A great resource for a newcomer...
Discussion
Hi all,
Despite having never operated anything other than a point and shoot, I've always wanted to learn photography. Right now, I have no particular wish to specialise in a subject matter, but just to know my way around a DSLR, and manually controlling as much as possible to learn exactly what it is that makes up the composition of great photographs.
In light of this, I've equipped myself with a Canon EOS 1000d, and so far, I am very happy with it. Canon was my choice, after being a very keen skydiver for some years; freefall photographers generally trusted Canon. I had a feel of the comparable Sony and Nikon, and I did like the user interface of the Nikon, but I much preferred the feel of the Canon.
Now, I'm getting my feet wet. I'll post up pictures soon, but I wanted to share a link which I have found which has helped explain the basic concepts, which was something that I wasn't too clear on. It's probably very basic for most of you, but for a layperson, it's very well described:
http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html
ETA, it is aimed at non-digital shooting, but some important stuff is made clear. One 'biggy'that is missing, is ISO. I understand shutter speed and aperture, and the way they work together, but my knowledge of ISO (and it's integration into the speed/f scenario) is lacking. If anyone could shed some non-jargonistic light on the matter (see what I did there?), I'd be most grateful.
Despite having never operated anything other than a point and shoot, I've always wanted to learn photography. Right now, I have no particular wish to specialise in a subject matter, but just to know my way around a DSLR, and manually controlling as much as possible to learn exactly what it is that makes up the composition of great photographs.
In light of this, I've equipped myself with a Canon EOS 1000d, and so far, I am very happy with it. Canon was my choice, after being a very keen skydiver for some years; freefall photographers generally trusted Canon. I had a feel of the comparable Sony and Nikon, and I did like the user interface of the Nikon, but I much preferred the feel of the Canon.
Now, I'm getting my feet wet. I'll post up pictures soon, but I wanted to share a link which I have found which has helped explain the basic concepts, which was something that I wasn't too clear on. It's probably very basic for most of you, but for a layperson, it's very well described:
http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html
ETA, it is aimed at non-digital shooting, but some important stuff is made clear. One 'biggy'that is missing, is ISO. I understand shutter speed and aperture, and the way they work together, but my knowledge of ISO (and it's integration into the speed/f scenario) is lacking. If anyone could shed some non-jargonistic light on the matter (see what I did there?), I'd be most grateful.
Edited by Papoo on Tuesday 24th November 16:19
The site is old so doesn't mention ISO in contect to digital cameras; there's a bit on film speed, which is the equivalent but not much: www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/compose_expose/exp...
ASA/DIN/ISO are all the same thing - sensitivity to light, well sort of - except that wiht digital it's done by amplification (like sound, but with light). With film you can't change the speed mid-roll; with digital you can, and even set it to change automatically.
Lowest or 'base' ISO gives the best quality results but you can often increase it significantly with no obvious ill-effects. Adjust it when you can't get the results you want using just shutter speed and aperture. For example, if I'm in a church and the physical parameters are at a max of f2.8 and 1/30th second, and it's still too dark, then I increase ISO to 640 or 800. However, remember to put it bak afterwards!
I set mine to 320 for most work, but 100 for studio as light is plentiful.
ASA/DIN/ISO are all the same thing - sensitivity to light, well sort of - except that wiht digital it's done by amplification (like sound, but with light). With film you can't change the speed mid-roll; with digital you can, and even set it to change automatically.
Lowest or 'base' ISO gives the best quality results but you can often increase it significantly with no obvious ill-effects. Adjust it when you can't get the results you want using just shutter speed and aperture. For example, if I'm in a church and the physical parameters are at a max of f2.8 and 1/30th second, and it's still too dark, then I increase ISO to 640 or 800. However, remember to put it bak afterwards!
I set mine to 320 for most work, but 100 for studio as light is plentiful.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 24th November 16:41
Papoo said:
ETA, it is aimed at non-digital shooting, but some important stuff is made clear. One 'biggy'that is missing, is ISO. I understand shutter speed and aperture, and the way they work together, but my knowledge of ISO (and it's integration into the speed/f scenario) is lacking. If anyone could shed some non-jargonistic light on the matter (see what I did there?), I'd be most grateful.
I can utterly recommend a book called "Understanding Exposure" - think it's by Brian Freeman, but check on Amazon. It's jargon free and easy to follow.Re ISO, this is the 'speed' that the light collecting surface (film, digital sensor, etc.) collects light. The book uses an analogy of having worker bees capturing the light entering the camera (bear with me
).100 ISO = 100 bees
200 ISO = 200 bees
If you have two identical cameras with the same aperture (let's just pick f8) then the same amount of light enters each camera, but one has 100 bees to capture the light, the other 200. So the camera with only 100 bees will need the shutter to be open for twice as long as the one with 200 bees.
In essence, there's a 'triangle' of aperture, shutter speed and ISO and they all interact with each other when you're trying to decide on the correct exposure.
With film you would normally fix the ISO based on the roll of film, so only shutter speed and aperture control your exposure.
With digital cameras you can also change the ISO from picture to picture based on the amount of light you're trying to capture (and the way you're trying to capture it).
Bear in mind, higher ISOs in digital cameras will usually mean more 'noise' appears in the picture and the image quality will begin to decline the higher the ISO you use.
Hope that makes sense.
Thank you all very much. Now I understand what ISO is. I think for now, I have to view it as sensitivity to light. This best lets my head get around the fact that SNR is lower with high ISO.
Oddly, I was unaware of the triangle (ISO, F, Shutter). I thought it was more of erm.. a straight line (Speed and F). Being that I'm most keen on using the most manual mode on my EOS, rather than the presets, would you recommend for now I leave ISO on Auto, and fiddle with the speed and f-number, or is it equally as straight forward to learn how ISO effects each snap, too?
Thanks again, and I'll definately be looking into that book.
Just got back from my camera store with a decent bag, and a Gorillapod - because I'm easily pleased, and thought it was the best thing in the world.
One last O/T question; I know that the next step is to get some decent glass, probably a decent 'all in one' for the time being, maybe 18-270mm. Given that shake becomes so much more of an issue at longer focal lengths, is a tripod a must, even with a stabilised lens? The only reason I ask is that IS lenses tend to run at 2-3 times the price, from what I've seen. My local shop has an 18-200mm (Sigma, I think) for $200, whereas the IS version is $750.
Oddly, I was unaware of the triangle (ISO, F, Shutter). I thought it was more of erm.. a straight line (Speed and F). Being that I'm most keen on using the most manual mode on my EOS, rather than the presets, would you recommend for now I leave ISO on Auto, and fiddle with the speed and f-number, or is it equally as straight forward to learn how ISO effects each snap, too?
Thanks again, and I'll definately be looking into that book.
Just got back from my camera store with a decent bag, and a Gorillapod - because I'm easily pleased, and thought it was the best thing in the world.
One last O/T question; I know that the next step is to get some decent glass, probably a decent 'all in one' for the time being, maybe 18-270mm. Given that shake becomes so much more of an issue at longer focal lengths, is a tripod a must, even with a stabilised lens? The only reason I ask is that IS lenses tend to run at 2-3 times the price, from what I've seen. My local shop has an 18-200mm (Sigma, I think) for $200, whereas the IS version is $750.
Papoo said:
Oddly, I was unaware of the triangle (ISO, F, Shutter). I thought it was more of erm.. a straight line (Speed and F).
I would say that it's still best to regard shutter speed/aperture as the principle ways to control exposure - because each parameter has visible effects on the result. ISO doesn't (except possible noise)Papoo said:
Being that I'm most keen on using the most manual mode on my EOS, rather than the presets, would you recommend for now I leave ISO on Auto, and fiddle with the speed and f-number, or is it equally as straight forward to learn how ISO effects each snap, too?
I would leave ISO set to a level you feel happy with (not unlike using film), say 200, and juggle the others. Auto-ISO sounds like a panacea but for myself, and I think you as well, I prefer knowing what my camera is doing, and when it starts doing things automatically that's when you can adjust something one way and it compensates the other way so you're no further forward.Papoo said:
One last O/T question; I know that the next step is to get some decent glass, probably a decent 'all in one' for the time being, maybe 18-270mm.
With respect a one-size-fits-all lens is unlikely to be 'decent glass' - you're also (in the case of Tamron) down to f6.3 at the long end. But you have to decide whether you want convenience or better, faster lenses.Papoo said:
Given that shake becomes so much more of an issue at longer focal lengths, is a tripod a must, even with a stabilised lens?
People managed to take photos for decades before IS/VR were invented. Either they were supermen, or they paid attention to shutter speed, and/or good technique - or of course a tripod. Just bracing the camera against a tree etc can make all the difference you need. Tripods can restrict access and mobility so are not always suitable. And of course you can always increase the ISO to get a higher shutter speed 
IMHO you'd be better off spending lens money on fast glass than IS/VR. For exmaple, IS/VR won't help freeze subject motion, but faster glass and/or higher ISO will.
Papoo said:
Thank you all very much. Now I understand what ISO is. I think for now, I have to view it as sensitivity to light. This best lets my head get around the fact that SNR is lower with high ISO.
Oddly, I was unaware of the triangle (ISO, F, Shutter). I thought it was more of erm.. a straight line (Speed and F). Being that I'm most keen on using the most manual mode on my EOS, rather than the presets, would you recommend for now I leave ISO on Auto, and fiddle with the speed and f-number, or is it equally as straight forward to learn how ISO effects each snap, too?
To be honest, it used to be effectively a 'straight line' of shutter speed and aperture because you couldn't (or wouldn't normally) change the ISO setting part way through a roll of film. But changing the ISO from 100 to 200 is the same as halving the shutter speed or stopping down the lens an extra stop (assuming you're using the camera in fully manual mode and the camera doesn't try to take over) in terms of the effect it has on the exposure.Oddly, I was unaware of the triangle (ISO, F, Shutter). I thought it was more of erm.. a straight line (Speed and F). Being that I'm most keen on using the most manual mode on my EOS, rather than the presets, would you recommend for now I leave ISO on Auto, and fiddle with the speed and f-number, or is it equally as straight forward to learn how ISO effects each snap, too?
For a modern DSLR I'd generally leave the ISO on it's base setting and only increase it if you need to, e.g. if your combination of shutter speed and aperture still isn't allowing enough light to be captured. As you say above, upping the ISO is making the sensor more sensitive to light, but at the price of more noise.
I only use auto ISO if I'm shooting in low light conditions and want to retain a particular aperture - I use the camera in aperture priority, set the minimum shutter speed I want (say 1/250) and then let the ISO wander up and down to compensate as it needs to.
Nick M and Flamez, thanks.
Your advice is appreciated, it seems that the concensus is to leave the ISO where it is at 100/200, and use shutter and aperture, unless that is still limiting your exposure.
I'm going to NYC just before Christmas, so I want to have a good play beforehand in various light settings to get the hang of the camera. I've found I'm generally shooting in aperture or manual. It's a double-edged sword though; I enjoy using it in manual mode, just for self-gratifiction. That said, thus far, my pictures generally seem to come out slightly better in Av! I must work harder!
Luckily, yesterday I picked up a Sigma 18-200mm (f3.5-6.5) lens for a hundred dollars. I don't have the cash yet to splash out on the lenses I'd like, but it's a great one-stop lens to do the job. The kit 18-55 just didn't have enough range for a general purpose go-to lens.
Thanks again for all the advice. I'm thoroughly enjoying my EOS 1000d, looks like I'll be really getting into photography. Great to be doing (& enjoying) something I've always thought about.
Flamez - great link.
Your advice is appreciated, it seems that the concensus is to leave the ISO where it is at 100/200, and use shutter and aperture, unless that is still limiting your exposure.
I'm going to NYC just before Christmas, so I want to have a good play beforehand in various light settings to get the hang of the camera. I've found I'm generally shooting in aperture or manual. It's a double-edged sword though; I enjoy using it in manual mode, just for self-gratifiction. That said, thus far, my pictures generally seem to come out slightly better in Av! I must work harder!
Luckily, yesterday I picked up a Sigma 18-200mm (f3.5-6.5) lens for a hundred dollars. I don't have the cash yet to splash out on the lenses I'd like, but it's a great one-stop lens to do the job. The kit 18-55 just didn't have enough range for a general purpose go-to lens.
Thanks again for all the advice. I'm thoroughly enjoying my EOS 1000d, looks like I'll be really getting into photography. Great to be doing (& enjoying) something I've always thought about.
Flamez - great link.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff