learning curve for dSLR (1 Viewer)

How long does it take to learn how to use a dSLR camera?

And is it for everyone?

LuvBlueJay said:

How long does it take to learn how to use a dSLR camera?

And is it for everyone?

Click to expand...

To take the last first - no. That's the easy one. It may be too heavy / daunting / complicated and especially expensive for many people.

How long to learn ? Well, how thoroughly ? Point and shoot - the consumer models perhaps 5-10 minutes. Really using the features - many hours of study and trial and error, even before you get into fiddling on the computer ...

HTH, Mike

As far as I am concerned a b****y lifetime.........lol ! I have a 40D and still do not use all of the facilities on it.

I agree with everybody else--a few minutes to learn the basic functions (which are all you need for most situations), but many hours to learn the camera thoroughly. That being said, I'd never go back to a point-&-shoot after experiencing the speed, flexibility & ease of focusing of a DSLR..

Depends as well on the SLR. Entry level SLR's like the Nikon D40 or the Canon Rebel XTI (400D) are somewhat easier than mid range cameras like the Canon 40D or the Nikon D90. Harder still are the high end cameras like the Canon 50D or Nikon D300. The latter camera doesn't even have any preset modes; no auto, no portrait, no landscape etc. With practice you will learn them, it just takes a lot of fiddling around and trial and error as mentioned. For me these days, I only use SLR's and point and shoot are just too slow to satisfy me these days. This despite the fact that I was shooting a P&S just over a year ago.

Generally Nikons are easier to learn than Canons.

depends where you start from
If you are starting from a point and shoot, bridge or SLR setup where you have some experience of using a camera and something like aperture, ISO and shutter speed are not alien concepts to you then picking up and learning how to use a DSLR is mostly achivable in an afternoon.
More compelx settings will take longer to learn, but not that long.

If, however, you are picking up the camera with little/no photography experience then it is going to take you longer to learn all the ins and outs - the advantage is that you can shoot till the card is full and study your results and it won't cost you a thing (save time). If you are learning a good way is to join a local photography club or come online to forums and post up your best examples and see how people recomend you alter the things to improve.
And most of the time its fun too so the time passes really quickly

I've been trying to learn how to take decent pictures with a DSLR for the last 2-3 yrs. I still blush to find that friends and family often take much better shots in the 'home and holiday snap genre' with little point and shoot jobs. Having said that, they can't take decent bird photos.

If you enjoy a challenge and technical stuff, if you have enough money and if you want to take more than just family snapshots then try a DSLR.

Good luck, Tim.

I've been shooting with SLRs since the mid-70s and have been a DSLR shooter since 2003.

It takes time to learn how to use it properly. Your best bet is to hook up with someone who knows how to shoot and have them help you out. Likewise shoot as often as you can since practice makes it easier to quickly get images.

I'd have to disagree with the Nikon being easier to learn how to use than Canon. Both are fairly similar and with practice you can learn how to use them equally well.

Regards,

Terry
http://naturepixels.com

digital slr

Who cares? Get one and enjoy yourself i say! I chopped all my digiscoping gear in years ago cos i was rubbish at it and gradually upgraded to my canon 30d and a canon 100-400mm IS lense and never looked back.I don't profess to know everything there is to know about my camera or lense but i get great results -sometimes! I spend my weeks working in a factory with no windows dreaming about getting out there, dressed head to foot in cammo gear looking a right pratt but im not bothered as its worth the early mornings and looking like Rambo. Dslr's are as complicated as you want them to be but don't let the nerds put you off with their talk of boring geeky techno rantings-life really is too short.Get your camera and play -good luck Darren:t:

Do you think a Nikon D80 is a good entry level dSLR?
I just want to be able to take nice, sharp pics (home life, nature, etc). Like it was professional! But not spend mega bucks on.
My p&s camera is alright (shots r average), i know the basics of that. But i want an upgrade.

dSLR- Im just worried i might "miss " that one sec shot b/c i had to fumble focus it 1st. Does that happen , or am i worrying?

At first i was considering the Canon S10 (bridge ) but my bf says dSLR will be a notable difference than the canon. I dunnooo...
THanks pplz for helping me!

well when you start out with any new kit you are going to fumble the controls at the early stages (especaily if its a new kind of device to use) - don't worry yourself about thins - just keep shooting and soon enough the controls become much simpler to use - the basic operation is quick and simple.

As for your aim understand that whilst a DSLR is superior to a high end bridge camera understand that you are buying into a system - the body that you use is not actually the most important (nor expensive) part - the lenses are where the biggest increase in quality and price are. If you are after nature (birds and such) then lenses for that are (sadly) going to cost and good quality ones are going to cost a lot. I am not trying to put you off, but I think that if you feel that you can only afford the basic body and don't want to spend lots (and of course you can build up over time) on lenses and building up a kit then a high end bridge camera would suit you better.

I agree with 'Overread' at the end of the day it is the lens that is most important, especially for wildlife/bird photography. Almost any DSLR would be capable with a decent lens but there lies the sting, a decent birding lens will cost more than the camera. You need to think about the lenses before buying in to a system.
You say 'I just want to be able to take nice, sharp pics (home life, nature, etc). Like it was professional' but most professionals birding lenses cost big bucks (anything between $2-6k or even more). Even DSLR user's who buy the entry level birding lenses like 100-400 or 400mm f5.6 prime usually hanker for a upgrade to one one of super primes after a while.
The only pointer I would give about the Camera is that it should be capable of fairly low noise levels at ISO 400-800 as this is what you could be using, especially with a f5.6 lens (in this respect some of the earlier Nikon's were not up to the Canons IMO).

I'd say the D80 is a great camera (I have one) but it does have minor issues - the metering can be a little haphazard as it's biased towards the autofocus point (it is affected by what you focus on) and that can lead to some rather varying over-exposed/under-exposed images. It isn't a problem all the time and you may find it's not an issue at all. The D80 images are a 'little' noisy above base ISO too, which can reduce detail if you take photos of small birds and need to crop in, but you can still get very good results with it - those are pretty minor things!

I've used the D80 for a year and it helped me improve my photography no end! It's a very good camera with a nice balance of features and usability and the handling/controls are good too. I only mention the metering thing as you really should know the little foibles if you're considering it. I used the D80 mostly with a Nikon 70-300mm VR lens (image stabilised) and that is a great combination if you're walking around as it's not too big but it has enough 'pull' to get reasonable shots of birds - I took these shots in the gallery with that combo:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/212236/ppuser/69297 ...not a bird that one though!
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/213233/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/213240/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/213851/ppuser/69297

well... most of the ones I've added to the gallery were with that setup! I've moved on to a D300 now for the lower noise, better AF and improved metering but after spending a good long time with the D80 I was getting to know it and mostly worked around most of the minor limitations. I don't know how the current Canon's stack up, I'm sure a Canon user can offer some options there.

As to time to learn... it depends on you really. Some people pick up a camera and start shooting well straight away, others can take years to get good. I've been taking photographs for years and am still learning, although I think I've improved a lot over the last few years since I started using digital SLRs. But as everyone says, they aren't for everyone and some people find them too bulky to lug about - it does require some dedication to use one because of the extra size and weight of the kit.

Roy C said:

. Even DSLR user's who buy the entry level birding lenses like 100-400 or 400mm f5.6 prime usually hanker for a upgrade to one one of super primes after a while.

Click to expand...

Dunno if I'd call those 'entry level' Roy. I started off with a Sigma 70-300 cheapie and for the price I paid (even if it was secondhand and several months after I'd got my first DSLR) for my 100-400 I personally wouldn't call it entry level. But you're right, I'm hankering after a better lens but it'll be a long long time before I can afford it...........but that's what I said before I bought the 100-400.

To go back to the OP's question. The learning curve is fun. You need to experiment. Tons of stuff online. Just remember that if handholding you need high enough shutter speeds to counter motion shake/camera shake. Whether you do that by bumping up the ISO or using a low F number is up to you. ISO/F Numbers meant gibberish to me last year but once you start messing around with a DSLR you'll see what I mean. And like others say you're always learning.

I used 35mm SLRs since the late 80's when I bought my first decent camera at 18. I switched to digital in 2004 when I got a compact bridge camera, a Minolta DiMage Z2, and subsequently got a DSLR because I felt a DSLR would offer more quality and more flexibility - which it does.

However, the learning curve is very steep, especially with post processing which I am not very good at. Post-processing is quite frustrating at times, especially when sharpening and reducing noise, but even in the actual picture taking process annoyances crop up: you might get a load of good pics in one session and think you've got the whole thing licked and you're cooking on gas, when in another sesh you dont get a single decent pic. It is frustrating, but it's also fun and rewarding.

My learning curve was made steeper, somewhat, by switching from one system to another (Nikon to Canon) a few months ago, but the principles of photography don't change, just the buttons being in different places.

Equipment doesn't make a good photographer, the photographer him or her self does, but getting the best you can afford definitely makes things easier.

I have used slrs since the 70's and changed to dslr in 04 their is a easy way and a hard why to use a dlsr .You can turn on the camera and put it on auto and jpeg and take good pics so not a hard start but you can then learn the extras as you go along.You will want to find out what they are really capable of the moor your learn the better it gets you wont regret it,it just takes a while but its well worth it in the end.Although i'm still learning myself .