for! Recommend me something where I could quite happily go out and use for a couple of years without needing to say "I need more"
Id love to have a big telephoto lens (Like the pro guys do at track) but I imagine we are steering into 4 figures for just the lens
Id love to have a big telephoto lens (Like the pro guys do at track) but I imagine we are steering into 4 figures for just the lens
Re cost - It's a quesiton of how long is a piece of string. Not being flippant but you could spend thousands and thousands quite easily and not produce good images.
I'd really look at Nikon, Canon and Olympus. Go to a good camera shop and have a play with them and see how you like the feel and control layouts. All are capable of producing equally good / bad images depending upon how they are used.
For what you say you want to do I would try for somehting along the lines of
1. Digital SLR body, somethign like Nikon D80, Canon 4ooD, Olympus e-510
2. moderate wide angle to telephoto zoom, something like a Canon 24-105 or Nikon 24-85, and
3. More telephoto zoom like a 70-300 by one of the manufacturers.
By all means start taking your course with your bridge camera. If it has manual then you can really strat the core leanring process before deciding if you need an SLR and if so which brand.
Chris
I'd really look at Nikon, Canon and Olympus. Go to a good camera shop and have a play with them and see how you like the feel and control layouts. All are capable of producing equally good / bad images depending upon how they are used.
For what you say you want to do I would try for somehting along the lines of
1. Digital SLR body, somethign like Nikon D80, Canon 4ooD, Olympus e-510
2. moderate wide angle to telephoto zoom, something like a Canon 24-105 or Nikon 24-85, and
3. More telephoto zoom like a 70-300 by one of the manufacturers.
By all means start taking your course with your bridge camera. If it has manual then you can really strat the core leanring process before deciding if you need an SLR and if so which brand.
Chris
Rob13 said:
I dunno, I got no idea of which lenses to go for! Recommend me something where I could quite happily go out and use for a couple of years without needing to say "I need more"
Id love to have a big telephoto lens (Like the pro guys do at track) but I imagine we are steering into 4 figures for just the lens
First, to do it like the pro guys at the track you'll be staring not at 4 figures but 5, so that's probably ruled that out!Id love to have a big telephoto lens (Like the pro guys do at track) but I imagine we are steering into 4 figures for just the lens
The following is just my 4p and I'm happy to be shot down by anybody disagreeing.
Landscapes I don't see as particularly demanding on the camera body; the only other requirement is a wide-angle lens. However motorsport is the one that instantly sets the tills ringing because you'll need a camera with good tracking autofocus and a long lens.
Entry-level DSLRs won't be very good at tracking so I think for a body you're looking at a Nikon D300 or Canon 40D. Both of these makes are not only highly regarded but you're buying into a massive system that can expand as you do.
Lenses. You could buy the camera body with a decent kit lens to start with - these are mid-range zooms that cover most average needs and don't cost loads. I can only talk about Nikon but I think the 18-70mm is a very good starter lens.
18mm is probably sufficiently wide angle enough for landscapes; if not, add the Sigma 10-20mm which is very well reviewed. At this point you have the option to spend very much more on lenses and get better image quality, but you may find that's not needed yet. You can always buy them later if you need them.
I don't do motorsport but you'll doubtless need at least a 70-300mm - the Nikkor version is AF-S (fast focusing) and also has VR (vibration reduction) which can be handy at long lengths. If 300mm isn't long enough then you'll just have to rape the wallet and go longer. If you plan to use it in decent daylight, I think you could get away without a 'fast' (f2.8) lens which is good as they get really expensive.
So, my suggestion, based on your brief and without spending silly money, would be Nikon D300 body + 18-70mmm AF-S + Nikkor 70-300mm AF-S VR + spare battery + memory card/s + case. I reckon that's about £1600, much of which is due to the motorsport requirement.
Oh yes, and then you have to learn how to work it
No doubt someone will come along and suggest a Canon-based system. As for the Nikon/Canon debate, the first rule is 'you get what you pay for' (ie a £1,000 Nikon will be about the same as a £1,000 Canon, and an £800 lens will be better than a £300 lens); the second rule is go for the one you feel happiest holding/working with. The great thing about an SLR system is that as you get better, or your needs change, you can always sell off parts you no longer want and buy new/different ones.
i would recomend geting a basic set up for starters and see how you like it,i recently got a nikon d40 with the standard lens brand new for £276- £30 cash back from nikon,the camera is my first slr and it runs rings round my previous camera a kodak z740,i also have bought the 50-200 vr lens of e/bay and i am delighted with the cameras speed and quality of pictures,i also use my camera for motorsport and have had no problems taking clear pictures.
valve bounce66 said:
i would recomend geting a basic set up for starters and see how you like it,i recently got a nikon d40 with the standard lens brand new for £276- £30 cash back from nikon,the camera is my first slr and it runs rings round my previous camera a kodak z740,i also have bought the 50-200 vr lens of e/bay and i am delighted with the cameras speed and quality of pictures,i also use my camera for motorsport and have had no problems taking clear pictures.
Agreed, and a good set up at a more budget figure. Simpo's suggestion is spot on if you're thinking in terms of £1500, and ValveBounce excellent for a budget of around £500.Depends how deep your wallet, but, as others will point out, it's still the person with the finger on the shutter who makes the picture - the camera is just a tool that helps.
A slightly different suggestion would be a Fuji S5 pro. I've just bought one and reckon it's a bit of a bargain at the minute for about £500 brand new or £450 as a factory refurb (both without a lens - you could get a nice Nikon 18-70 zoom for about £100 off ebay for day-to-day use). As it takes Nikon lenses, any of the previously mentioned telephoto lenses would fit.
It has the same body, exposure and autofocus systems as a D200 (although with a Fuji sensor and firmware), so the autofocus tracking, build quality, weather sealing etc. would probably be much better than the D40. The main disadvantage for motorsport would be that is it not as fast as a D200 (can do maximum 3fps so could probably keep up with a D40). On the other hand, you may find the high dynamic range of the funky Fuji sensor interesting for landscape photos.
It is a bit of 'marmite' camera (i.e. you love it or hate it), but I'm really pleased with mine, so thought I'd throw it into the pot...
It has the same body, exposure and autofocus systems as a D200 (although with a Fuji sensor and firmware), so the autofocus tracking, build quality, weather sealing etc. would probably be much better than the D40. The main disadvantage for motorsport would be that is it not as fast as a D200 (can do maximum 3fps so could probably keep up with a D40). On the other hand, you may find the high dynamic range of the funky Fuji sensor interesting for landscape photos.
It is a bit of 'marmite' camera (i.e. you love it or hate it), but I'm really pleased with mine, so thought I'd throw it into the pot...
Edited by rustyspit on Monday 30th June 18:36
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff