Camera Help Please???

[Mr. Dazzle]

Adobe Lightroom is deffo the "go to" here and pretty powerful, but it also ain't free. I don't think it's actually all that expensive though, I think Mrs. D pays sort £10-20 a month for Lightroom and Photoshop. She uses both at work too though and I know for a long time her work had dual home/work licences - they knocked that on the head though.

They're not necessary though and they're pretty over kill if you're just pulling JPEGs off a camera and not post-processing.

The thing I would say though is that a PC and a decent sized monitor makes going through them, even JPEGs, alot better. The old cliche was "shoot lots, film is cheap" and of course with digital that's magnified a million fold. So take lots of photos and go through 'em after the fact. That's a thousand times quicker and less hassle doing it on a PC.

The other thing about PCs, when you get a little more into it, is that it's much easier to tell what you did. The photos also contain info about what lens it was, what the settings were etc, so if you find pics you like you can check what the camera was set to at the time. You can do that on the camera itself too, but again it's much easier on a PC.

[Taipan]

Yoz, don't get too overwhelmed with it. With a DSLR you can just use full auto mode to start with. Normally the picture is within the picture and you just crop it to pick it out. You'll start to see things you didn't notice before when you do this.

For composition there are loads of rules, laws, guidelines etc blah. Look up rule of thirds and leading lines for a start. Its always good to change perspective for impact, i.e. shoot from waist height as opposed to standing up, as a standing view is how we normally see things and if you change that it gives your shots more interest.

Eventually you'll start shooting to how you like to see things. This is how you develop your style. Despite photography having certain rules, bear in mind if you gave 10 pro photographers an egg and sent them into a empty room that is painted white, you'd get 10 completely different photos as every pro has their own eye and style.

Worth following a few photographers on YouTube. Look up Serge Ramelli as he does a lot of tutorial stuff to encourage beginners and you'll learn from his composition ideas for sure.

See what the worlds finest produce here... https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographers/

[Horse]

they're pretty over kill if you're just pulling JPEGs off a camera and not post-processing.

TBH I thought that a DSLR would only save Raw.

[Slenver]

they're pretty over kill if you're just pulling JPEGs off a camera and not post-processing.

TBH I thought that a DSLR would only save Raw.

No... not sure there are any that don't do JPEG as well. Nothing mainstream at least.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I only initially started doing RAW photos 'cause my camera took 'em faster! I dunno if that's always the case, but mine could do quicker/longer bursts that way.

[Yambo]

LOL!

Yorick's head must be close to exploding with all this 'advice'!

@Yorick - You need a DSLR camera body, one or two lenses (maybe more) for everyday use and the more specialist things you want to photograph. They do not have to be the same make as the camera body - other lens manufacturers make lenses to fit the main brands of camera. You just have to make sure you buy the correct version for your camera make. A zoom lens will give you more options than a prime (fixed focal length) lens, will probably be cheaper and will allow you to make mistakes / learn about photography in general (ISO settings, f ratios, aperture and exposure) and progress in the hobby.

My fairly cheap Canon can save individual images in both RAW and Jpeg formats. I guess other cameras will do this too. You can immediately have an image to stick on social media (the JPeg) and you have way better data in RAW format for playing with later if you feel the need.

You may need a tripod, you may need a bag of some sort to put it all in, you may want a lens hood and a filter or two (filters are a whole new thread on their own!). If you want to get into post processing then there are free programs, GIMP for example, which do much the same as photoshop or lightroom without the cost. If you take to it, get good at it then spend the money on the posh stuff. But post processing is a whole new different learning curve.

You or your missus may well have a natural talent but probably, all of the best, most expensive gear ain't gonna make you a David Bailey straight out the box. As well as the technical bits mentioned above you're going to have to learn and understand how light, shadows and composition can make or fuck up your photos.

I specialise in a particular branch of photography (where artistic talent isn't really required for image capture) and Dazzle likes bees it seems but I still take snaps. They (the snapshots) are generally shite as I have no artistic talent whatsoever. Composition? WTFITAA? and photography is as much art as anything else. There are photographers out there who may plan for a year or more for a particular photo, to get the sun in the right position, maybe some clouds to add contrast, a particular sea state, whatever. I doubt you're not in that group. You just need to get some reasonably priced gear and start making mistakes. Or learning. or both.

Get out and take photos when you have the gear, take the same image with different settings (make notes!) and see what works or doesn't. Most important - have fun.

[Yorick]

I'm reading everything, but will save it and read it all again when we get the camera.

[Mr. Dazzle]

LOL!
Get out and take photos when you have the gear, take the same image with different settings (make notes!) and see what works or doesn't. Most important - have fun.

This is the one thing to take away IMO...said it a few times now.

You can read all about technical stuff and equipment and whatever, that's just things to look up in a book and figure out. The real thing to get right is what's in the photo. Get that first and foremost.

[Ant]

The other thing to bare in mind, is that say 300mm on a full frame camera isn't the same as 300mm on a mirrorless camera or any other with a smaller sensor size. That's what makes my Olympus so compact too with regards to the lenses, is that the 150mm lens on that gives me the same as a 300mm lens on my Canon full frame, as the sensor size is half on the Olly.

[gremlin]

I'm reading everything, but will save it and read it all again when we get the camera.

Just so you know, I charge double for a nude shoot and I don't do weird stuff, alright?

[Slenver]

The other thing to bare in mind, is that say 300mm on a full frame camera isn't the same as 300mm on a mirrorless camera or any other with a smaller sensor size. That's what makes my Olympus so compact too with regards to the lenses, is that the 150mm lens on that gives me the same as a 300mm lens on my Canon full frame, as the sensor size is half on the Olly.

Don't forget that there are plenty of mirrorless full-frame cameras. The SLR/mirrorless design isn't a factor, just the sensor size.

[Ant]

The other thing to bare in mind, is that say 300mm on a full frame camera isn't the same as 300mm on a mirrorless camera or any other with a smaller sensor size. That's what makes my Olympus so compact too with regards to the lenses, is that the 150mm lens on that gives me the same as a 300mm lens on my Canon full frame, as the sensor size is half on the Olly.

Don't forget that there are plenty of mirrorless full-frame cameras. The SLR/mirrorless design isn't a factor, just the sensor size.

Well removing the mirror and mechanism is a factor in a way as it's made the camera much smaller by not having those parts in it. It's a lovely camera. But regarding the lens and sensor size, as I said after the part you underlined...I've just made that bold.

I used to do events with two SLR cameras, my cameras are old now but still great, but I'd have the Canon EOS 1Ds Mk3 with a 400mm L series lens on it, and over my shoulder was my EOS 5D with a 24-105mm L series lens, all clipped to me with releasable clips for when I wanted to use it. Once I got the mirrorless, for the still shots I'd take that and leave the 5D at home. Less neck ache!

[Slenver]

I only initially started doing RAW photos 'cause my camera took 'em faster! I dunno if that's always the case, but mine could do quicker/longer bursts that way.

Really? Not calling you a liar or anything ( ) but I've never heard of that. Usually the burst rate for JPEGs is many times that of RAWs as they're so much smaller.

Maybe I just don't read enough reviews

[Ant]

Maybe it's the processing time? I guess as the information moves around the buffer at a certain speed, then it's got to be processed into jpg, so I guess it takes some amount of time.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I only initially started doing RAW photos 'cause my camera took 'em faster! I dunno if that's always the case, but mine could do quicker/longer bursts that way.

Really? Not calling you a liar or anything ( ) but I've never heard of that. Usually the burst rate for JPEGs is many times that of RAWs as they're so much smaller.

Maybe I just don't read enough reviews

maybe I've got it backwards It's been ages since I used JPEG. Once you go er...manual white balance...you never go back.

But yeah I do STR that Raws were quicker 'cause they're not processed. Maybe my camera just had a shit processor.

[Yambo]

RAW files can be flippin' enormous. My camera takes a few seconds to save them. JPegs are saved in an instant.

[Slenver]

Maybe it's the processing time? I guess as the information moves around the buffer at a certain speed, then it's got to be processed into jpg, so I guess it takes some amount of time.

I only initially started doing RAW photos 'cause my camera took 'em faster! I dunno if that's always the case, but mine could do quicker/longer bursts that way.

Really? Not calling you a liar or anything ( ) but I've never heard of that. Usually the burst rate for JPEGs is many times that of RAWs as they're so much smaller.

Maybe I just don't read enough reviews

maybe I've got it backwards It's been ages since I used JPEG. Once you go er...manual white balance...you never go back.

But yeah I do STR that Raws were quicker 'cause they're not processed. Maybe my camera just had a shit processor.

It makes sense that RAWs take less processing I guess, but I suppose the biggest bottleneck is writing to the memory card, that's where the buffering always takes place.

Maybe if you had a really slow processor but a lightning quick card it might reverse?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Maybe....camera takes CF too not SD.

Probably chatting shit on reflection:lol: It's the mirror which limits the burst rate ISTR anyway?

[Slenver]

Maybe....camera takes CF too not SD.

Probably chatting shit on reflection:lol: It's the mirror which limits the burst rate ISTR anyway?

Dunno, but I'd assume the mirror is a factor in the frames per second, but not the burst figure, which is how many frames it can manage in a row before it needs to stop (for buffering to card usually). Don't think the mirror would be a factor in that, unless it was so fast it could overheat

[porter_jamie]

The other thing to bear in mind, is that say 300mm on a full frame camera isn't the same as 300mm on a mirrorless camera or any other with a smaller sensor size. That's what makes my Olympus so compact too with regards to the lenses, is that the 150mm lens on that gives me the same as a 300mm lens on my Canon full frame, as the sensor size is half on the Olly.

Don't forget that there are plenty of mirrorless full-frame cameras. The SLR/mirrorless design isn't a factor, just the sensor size.

there wont be any full framed cameras slr or mirrorless for 500 notes. so it will likely be apsc, or mirco4/3. apsc a 100mm lens acts like a 160mm one and so on.
i have a sony mirrorless apsc a6300 and im looking for a long lens for it - can you fit full frame sony lenses and theres a lovely 100-400gmaster but they want 2k for it. theres a 70/350 apsc specific lens g lens (not a full gmaster) and that is still 800 odd quid.

theres going to be lots of fancy 2nd hand canon dslr stuff for sale soon as they all go over to the new mirrorless pro level bodies so maybe that will be there way to go