Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

I want to start up photography as a hobby watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freecom2)
    A lot of unnecessary kit in that article - some of it is useful (and necessary - camera bag!) but some might be completely pointless for most shooters. If you have a VR'd/IS lens and you do street photography, a tripod/monopod is going to be pretty unused.
    I totally agree, I would see it as pretty essential to have a tripod, though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freecom2)
    Lots of very vague statements there! Film's initial cost and lens costs are likely to be far cheaper, and it can be argued that learning via film is a good way to start. "digital is better" digital is certainly more convenient, but judging by the amount of film photos on places like DeviantArt and flickr, photos shot on film can be absolutely stunning.

    As for high spec Canon, is that just because your Uncle picked up a Canon and he's used them ever since? It works for any brand, "my first DSLR was an Olympus therefore I recommend them", but it's bad advice IMO - it's worth trying out several of the major brands and seeing which one feels "right" in your hands - there's no point in getting a high spec Nikon if a Canon 500D fits best in your hands.
    Well he's been working in photography before digital came out which is well on 30 years now, and used to own his own developing studio. So I would take his advice over anyone elses. He says since film is more expensive to develop and it takes longer whereas with digital you can choose which photos are best instead of waiting for the little film strips.

    No he has plenty of Nikons etc but he finds the Canon produces a better colour and resolution. There's no point buying a camera with ****** colour.

    It's nice that you're doubting his expierence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spinnerette)
    Well he's been working in photography before digital came out which is well on 30 years now, and used to own his own developing studio. So I would take his advice over anyone elses. He says since film is more expensive to develop and it takes longer whereas with digital you can choose which photos are best instead of waiting for the little film strips.

    No he has plenty of Nikons etc but he finds the Canon produces a better colour and resolution. There's no point buying a camera with ****** colour.

    It's nice that you're doubting his expierence.
    Nikons' don't have ****** colour, though.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cynic.)
    Nikons' don't have ****** colour, though.
    Never said they did, just he prefered the colour on the Canon :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spinnerette)
    Never said they did, just he prefered the colour on the Canon :/
    Fair enough, could have worded it better. ;D
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Spinnerette)
    Well he's been working in photography before digital came out which is well on 30 years now, and used to own his own developing studio. So I would take his advice over anyone elses. He says since film is more expensive to develop and it takes longer whereas with digital you can choose which photos are best instead of waiting for the little film strips.

    No he has plenty of Nikons etc but he finds the Canon produces a better colour and resolution. There's no point buying a camera with ****** colour.

    It's nice that you're doubting his expierence.
    I don't think anyone's 'doubting his experience', just that most professional photographers will have their favourites and often these will conflict. Furthermore, it's generally better to hear these from the horse's mouth than second-hand, since there are pros and cons to everything and if you're not, yourself, passionate about the subject it's usually only one side of this that gets communicated in a less than nuanced way. It's kind of hard to interrogate a statement like 'x camera has ****** colour' if you're not talking to the person that originally made the statement, you know? For example, it's fair to say that for the majority of users digital will be more useful than film, if what an individual wants is a film camera, this won't hold true.

    Just my 0.02.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spinnerette)
    Well he's been working in photography before digital came out which is well on 30 years now, and used to own his own developing studio. So I would take his advice over anyone elses. He says since film is more expensive to develop and it takes longer whereas with digital you can choose which photos are best instead of waiting for the little film strips.

    No he has plenty of Nikons etc but he finds the Canon produces a better colour and resolution. There's no point buying a camera with ****** colour.

    It's nice that you're doubting his expierence.
    At no point did I doubt his experience - I merely commented that I'm not convinced it's necessarily the right information, and no one in this thread appears to find what I said to be misleading or with fault, so I'm not overly worried by your perceived attack of your uncle.

    Of course film is more expensive to be developed - but the initial cost is far less prohibitive than any DSLR. Even heavily used 1st Generation DSLRs are still far more expensive than most film cameras, even though the larger sensor on those 35mm cameras make them far more versatile. At no point have I ever contested that of course digital is more convenient - I find it invaluable for what I snap, because the conditions can be so unforgiving with low light photography and with film you would struggle badly.

    "better colour and resolution" I was prepared to take you seriously with your points from your Uncle on film and whatever, but unsubstantiated statements which appear to just manifest as a personal preference have no place in a recommendation thread.

    Clearly NASA did not believe Nikons are "camera with ****** colour":



    I'll gladly admit that I do shoot Nikon, but even the most diehard Canon fan will also readily admit that Nikon does not produce any "camera with ****** colour" - their preferences for manufacturer tend to lay more in what sort of lenses and "feel" of the camera control system, rather than anything like what you are claiming.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spinnerette)
    Well he's been working in photography before digital came out which is well on 30 years now, and used to own his own developing studio. So I would take his advice over anyone elses. He says since film is more expensive to develop and it takes longer whereas with digital you can choose which photos are best instead of waiting for the little film strips.

    No he has plenty of Nikons etc but he finds the Canon produces a better colour and resolution. There's no point buying a camera with ****** colour.

    It's nice that you're doubting his expierence.
    1/ I am an avid film and digital photographer, Like I have said before, I have used a Bessa R, and a Zeiss Ikon ContaxIIIa. buying film gear is generally cheaper, unless to plan to go serious about it. In the long run, with all the processing cost, and the amount of film you buy. Film will eventually become more expensive.

    Film is obsolete, however that small fortune is something you pay for 'character' I have always loved Fujifilm Provia 100, and Ilford HP5. Digital is so flat that, I spend a 30 minutes post-processing to recreate the effects, and character of film.

    2/ When it comes to color, I have to say I think its debating over apples and oranges, I think the only way to argue properly between the cameras is the dynamic range. The Canon 5DmarkII is a fine camera however it can barely take 11 stops of dynamic range. infact you will find at 10 1/2 stops pattern noise will show up on your photos. Film has 15 stops of dynamic range.

    Most noob photographers only shoot around 6-8 stops. Fujifilm S5 pro, and the Nikon D3x are top dSLRs that are capable of doing 13 1/2 stops of dynamic range. So I highly doubt nikon has poor color, especially since the phase one digital backs are trailing behind the Nikon D3x!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    hearts still set on the d3000.

    I think I'd mainly be taking images of landscape, the odd people, and occasional close up. No real long distances or things like that.

    Have photoshop. Some say to pay the extra 100 for the d5000 but the d3000 is stretching it as it is. Just hope I can get more than 3 years out of the camera producing images I'm proud of!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You will need a tripod, and a remote shutter (well you don't need it but they're cheap and very useful) if you're going to be doing landscape. Polarising, ND, ND Grad and a few other filters are also very useful, if you're semi-serious.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The reason that big block-busters are still shot on 35mm film is that even the geniuses that Hollywood employ haven't yet figured out a way to make digital have the same look and feel of film. Digital makes more sense to me practically but I'm still yearning for a good 35mm film because the kind of images I have stuck in my mind are impossible to take on digital. I do have a Pentax MZ-7 but it feels like a toy in my hands compared to my old Konica FC-1 which is now broken

    To the OP, if you're going to spend ~£350 then I'd say go with the 1000D over the D3000. It has more features for only slightly more money. The EOS mount is, in my opinion, a better and more versatile mount than the Nikon one. The two companies (everyone knows which ones I mean) are very evenly matched in terms of value for money, especially at the budget end of the range. If you go to a football match or horse race you'll see pretty much only Canons. On the other hand, most journalists will be carrying around a Nikon. It still comes down to personal preference though at the end of the day.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nuffles)
    The reason that big block-busters are still shot on 35mm film is that even the geniuses that Hollywood employ haven't yet figured out a way to make digital have the same look and feel of film. Digital makes more sense to me practically but I'm still yearning for a good 35mm film because the kind of images I have stuck in my mind are impossible to take on digital.
    Just to split hairs, movies are regularly shot on 65mm or 70mm film. Spiderman 2 was shot with Panavision Super 70. Movie industry hasn't used 35mm since the 50's, thats when movies were filmed in the "academy" format, but when Television sets came out in 4:3, the film industry had to come up with a wider format, which at first was the 3:2.

    Ben-Hur is still today filmed in the widest format today; Ben-Hur was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70.

    35mm has been dead a long time ago.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deep Thought)
    Just to split hairs, movies are regularly shot on 65mm or 70mm film. Spiderman 2 was shot with Panavision Super 70. Movie industry hasn't used 35mm since the 50's, thats when movies were filmed in the "academy" format, but when Television sets came out in 4:3, the film industry had to come up with a wider format, which at first was the 3:2.

    Ben-Hur is still today filmed in the widest format today; Ben-Hur was filmed in Ultra Panavision 70.

    35mm has been dead a long time ago.
    shhhhhh :awesome: my point about not being able to recreate the film view in digital still stands
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If you're learning photography I'd say getting a cheap 2nd hand film slr is a good idea (pentax k1000 for example). You learn a lot about what works and what doesn't, but the photos that do work just have that extra oomph that digital doesn't. Plus there's fun you can have with crossprocessing, black and white film, processing your own film, or fiddling with your film in other ways.

    Of course buy a dSLR if you want to take some great photos and learn photography, but if you have a slight interest in film photography then you should pursue it as it has a real joy to it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As a casual hobby, it seems to me personally to be easier to justify an initial outlay of the increased of a digital camera than worry constantly that every single shot is costing me money thereafter.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freecom2)
    x
    So, thanks for the great input guys. Have helped my decision.

    Whether for better for worse, I ordered a Nikon D3000. As with all things, the subjective nature of decisions meant I was never going to be given a sure bet on what to buy. I like the feel of the Nikon and I couldn't justify an extra £100 for a D5000 considering I'm not sure on what each feature does etc.

    I opted for digital over film just because I know what I'm like. The easier nature of putting in a memory card and uploading them on to the screen is my forté. Much easier and (feels) cheaper when not having to get film printed. Although by the sounds of it I'm missing out, for somebody starting the hobby, I'm not sure I'd have appreciated it and seen it's true potential to the noob naked eye!

    So now I just wanted some advice on how to get good, and enjoy it?

    I mean is there any e-books, books, websites, resources people recommend? Quick tips for photoshop, things like that. As next week I'm getting a camera delivered and I have no idea of the subject or anything, so any information is greatly received.

    Thanks all,
    Matt
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattw89)
    So, thanks for the great input guys. Have helped my decision.

    Whether for better for worse, I ordered a Nikon D3000. As with all things, the subjective nature of decisions meant I was never going to be given a sure bet on what to buy. I like the feel of the Nikon and I couldn't justify an extra £100 for a D5000 considering I'm not sure on what each feature does etc.

    I opted for digital over film just because I know what I'm like. The easier nature of putting in a memory card and uploading them on to the screen is my forté. Much easier and (feels) cheaper when not having to get film printed. Although by the sounds of it I'm missing out, for somebody starting the hobby, I'm not sure I'd have appreciated it and seen it's true potential to the noob naked eye!

    So now I just wanted some advice on how to get good, and enjoy it?

    I mean is there any e-books, books, websites, resources people recommend? Quick tips for photoshop, things like that. As next week I'm getting a camera delivered and I have no idea of the subject or anything, so any information is greatly received.

    Thanks all,
    Matt
    Film is nice, if you know what you're doing, but even now I still find it costly. The Bessa R cost me about $260 to keep it maintained, and about $50 a month to get my stuff developed.

    The D3000 comes with tutorials to teach you the basics, read your manual, and go through them. then you should have a general understanding. I will PM you some tutorial links
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattw89)
    So now I just wanted some advice on how to get good, and enjoy it?
    Enjoy your purchase I'm a Nikon user, and I agree that the "feel" is just spot on. Just get to grips with all the manual controls, see what ISO you can comfortably work with without too much noise (there will be high ISOs available but they can produce horribly grainy images) and so on - and just go out and snap away!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mattw89)

    So now I just wanted some advice on how to get good, and enjoy it?

    I mean is there any e-books, books, websites, resources people recommend? Quick tips for photoshop, things like that. As next week I'm getting a camera delivered and I have no idea of the subject or anything, so any information is greatly received.

    Thanks all,
    Matt
    The best way to get good is just practice, so just get out and shoot! :P

    And here are some great books I recommend you to read; Understanding Exposure ~ Bryan Peterson and Learning to See Creatively ~ Bryan Peterson . The first has helped me to no end, the second not so much, but it's still very helpful. Congratulations on getting a camera, I hope you enjoy it!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zooom)
    Film is nice, if you know what you're doing, but even now I still find it costly. The Bessa R cost me about $260 to keep it maintained, and about $50 a month to get my stuff developed.

    The D3000 comes with tutorials to teach you the basics, read your manual, and go through them. then you should have a general understanding. I will PM you some tutorial links
    Thanks Zooom, if you could PM them tutorial links would be great! Cheers bud.

    I've also downloaded some e-books, not sure what they're like yet, might look at some others and get the recommended above:

    -Perfect Digital Photography 2009
    -Digital SLR Cameras for Dummies
    -Digital Art Photography for Dummies
    -Absolute beginners guide to digital photography
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.