Nikon D300 secondary issue

[Duke Leto]

Okay so a few of us took Peewits question and took the thread else where so lets continue the other debate here.

I agree with Kevin / astrokev, I still try and take better pictures as I've done for 30 years.
I started like most on what we could afford a Zenit or a Praktica, couldn't believe it when I bought a Yashica FX-D in 1981 (if I remember) was that an advanced camera and it was probably another 9 years before I went semi pro with my purchase of the excellent Contax 167MT.
So before you all go to sleep............

Todays bodies are so much more complex, they do things that couldn't have been dreamed about in my early days of photography, yet we have people who can just go out and buy a D300 or a 50D as thier 1st camera, both should be considered as semi-pro bodies.
There in no green auto position as there is on the D40/D60 and I guess the Canon equivalent and the reason for this is that the manufacturer believes that the market for these are people who have worked up to this level of photographic understanding (that doesn't include me!!).

I've no problem with helping in my limited way a newbie that is seeking assistance but it does rub the wrong way when people don't try, its digital, after the initial outlay, experiment, play, investigate, thats the fun, if people get stuck then try and seek suport, you get the feeling sometime that people expect to buy top end equipment and get top end results buy flicking a switch or changing a setting.
It probably my limitations but I still get frustrated with my results but I try and learn and after 30 years I'm not sure its sinking in.
When I get stuck these nice people on BF offer advice, its what this forum does best, offers support.
This isn't a rant but hopefuly a logical statement

[Astrokev]

Duke,

You've expanded well on the point I was trying to make.

I too started out in my youth with a Zenith E. Cumbersome compared to modern cameras - pentaprism mounted selenium exposure meter and twiddly dials to calculate f-stop and shutter speed - but the best present my father ever bought me. It really taught me to understand how cameras work, which has stood me in good stead as I progressed through Practica and then the wonderful Pentax MESuper (which I still have and can't bear to part with).

Whether my pictures benefit from this reasonable knowledge of how it all works is another issue, and I'm certainly not saying I'm a great photographer. I have the same gear as some others on the forum, so why are their images far superior to my own?

I've occasionally sought support on this excellent forum, and have been extremely grateful to those who have taken time to help me continue to learn and, hopefully, improve. I too have tried to help others, and enjoy trying to pass on some of what I've learned over the years.

The thing that sometimes gets to me though is when some folks (I stress "some"!) expect to have everything given to them on a plate, without even trying. As Duke says, trying is half the fun; if it works and teaches you something - fantastic. If not, you have the satisfaction of knowing that you at least tried before resorting to BF.

As most of us know, there is no such thing as a single setting that guarantees good images in every situation, nor a magic lens that delivers the same. Those that believe there are are somewhat naive. Good images come out of graft, experience, with a little help along the way from those further down the endless road.

If it was dead easy, would it be half as much fun? I doubt it.

[pe'rigin]

I’ll go along with that.

But there is one fundamental difference, film.

Using film you took care not only of the exposure but depth of field and more importantly light conditions. You did this because of the cost per slide, most people didn’t develop or attempt to print their images, this was done by a professional lab or similar.

The film cameras didn’t change every six months either, you stuck to your model and looked with envy in the photo shops window at those Nikons, which were financially out of your reach.

Today’s difference, everybody’s an expert, Mr Adobe has decreed that. Countless books have been written, you too can have the knowledge within 10 pages of reading such books? Why study for 4 years when you can move a slider in Photoshop on a cheap £85.00 monitor.

Digital cameras need to improve their sensitivity and colour saturation to the standard of film. This will eradicate most of the problems, which occur.

As Steve as written, you don’t need to buy expensive cameras, to achieve total quality results.

[rezMole]

Totally agree with comments made. I'm no expert but have dabbled on and off with photography for years. I too started out with a Zenith E before moving on to Canon AE1, then Canon A1. In those days you had to learn through expensive mistakes - no internet then. It does anny me a little when people just go and spend £1000 on their first DSLR and expect great results. And when it doesn't happen, ask how they should use a camera!

Photography is an art. I have a Fine Art degree so know a fair bit about what is pleasing to the eye but I get things wrong. I don't think I've ever been 100% happy with any of my photos. Some I think are good, but I've yet to take what I consider a GREAT shot! But i'll keep plodding away. No one can take a great picture for you - you have to do it yourself.

[redtail7]

I agree with you all. I started out 39 years ago with a Yashica SLR which came with a 50mm f1.7 Carl Zeiss lens, then I purchased a 70-210mm f4 Yashica zoom lens along with a Sigma 28-80mm f3.5-4.5 zoom. The camera body was then stolen and I replaced it with a Contax 139 Quartz camera. It had just a tiny bit of electronic for the metering and the shutter. I took thousands of slides which probably cost a fortune to buy and process plus the projector and screen to look at them, not to forget how many times you had to change the bulb in the projector and bulbs were not cheap. I then went to macro with the purchase of extension tubes and +2 and +3 close up lenses. Then I got a Vivitar 2x converter and a Yus 28mm f2.8 lens. It was costly even back then but I enjoyed it. I now dove into Digital which I enjoy even more, But I dove in two years ago and over my head I thought when I purchased the D300 which now I'm pretty good with thanks to all the people on this forum who post their problems and most of all the people who help. The people who help may not realize just how many others they help with their reply, especially me, I've learned all about digital here on this forum. Thanks for letting me reminess and now that I dug out all my old equipment (which all still works) I might just go out and buy a roll of film for fun. Again thanks to all who contribute here, you're the best. Redtail7

[Stephen Fletcher]

This is getting a bit like Monty Pythons "when i were a lad" sketch. I dont mean any of the previous contributers to this thread, but the following which i am about to spout. 7 years of age, developing my own black and white prints, in my grandads darkroom, the negatives of which were taken on his brand new Leica M3. Progressing as i got older from Canon AE1P's to Canon A1's, with mirror lockup, wowee, and a 600mm Sigma mirror lens, which although the db's at the time, it was still pretty crap, all those free donuts with every shot. Then it was all slide, and prints were from Cibachrome, extremely temperature sensitive, 1 degree temperature error meant a really bad image, and at £1 a sheet was no joke, but when correct produced wonderfully saturated and deep toned photos, as long as the subject was red !!!! Then came the medium formats, with polaroid backs, incredible, you could see what you had just taken to see if the lighting effect was correct, brilliant for studio work. I couldnt afford Hasselblad, so had to "make do" with a Bronica SqAm, and 85mm lens, with more flimsy film ruined when loading in the dark than ever was used. In those days, a menu was something you only saw in a posh restaurant.

So, i too get a little dischuffed when i see questions asked on subjects which with 5 minutes reading the manual with the camera in your hand could easily be sorted. Before i even bought a digital camera, i got hold of a copy of the manual, and read and read it, so when i finally had the camera in my hand, i already knew it pretty well. In these days of the internet, most information is readily available, you can downlaod everything you need from the Canon website ( i dont know about Nikon, ive never owned one ), but i would imagine the situation is pretty similar. I have been very lucky, and had a great grounding in light levels, exposures, dof, iso etc etc. but i think it is extremely important for all to get a good knowledge base of all these factors before going out with their brand new digi, and then asking why their photos arent the same as Andy Rouse or Nigel Blakes for example. Buying a £3000 body and a £5000 lens doesnt make you a photographer, its the brain that does that.

[Derry]

happen to see the thread title, was reading and wanted to add my few pennies,,

been doing the photo thing for a tad over 50 years,, seems most those comments above place us all in the upper age bracket,, my first 35 was a Petri, use to lust over an M3,, my final film camera was an F5,,

I find that in today's segment the MFGs sell how easy any of their cameras are to use (many are) and actually can do decent work,, looking at how many people are taking photos today compared to 25 years past it has multiplied many times,, the cameras have far more latitude and abilities built into the full auto setting and I have seen many a good photo from such,, unfortunately they only took 300 shots to get that great one,,

yes the film days forced some learning or the cost became high,, 10 to 15 rolls of 36 KII on a vacation cost a fair coin to buy and have processed so you tried to make the shots count,, today just hold the shutter button down and see what ya get,, we also can PP it later to correct the problems,, don't get me wrong, I love the PP abilities compared to the hours in the darkroom of past,,

I enjoy trying to share my experience with the younger shooters but again it is frustrating to try and teach what an f stop does or explain why I shoot in A and M mode when the camera will do it for me when many will not pick up a book or article to read for assistance,, "many" of the younger ones want it all now and are so use to the FULL AUTOMATIC mode that their time behind the viewfinder learning the camera and what it can REALLY do just is not spent,, forums like this at least allow a far broader sharing of knowledge, again a quicker way of doing,,

I often wonder if I was born in the current age bracket how I would be working behind the viewfinder and the knowledge I would acquire to truly understand my camera,, I know I am guilty of loving digital as I shoot 400+ photos at any of the grandkids sport events very easy,,

Derry

[Astrokev]

seems most those comments above place us all in the upper age bracket,,
Derry

Speak for yourself there Derry!! Whilst physically I may no longer be a spring chicken (got my first SLR in the mid 70's), when out in the field in great light, I still get the same excitement and rush as when in my teens!

Kevin

[Gentoo]

I'm probably going to rattle some nerves here but oh well wouldn't be the first time.

I am very fortunate to have worked with animals and various types of people in various settings. It has taught me a couple of things; the first is patience. The second is that not everyone learns the same way. For some it's easier to give them a starting point then let them continue from there rather than suggesting that they should just read a manual. Not everyone can learn that way and why should they be denied to opportunity just because they don't do it the way we think they ought to?

My photographic skills are no where near anyone elses on here, I'll say that right now. That's why I think it's very unfortunate that those with the really good skills and experience get so turned off by anyone asking anything. Yes if we're experienced, lots of questions may seem stupid. However the only truly stupid question is the one never asked! Now we can go on for ever about why someone purchased a camera if they don't know this or that or whatever. That's neither here nor there at this point. What's done is done.

I learned photography on digital unlike most here. However I do agree that one should always learn the basics. I can speak from experience here. My first camera was a Sony DSC-H1. I shot in auto only for like the first month or so. Then I started using shutter priority. I learned what shutter, aperture and ISO were and how they affected my shots. I then purchased a D40 and after a while used manual exclusively. I did this for quite some time. Then I got a D300. I continued using manual then more recently started using aperture priority.

I was only able to ever learn any of this because I knew good photographers who were patient and taught me the basics and gave me starting points from which to grow. Now if there's something I don't know I learn it within 5 or 10 minutes, like with the metering question I mistakenly asked last week lol. Now I realized it's basically what I thought it was all along. Again, the only stupid question is the one not asked. When it comes to most technical or electronics, I'm a fast learner. I had a job repairing and installing electronics briefly at one time and I built the computer I'm on. This is just me though.

If any one ever has a question about this stuff, PM me and if I'm able to help I'd be more that happy to. If I can't I will try to refer you to a source that can. Good birding and happy shooting to everyone!

[Stephen Fletcher]

That's why I think it's very unfortunate that those with the really good skills and experience get so turned off by anyone asking anything.

I think you are missing the point here completely.

[Duke Leto]

Steve I agree, Gentoo the point I and others made was,
Everyone needs help and assistance and can learn from their peers, but some people who don't try and find out say by online investigation searching existing threads or reading handbooks expect others to tell them. I have asked questions and had answers but I normally only ask questions when I can't find the answer or my trials have failed.

[rezMole]

Also, if I need assistance with a birding problem I ask here. If I need assistance on a photography problem I usually ask on a photography forum (Nikon has a good one and I assume there are forums for Canon users too). There may be specific queries people have relating to photographing birds - it's fine to ask these here, but some people just wade straight in with questions like "What is an f stop?", "What shutter speed should I be using?", "How do i turn my camera on?" etc. These are things you should know how to do BEFORE you even start to photograph birds. DSLRs are NOT point and click cameras. Many people seem to think that as soon as they have bought a camera they should be able to take great bird photographs and when they don't because they have used a shutter speed of a thirtieth of a second, or the wrong metering setting for the subject in question, they demand to know why.

All we are saying is that it isn't easy and that people will have to learn the basics.

[rdspalm]

It's hard to beat finding out for yourself. However, the underlying principles of photography are well disguised with modern digital cameras. Sometimes I envy my wife's Lumix compact. It produces brilliant colours, well exposed and often more vibrant colours than my D200. With cameras such as these its easy to see how people never bother to learn about f stops, depth of field, etc. I also learnt on a manual camera (Pentax MX) in the 1980's and it would still serve well for people to go back to basics and experiment with their equipment.

These forums are excellent places to ask questions and receive decent answers from folk across the world who have found out by the time honoured method of trial and error.

Remember those black slides which you chucked out of the wee yellow box you received back from Kodak!

Richard

[Gentoo]

It's hard to beat finding out for yourself. However, the underlying principles of photography are well disguised with modern digital cameras. Sometimes I envy my wife's Lumix compact. It produces brilliant colours, well exposed and often more vibrant colours than my D200. With cameras such as these its easy to see how people never bother to learn about f stops, depth of field, etc. I also learnt on a manual camera (Pentax MX) in the 1980's and it would still serve well for people to go back to basics and experiment with their equipment.

These forums are excellent places to ask questions and receive decent answers from folk across the world who have found out by the time honoured method of trial and error.

Remember those black slides which you chucked out of the wee yellow box you received back from Kodak!

RichardI do agree with most of this. Like I said, I worked my way up from a point and shoot and just did whatever until I started "getting it". I do agree that there is no better teacher than experience.

I'm just saying that sometimes our approach can be a little discouraging to some new comers who just want to know where to start. If someone were to ask me what an f stop was, I'd tell them. Doesn't mean they're get it right away but at least they will start to have an better idea of what they got themselves into. This will probably cause them to start asking other questions. The manuals tell you how to change something but not really why you may want to set something a certain way. I've actually taught a few people how to use their Nikon DSLR's from a point where they knew nothing. Now they are taking pretty good pictures and are getting better everyday. Wish I could get paid for that lol.

My point is, people will only want your help for a certain amount of time anyway and will go off and experiment on their own. Still they may have a few questions here and there but those get fewer and fewer. Those people are also forever grateful to you and maybe it's just me but that's the best feeling in the world.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[pduxon]

I’ll go along with that.

But there is one fundamental difference, film. Using film you took care not only of the exposure but depth of field and more importantly light conditions. You did this because of the cost per slide, most people didn’t develop or attempt to print their images, this was done by a professional lab or similar.





you get the feeling sometime that people expect to buy top end equipment and get top end results buy flicking a switch or changing a setting.

sorry not read every comment. some of the comments (quoted) reminded me of this article (http://bythom.com/magicsettings.htm).

i agree with duke, you need to use it there aren't easy answers. play with the camera try and tweak settings to see what they do. the huge advantage with digital is it doesn't cost you anything.

I was interested by Thom Hogan's comment that many people who still use film aren't as good as they think they are (may not be in that article) becuase the film labs corrected for basic errors.

i wonder that now many people start with zooms and just crop, if composition skills are going to pot. in the old days when zooms were regarded as naff the kit lens was a 50mm and you had to compose. on a recent trip I was setting the zoom to about 35mm and trying to compose rather than crop. i suppose with film even with zooms you really had to compose.

[Stephen Fletcher]

sorry not read every comment. some of the comments (quoted) reminded me of this article (http://bythom.com/magicsettings.htm).

i agree with duke, you need to use it there aren't easy answers. play with the camera try and tweak settings to see what they do. the huge advantage with digital is it doesn't cost you anything.

I was interested by Thom Hogan's comment that many people who still use film aren't as good as they think they are (may not be in that article) becuase the film labs corrected for basic errors.

A good article you quoted there, well worth the read. I have completely different settings from one body to another, as i think they react differently, and also use them for differing scenarios. There are no "magic settings", only ones i have used over time to get the most from my bodies.

The quote about film users is correct to some extent, but what about those of us that used our own developing and printing ? With film, there were no settings for contrast, sharpness, saturation etc, so if a lab were to correct a badly exposed photo, you could still tell by looking at the print it wasnt right.

Composition is very often ignored. I have seen results from "professional" wedding photographers with blown whites in wedding dresses, church steps on a 10 degree sidewards slope, lamposts sprouting from brides heads, red eyes, backgrounds that draw your eye away from the subject etc etc etc. It just takes a little thought, so many people concentrate on the subject they completely forget the background, which in my opinion, is often more important than the subject.

[Fozzybear]

Definitely true that negative film was corrected by the labs, although not true if you shot transparency - that required very accurate exposure and you couldn't crop when you made the print from the neg because what you viewed 'was' the neg!

I used to use transparency a bit, mostly with a hand-held meter, and really liked it but it could certainly be tricky to use well. You didn't get the funny colour shifts you often got with colour negatives though, the labs would set the colours wrong a lot!

[GlynH]

The thing i miss most on my old slr lenses is the depth of field guide that was etched onto the barrel. With the DSLR i find myself taking pics without as much thought as there is no expense involved. Where i was much more thoughtful about the shot back when i had only 36 shots to play with and the cost of development to consider.

[Duke Leto]

I agree and what about a camera that didn't need a battery!! just a little light to power the meter.....

[rdspalm]

Yes you're right about depth of field. The autofocus lens on today's Digital SLR does it's job well but seems to have forgotten about depth of field. I remember when taking landscape photos with the 35mm Pentax, you could get a better shot by using the hyperfocal distance setting rather than simply setting focus to infinity. The lens barrel markings were essential for this. Why was this dumbed down? I'm sure the physics of photography remain the same even in digital cyberspace.

Those of us 35mm aficionados definitely are starting to look a little grayer these days!

Richard

[Fozzybear]

Yes, I remember when the hyperfocal marks were on all lenses. I also remember that my first autofocus SLR, a Canon EOS 650, had a Depth mode - at this setting you could focus on the nearest and then furthest points you wanted in focus and the camera would set an aperture and focus at the hyperfocal point. Later Canons did away with this or dumbed it down, which is a real shame.

A few of my AF lenses have depth-of-field/aperture marks but most don't. It was quite rare for me to use them on my old cameras though, I must admit. Decent digital cameras do still have depth-of-field preview though.