# Another question, please have a look.



## buccaneer

Hi:smile:
I have a little Nikon dslr, and havent started investing in lenses and stuff yet. I am trying to get into wildlife photography, and I thought that would require really long lenses, so I had a look around online and it seems Canon has more long lenses? I mean I saw an entry for an 800mm lens from Canon but Nikon seems to top out at 600 mm? I'd like some opinions about whether I should just save my money to change over to Canon. I dont want to buy lenses for Nikon only to end up finding that it would have been better to have spent all that money on acquiring Canon gear. And most people here seem to shoot with Canon, no? Is there a particular reason for that? (I wont be able to buy any lenses right away but I want a concrete idea in my mind about what I need to buy.) I am really confused and outta my depth, so good people, please advise! :smile:


----------



## zuluclayman

Nikon vs Canon is a bit like rival sporting teams, you either love one or the other. That said, both have good ranges of lenses and both allow the use of third party lenses (those not manufactured by either company) 
For Nikons the Nikkor lenses are fantastic, expensive but good and they have longer lenses available.
Check out some of the wildlife shots on the web taken with 400-600mm lenses and you will find they are pretty good anyways - here are some Nikon ones
you can also add a teleconverter to give you extra reach, while they are not a true lens they offer extra reach (some will double your focal length) with little degradation of image quality.


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for the reply sir, I only have a 55-200mm slow lens now, and am trying to figure out the basics of photography using that. About third party lenses, at the local camera store, which is reckoned to be the best in the neighbourhood, the guy once said he could give me lenses by Sigma but they dont last as long as Nikkors. Needless to say, I got a Nikkor. Thank you for sending me that link with wildlife pics, they are beautiful! Am trying to sign up for an affordable course in photography, but the online courses by foreign universities and such seem to be really expensive. So is photography actually meant to be the hobby of the really rich? I had thought I'd take it up as my hobby and spend money on it instead of on drinks and ciggies. As to teleconverters, the Nikon site says those arent compatible with all lenses, including the one that I do have. So next time I buy a lens, I'll ask if it's teleconverter compatible. I am just starting out, hence I dont know even the most basic things. Do feel free to give me all the advice you can, it'll be much appreciated.


----------



## WereBo

Hi buccaneer :wave:

Before getting bag-loads of gear, get used to what you have already, it's the skill of the photographer rather than the equipment that takes a good photo - Your 55mm-200mm will get you nice and close to your subject, though it might be a couple of hundred feet away (A tripod might well be handy, for a slow lens at full zoom).

Once you can set the shutter and aperture in your sleep, you can start to get the bits needed to overcome you camera's shortcomings, tele-converter/extension-rings, 2nd powerful flash etc.

A rather good beginners-guide can be found *here*, all the important bits are simply explained, without the jargon etc.

Most importantly though, practice, practice, practice, oh and play :grin: - That's the only way to get used to what you and your camera can do, along with stretching your imagination to 'see' the shots before they happen and be ready for them.

Good luck with your new hobby, it's great fun and keeps you very fit too - Please feel free to post any of your results here, you'll get an honest appraisal along with suggestions and tips for future shots


----------



## yustr

Welcome to the Corner.

One thing to consider is the overall philosophy of both Nikon and Canon to make different lens for different cameras; i.e. certain Nikon lens will not work on certain Nikon cameras. Canon too. What about if you step up to the next version bady? Will your existing len purchases be rendered obsolete?

Pentax on the other hand makes it a point to ensure all of their lens work on all of their cameras. Yes, I know they're not nearly as popular as Canikon but that's what I shoot. I think they more than hold their own at the pro-sumer level. All 3rd party makers supply lens for Pentax. And, as the shake reduction mechanism is in the camera body, I get that advantage even using my 40 year old glass. BTW: those lens are readily available and are very fine quality. See some of my pics in this forum.

Regarding using a 600mm lens - that's a very long focal length. It will take a lot of practise to get good. My longest is 300mm F4 (actually a 200 mm lens but equates to a 300 because of the size of the sensor on my D10) and it's tough without a tripod.

Forget paying for courses. You'll get nearly the same feedback by posting here and asking for crique - probably better and free.


----------



## WereBo

Alternatively, you could get a very decent 'Bridge'-camera for a lot less than a DSLR, or one of their big lenses. My (now discontinued) *Fuji Finepix S2500HD* has an 18X optical zoom, which equates to a 28-508mm lens, add the 5-6X digital-zoom (+tripod/monopod or handy wall/fence/lamp-post) and there's little I can't get a snap of, though the digital-zoom does add a lot of 'noise'. It fits in my hands perfectly, and is easy to use 1-handed for 'snapping' too.

There's a huge range of bridge-cameras to suit all budgets, but I can highly recommend the Fuji-Finepix range, I'm well impressed by 'em ray:

One recommendation I will make though, choosing a camera that uses 'AA' batteries is preferable to one using it's own proprietary battery - They're a lot cheaper to replace and very readily available, using rechargeables are even cheaper, once you've laid out the initial cost of the charger and a couple of sets of spare batteries.


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for replying, both of you 

@Werebo: Thank you for that great link. :grin: Yessir, I will keep trying to better myself as a photographer and no I wont be buying a new camera for a couple of years atleast, I will just keep learning and shooting pics with what I have. You are right, if I just dont have the talent there is no sense in me buying fancy gear. Right now I am trying to get the aperture/shutterspeed/iso combo to work correctly using the inbuilt light meter. I guess you guys can just look at a subject and choose the correct combo without trying to bring the light meter to zero but I rely heavily on it. And so far I havent been able to bring the read out to zero, it shows either too much light or too little, so have to get the hang of that first. As for imagination, I do hope I have atleast a little bit, I am not the artsy kind of guy actually. I had never heard of the term 'bridge cameras' until you mentioned it and I looked it up in wikipedia hehe. But they must have drawbacks too right? 

@ yustr: Oh not all nikon lenses work with all nikon cameras? Eeeek! :ek: I didnt know that! I read somewhere that nikon hadnt changed its lens mount for ages so I figured a lens I buy now would be usable on a camera I might buy a few years down the line. I just have a humble D40 Nikon now, and had thought I'd buy something like a D7000 after a couple of years, but its terrible if lenses for one wouldnt fit on the other! Yes sir, I am gonna hunt for the pics you took, I bet I can learn something from those pics. Yes, I'll resist the insane urge to beg, borrow or steal a 600mm until I become a whole lot better at taking photos. :grin: I dont have a tripod yet though.:sad: Well sir, I was thinking about a course because I thought if I ask silly basic questions here all the time, folks here would probably end up tearing their hair apart hehe. Yes, I'll just post pics here and listen to what people say about them. Please be gentle though 

If I may make so bold, could I ask why people in different forums can be seen debating about whether Canon is better than Nikon or the other way around but nobody seems to wonder about Hasselblad or Mamiya etc? (Ok, I just learned the names, from reading). Is it because the latter are too costly or in a different format or something?


----------



## yustr

Feel free to ask even the most basic questions - we won't bite. (Well WereBo might but he can't help himslef - such is the nature of Werewolfs. :grin: )

Regarding the light meter - don't worry too much about getting it exactly to null. Each camera mfgr programs the meter slightly differently. You might find you like the result better slightly under or over exposed. That's one great thing about digital it doesn't cost more to take 3 shots of the same scene. You camera may even have a bracketting setting where it will take 3 shots automatically (one under, spot on, one over) Plus, you'll be learning how to do some adjustments on the computer = post processing. And exposures can be adjusted there.

Regarding why its mostly Nikon and Canon: first, they make very fine products that are widely and historically used by many professional photographers. Second they have done a good job at cornering the market in the consumer & pro-sumer areas. Its basically asking why does Ford sell more cars than Kia when both are good? (Hassleblad would be comparing that Ford to a Mercedes.)


----------



## WereBo

I hadn't heard of 'bridge' cameras either, until I decided to replace my ancient 'Olympus Point-'n'-Shoot' for something newer (then dropped subtle hints about Christmas-presents to Mrs WereBo......) :grin:

To be embarrassingly honest, I've never used a light-meter, or the 'manual' adjustments on my camera; I just let the camera choose it's best settings and concentrate on the composition -I know what the adjustments do and how, I just don't do enough photography to remember them when I'm out shooting







- Any tweaks or adjustments are done on the PC later, though for some strange reason I hate cropping the 'wasted' space around photos, I think it's because it's a waste of potential detail if I'd zoomed in that little bit more :wink: 

One of the drawbacks I found early on in my photography (35mm-film Praktica-BX20 camera + bagful of lenses/filters), is that cos I most enjoy wildlife photography (Raptors/Birds-of-Prey especially), by the time I've adjusted the camera-settings, the subject has got bored/spooked/hungry and flown/walked/crawled away - 'Auto-settings' mean I just point, zoom and shoot (after pacing around a bit to get the composition I want :laugh, after setting the menu's initial conditions 'Sunset - Portrait - Landscape - Flowers - Party - etc.', the camera decides the settings for that precise moment, not a few seconds later after twiddling the dials.

The same with landscape photography, especially with this year's weather in the UK - By the time I've adjusted the time and exposure for the clouds, shadows & sun, the clouds have changed though the scenery usually remains still.... :grin:


----------



## buccaneer

Again, thank you so much for the replies, both of you.:smile: (Oh how I wish I could write as nicely as you two!!)

@yustr: Thank you so much for encouraging sir. (I'll take care not to go near Werebo in case he fancies a bite ) Sadly, my camera is an entry level one and doesnt have an bracketing option. Which is easier to correct on computer sir - an underexposure or an overexposure? Thanks for explaining about Hasselblad :smile:

@Werebo: Psssst! Did Mrs Werebo actually gift you the new camera?:grin: Getting married must be such a good thing if you get presents from the wife all the time hehe. I actually havent used the auto setting on my camera, I am stubbornly trying to learn the manual setting up, I dunno why, maybe it's just that I want to know that when I finally get a good shot, it was done all by myself. Or maybe 'cause I have this notion that people who take such wonderful pics in National Geographic and such do it manually- they do, dont they? I have to learn to see properly with my eyes, to compose pics properly- I havent done too well so far. Ooooh I love wildlife pics. I've seen some of your pics and loved 'em!ray: (I have yet to hunt down yustr's pics).


----------



## WereBo

The writing just comes from years (many, many years) of practice, along with a love of English :grin:

As for PC-work with photos, it depends on what software you have, along with how over/under-exposed the photo is. Software ranges greatly in price, from free (The '*Gimp*' very excellent for freeware







) to arms and legs for 'Adobe Photoshop'. - The most useful tool I've found in all god programs is the 'Levels' adjustment, for enhancing contrast, correcting exposure and generally 'lifting' a flat, dull grey photo to something worthy. DonaldG has written an excellent 'mini-tutorial' *here* about it :wink:

Yep Mrs WereBo bought it for me several Christmas's ago, she was feeling a bit guilty about forgetting my birthday a few months earlier, and I sort of rubbed it in a bit :grin:

One of the very few snags I've found with this camera is that the manual controls are a rather buried in the menus, I'm too used to having the shutter-speed on the camera and exposure-adjustment on the lens, along with the focus (another major snag is having 'Auto-focus' only, no manual :sigh, so it tends to be set for 'Auto-exposure' for most occasions.

Oh, 1 little thing I ask is no 'sir' please, it's too formal as I'm a forum-helper not a teacher, 'WereBo' or just 'Bo' will do nicely thanks :grin:


----------



## buccaneer

Sorry for the late reply. Well Werebo, I think it's not just pracitce and love for the language, I really think that you have got a talent for it. Honestly, you do.
Thank you for that link to DonaldG's tutorial, I read that and it's very helpful. I tried it on a pic I took and the colours became more umm vivid, I wish there were more tutorials for me to study hehe. (Thats the cue for you to say "Oh alright I'll write a few myself and post 'em if you want." ) 

Oooh Mrs Werebo buys you prezzies for your birthday too? Wow! (Really impressed and feeling a bit lost because I never married- am a bit of a loner you see.) 

Well on my camera, shutter speed can be set with a dial, but aperture needs to be set by holding a button and then turning the dial which is a bit tricky for me. By exposure adjustment on the lens, you mean lenses that have aperture control on them? I didnt know there were that kind of lenses, I have to adjust f-stop on my lenses via the camera dial! And I have to set iso settings by going into a menu. 

Actually I am a bit confused about iso settings because on my camera, it shows a different picture for each iso setting. (And I have only 5 iso options). iso 200 shows a boat moving along a canal or channel or something, iso 400 shows a guy on a jet ski, iso 800 shows a well lit building at night, iso 1600 shows a guy sitting at a piano, and H1 setting shows a fish hiding between the tendrils of a sea anemone or something. Now, I thought iso setting just adjusted the sensitivity of the sensor to light, so I just up the iso value when shooting in low light/night. But the pics must mean something else too right? And I dont know what it is! Does one increase the iso when shooting at faster shutter speeds? But the guy sitting at the piano or the fish doesnt need fast shutter speed right? Could you kindly explain that to me please?

And oh, no more 'sir' for you . It probably sounds weird, I dunno, but I tend to call everyone 'sir', possibly because I have read books where even enemies call each other 'sir'. And it's kinda cool to be able to be so polite even when you are hopping mad and are getting ready to run the other guy through with your rapier, isnt it? (Ok, I AM weird!  )


----------



## zuluclayman

> Actually I am a bit confused about iso settings because on my camera, it shows a different picture for each iso setting. (And I have only 5 iso options). iso 200 shows a boat moving along a canal or channel or something, iso 400 shows a guy on a jet ski, iso 800 shows a well lit building at night, iso 1600 shows a guy sitting at a piano, and H1 setting shows a fish hiding between the tendrils of a sea anemone or something. Now, I thought iso setting just adjusted the sensitivity of the sensor to light, so I just up the iso value when shooting in low light/night. But the pics must mean something else too right? And I dont know what it is! Does one increase the iso when shooting at faster shutter speeds? But the guy sitting at the piano or the fish doesnt need fast shutter speed right? Could you kindly explain that to me please?


You are correct in saying that ISO is a measure of the sensitivity to light of the sensor. What you have to bear in mind is that correct exposure is a balance of 3 things: aperture, shutter speed and ISO - all control in some way the amount of light hitting the sensor.

The reason they have put those graphics that relate to movement or low light situations for your ISO settings is that some of the faster shutter speeds needed to capture that sort of movement (guy on a jetski) may only be available at those higher ISO settings and the low light situations will need higher sensitivity to keep the shutter speed high enough to stop camera shake blurring from slow shutter speeds. 

The guy sitting at the piano is most likely in a bar/interior area where there may well be low light - remember, cameras do not see light the same way our eyes do, what may appear OK light to your eyes will not necessarily be adequate light for the camera.

The fish hiding in the anenome could well be indicating that underwater shots require much higher ISO - it's dark in the water with only filtered light.

The images are a bit misleading in that they are more or less saying ISO will save anything - something else to remember: the higher the ISO, the more grain you will get in the images.

As you play with settings you will become more confident of setting correct values for each of the 3 exposure factors.


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you so much for the reply, sir. Yes sir,you are right, the guy with the piano seems to be sitting in a room without much light. I'll have to get a lot of experience to get the iso thing right I guess. I'll remember about the high iso being equivalent to more grains. Again, let me thank you for taking the time to explain it to me sir. Please do look at my future posts and comment, just think of me as a student, sir.


----------



## yustr

While all three components of the camera are important, iso is by far the least so. I suggest that you set your camera to iso = 200 and forget about it for a while. Learn to use the shutter speed and aperture to get the exposure your want. Once you've got a good handle on those two, play with iso a little. I can tell you from personal practice that I rarely adjust my iso during a shoot. The other night I was at an outdoor dinner party so I bumped it up a bit but normally it stays on the lowest setting of my camera. Think back to film cameras: you'd choose a film with a certain speed ( = iso) and load it into the camera and then shoot the entire roll. I suggest that its essentially the same with digital while you're learning. Pick one and shoot the entire "roll".


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for taking the time to post sir, yes I will forget about iso for now and just concentrate on aperture and shutter speed. What you said about choosing a roll of film of a particular iso rating and then shooting the entire roll makes sense. So I wont worry much about iso right now, I will just play with the other two variables and get some experience with them. Btw sir, I saw some of your pics and let me say, I absolutely loved 'em! From your posts sir, I have some doubts- what are macro rings and extension rings? And you took a pic of a ring, from the top, how did you make the ring stand erect sir? (Ok, that must be a very silly question hehe.)


----------



## yustr

The only silly question is the one not asked...

Every lens has a limit on how close it can focus. Macro rings are simply metal rings with lens mounts on both sides. You clip a lens into one side then clip the pair into the camera body. By doing so you move the point of focus of the lens and that allows closer focus. They are an inexpensive way to gain close up focus capability - but require a removable lens camera.

I simply propped the ring up using a pencil in place of a finger.


----------



## buccaneer

Ohhh, ty sir, for answering. Hmmm so micro rings and extension rings are the same thing? Ahhh I was really wondering how you got that ring to stand 'up' hehe. I think I saw some write ups about reversing your lens to do macro photography. Would I be able to do that on my little 55-200mm lens? No, I havent tried macro shooting, but was just asking so's to know.


----------



## WereBo

In theory yes, in practice it depends if the adaptor is available to fit your camera :wink:

Just to confuse the issue a bit, there's also 'Zoom-extension' rings that can double the range of your lens - They look like an ordinary extension ring but have a lens (or 2) in them. I don't know if they're available for DSLRs though, I've never needed to look :4-dontkno


----------



## zuluclayman

> Just to confuse the issue a bit, there's also 'Zoom-extension' rings that can double the range of your lens - They look like an ordinary extension ring but have a lens (or 2) in them. I don't know if they're available for DSLRs though, I've never needed to look


they are available - called teleconverters and usually give around the 1.5-2 times focal length


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you both of you for the replies. Hmmm I guess I'll, for now, be content with what I have and shoot a lot of pics and hopefully pick up the courage to post them here to have all of you guys tell me what's wrong with them, how to make the shots better etc. I read about teleconverters and it seems if one uses those things, the image quality suffers?


----------



## zuluclayman

The teleconverters made by the company that makes the camera/lens you are using are usually the better quality eg: with a Canon lens you are better with a Canon teleconverter - some third party ones have good write-ups - always worth checking photography forums or non-brand affiliated photography review sites such as dpreview among others.

Anything you put between a good lens and your sensor or a good lens and the subject is going to degrade the image quality a bit - it's your choice how much quality to give up for the benefit the thing brings to your shooting...or your hip pocket :smile:

Yes, you're right to be content with the gear you have, learn how to use it to its best - practice lots trying out different camera settings, different editing in post production, develop your critical, analytical skills (what makes a good image? why does this one work and that one not? etc) - in the end it isn't always the gear that makes a good image, it has a lot to do with the eye behind the lens.


----------



## yustr

Agree with Zulu, no amount of gear can make a bad photographer into a great one.

Some pieces of advice:



> If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. - Robert Capa





> Try to find a focal point in every picture - what is it that interests you in the scene? yustr





> Learn the rule of thirds. DonaldG


These 3 should get you started.


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for the replies 

@zuluclayman: Ty for the link sir to the review site sir. I am not rich so I wont be buying the really costly stuff anyway hehe. Yes, I am trying to develop the 'eye' to see things in the proper way, to have an idea of how something would look if I too a pic of it and I realize it's going to take me a lot of work and time. 

@yustr: Well sir I hope I am not an 'incurably bad' photographer.  (With some of my pics I feel I am, though!). Thank you for the quotes sir, I am going to write those down. I've read about the rule of thirds, but when you have just one subject, how to abide by the rule? 












I've tried two upload two versions of the same pic, the bottom one is histogram tweaked as in DonaldG's tutorial. Should I have tried to put yoda to the left/right third?

Sorry, cant seem to upload second pic to photobucket like the first one, gives me an 'unknown error'- possibly because the network icon on my taskbar shows 'no internet access' even though I am logged in to the net.


----------



## buccaneer

Lemme try doing the second image from imageshack


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

There, now you guys can see it without opening up a new page hehe.


----------



## DonaldG

The rule of thirds is to be interpreted as best as possible on many images. it is not always possible to make it spot on. 

You almost have it right. However, the dark line at the top of the image is quite distracting. I hope you dot mind, I have reworked the layout to allow a little closer to the rule of thirds.









I removed the dark line at the top and increased the canvas size to allow cropping higher above the subject.











This version shows the exact lines intersecting the 'thirds' and indicates that the image is not exactly complying the rule but being near as possible make the presentation look relatively balanced and pleasing.


----------



## buccaneer

Wheee! Ty so much sir, for replying. Of course I am happy with anything you do with my pics sir, and yes, I realize the dark line along the top was quite terrible. (I had placed an A4 sized paper on a bench and put the toy on top of it, the dark line shows the bench.) Thank you for taking time to work on my pic sir, and also for teaching me. (And please do write more tutorials :grin. If I may ask a silly question sir, how did you draw those 1/3 lines?


----------



## DonaldG

Hi Buccaneer
Thanks for the kind comments. No question is silly in the quest of finding out things. :smile:

In Photoshop, there is the facility to superimpose a grid on top of the image. One can set how many lines, line spacing that the grid has. Normaly the grid is not visible on the finished work - it is only for guidance 'on screen'.

However because I wanted to demonstrate the exact 'Rule of Thirds' lines, I used the Pencil tool, set at 1 pixel wide and used the on screen grid as the template and drew them in.

There are two ways in drawing very straight lines in Photoshop:
1) Any angle of line - Place the cursor at the start point of the line, hold down and keep it held down the Shift key. Do a single left click. Continue to hold the shift key, move the cursor to the finishing point of the proposed straight line and do another single left click. Hey presto, a nice dead straight line.
2) Vertical or horizontal lines - Place the cursor on the start point, press and hold down the Shift key. Click and hold the left mouse button and drag horizontally or vertically to the end point then let go of the mouse button and shift key.

These techniques work with all drawing tools such as Pencil, Brush, Eraser and Clone tools etc


----------



## buccaneer

Sir, I am indebted to you for your detailed reply. I tried out what you said, and put the grid spacing to 34% to get the 'rule of thirds' lines. Thank you sir, it will be most helpful for me to check whether my future pics adhere to the rule of thirds. Now that you have explained how you drew the thirds lines, it seems simple. I guess all the great teachers have that ability to make tough things simple, hehe.


----------



## DonaldG

Hi Buccaneer 
I'm glad it helped you out. I think I used 33.3% but 34% is as near enough that makes no difference. The 'crop tool' can also be set to show the rule of thirds. that is very useful when deciding where to crop.

Buccaneer. I appreciate your courtesy and the respect that you have shown to me and indeed to other members here. Rather than give me the undeserved title 'Sir', I would be honoured for you to just use my name - It makes it more friendly and makes you one of the gang! You are very welcome in our little corner here. :smile:


----------



## buccaneer

Ohhh ok DonaldG, I'll quit calling you 'sir' though it aint undeserved. Thank you for the kind words.:grin: (Werebo bit me in the neck coz I called him 'sir' waaaa  Is it that these days nobody likes to be called 'sir'? I feel sooo awkward addressing an older person by his/her name, but I am trying as so many folks I meet online dislike 'sir' for some reason.) 

I am sorry that I took a few days to reply, I was a bit unwell so do accept my apology. 

I couldnt find a way to make the crop tool show the rule of thirds but no worries, I am fine using the grid option. There is so much to learn, both about photography and about photoshop. With the help of the folk in here and a few years of study, maybe I'd be able to make half decent pics myself hehe.


----------



## WereBo

Hi buccaneer and glad you're feeling better :wave:

Depending on what model camera you have, you might be able to get the '1/3-grid' to appear on your camera display, my cam has a little button on the back that lets me switch from just the pic, pic+icons/settings and icons etc.+grid. (The grid is also handy for getting the verticals vertical, when composing your pic :wink

What model Nikon are you using?


----------



## zuluclayman

the crop with pixel aspect ratio is in CS6 but not earlier versions of Photoshop:


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for the replies 

@Werebo: I only have a lowly Nikon D40, Werebo (sheepish look as you guys have such big expensive stuff ). It's my first slr and I got it second-hand (cost only 200$), and dont have the money to upgrade right away. The manual doesnt give any hint about being able to bring up a rule of thirds overlay. It doesnt even have live preview on LCD screen. The lowest ISO is 200, and highest is 3200, which must be pretty narrow a range, but as I am a beginner, I dont mind that, I am still learning the basics hehe. 

@Zuluclayman: Oh I dont have CS6, so I'll stick to using the grid sir. Just out of curiosity sir, if I use crop with pixel aspect ratio, it shows 1/3rds grid on the pic?


----------



## WereBo

I just had a browse through the online-manual for your D40 and, though it might be old, it's got some very good specs and features for it


----------



## zuluclayman

> @Zuluclayman: Oh I dont have CS6, so I'll stick to using the grid sir. Just out of curiosity sir, if I use crop with pixel aspect ratio, it shows 1/3rds grid on the pic?


yep, the thirds grid is still available with pixel aspect ration based cropping


----------



## buccaneer

@Werebo: Thank you Werebo, for taking the time to look at the online manual. And ty for telling me the D40 isnt too bad.:smile: But I am still jealous of you guys with cameras that have oodles of features and stuff, so there! -razz: Like, my D40 only has 6 megapixels. The new D3200 I think has 24! 

@Zuluclayman: Thanks for replying sir :smile:


----------



## WereBo

Pixel-count isn't everything though, unless you're wanting to enlarge the picture to fit the side of a house or something :grin:

Your little D40 has a flash hot-shoe, changeable lenses and a manual focus, which mine doesn't have (I really do miss the manual-focus) :laugh:


----------



## buccaneer

Oh yes Werebo, I just mentioned the pixel count because my nephew (who is an engineering student btw), was like "What!!!! only 6 mp? My phone cam has more than that!" And pfffffft! You had big badass cameras before, maybe you dont have manual focus and all that now but that's just because you preferred autofocus. (And because you always wait for Mrs Werebo to gift you the nice stuff, aint it? huh? huh?):tongue: 

Btw Werebo- and others on here too- you know English is not my first language, so could you please correct me when I am wrong? I know I sometimes talk in a really awkward way so please do feel free to tell me how to correctly phrase stuff etc.


----------



## yustr

IMHO, the single biggest factor in pic quality is the eye of the photographer. Hand a Hasselblad H5D-60 ($$$$$) to a monkey and he's not going to take better pics than Ansel Adams HERE did with his box camera in the 1940's. 

Equipment wise: the quality of the glass (lens) is much more important than any other aspect in the chain.


----------



## WereBo

Yustr hit the nail right on the head there... :laugh:

I do prefer manual focus, but they were beyond our price-range at the time - I've noticed a couple of manual-focus cameras that are now only slightly more expensive than mine was, when new.... Might be time to start saving for an exchange....









Don't worry too much about your nephew's phone, my phone has only 1.3Mp :grin:

By the way, you're English is fine :wink:


----------



## buccaneer

@yustr: Ohhhh I looked at that link to the Hasselblad. 42,000$ sir! Oh gawd I'll never be able to buy that thing in my life! Thank you for the link to Ansel Adams sir, I need to look up the entry on him in wikipedia to see whether he was formally trained or whether he was just born with the 'eye'. Hmmm, so the lenses are the most important stuff. Ty sir, for teaching me that 

@ Werebo: What do you need saving up for Werebo? I've seen your pic and you look like a rich guy, honestly! (Yes, you do!) Ahhhh you must mean you should save up the dividends from the big bunch of shares you have and such huh? I myself have no money sense hehe. Ty for tolerating my English Werebo, but writing it is easier than speaking it to be honest. I have the most atrocious accent! Which camera are you gonna get?


----------



## WereBo

Hehehehehe.... I wish! at just below retirement age, unemployed and with little to no chance of finding any work here in London, I'm far from rich :grin: - However, I don't owe a single penny to anyone and have learnt, from long experience, to manage with what I have.

I must admit, Ansel Adams is my #1 'Photography-Hero', the crispness and detail he captures, as well as the natural beauty of the scenery, is totally amazing. He also shows how, in lots of circumstances, B&W can be better than colour ray:

As for upgrading, I definitely want a manual-focus bridge-cam with a long optical zoom (The 'Fujinon' lenses are superb for that, the top-range is 25mm-720mm zoom!), that's powered by 'AA' batteries, rather than some battery that's specific to the particular camera (I've a load of high-power 'Sanyo Eneloop' batteries that's the tops for digital cameras, I refuse to waste them :wink

I'm also impressed enough with Fuji to stick with their Finepix range, but I'm still in the comparing price/features of the various models with what I want/can afford (they're tending to bring new models out faster than I can compare them, at the moment :laugh

Purely out of curiosity, what country are you in? Usually folks tend to type with an 'accent' of where they're from, but I can't recognise anything from your posts, your written English is that good







- Would I be correct in guessing India/Pakistan regions?


----------



## yustr

buccaneer said:


> @yustr: Ohhhh I looked at that link to the Hasselblad. 42,000$ sir! Oh gawd I'll never be able to buy that thing in my life! ...


Hey they throw in free shipping....what a deal!


----------



## buccaneer

@Werebo: I hope that I'll be able to live my life like you, not owing anything to anyone but right now I am unemployed too. Need to find another job soon. Ansel Adams is the one who created the "zone system" right? I had asked a question about that before but nobody answered it for some reason. Wow! 25-720mm zoom is a lot of optical power! Do remember to post a pic of your new camera when you get one hehe. 
And about my English, dont start teasing meeee waaaa! I have an accent you can cut with a knife! See! You got my place of residence down pat by reading my posts. Yes Werebo, I am in India- the southern tip of it. In a state called Kerala. I was always a loner so I never talked much to others so my locution skills (is that the right word?) are pretty awful. As a youngster, I just had a few books to read and so my writing is a teensy weensy bit better than my talking. Btw how did you guess I am in India? 

@ yustr: lol! Well if I buy that Hasselblad, I would have had sold my house so there wouldnt be any place to ship it to :tongue:. I think you are in the U.S right sir? Over there dont you have lotteries with payouts of millions of dollars? If I ever win one of those, I'll buy a Hasselblad hehe.


----------



## WereBo

I weren't teasing about your English, you write very well indeed, I guessed India by your politeness and manners - From the folks I've met both here at TSF and in my local neighbourhood, I've found Indian/Pakistani folks to be amongst the politest, well-mannered and friendliest folks on this planet. Oh, you're very close with 'locution', it just has an 'e' in front:- 'elocution'









I need the long zoom for when I'm photographing my most favourite subject, Raptors (Birds-of-Prey) Hawks, Eagles, Owls, Falcons etc. When I'm visiting a 'Raptor-Centre' and they're having a flying display, the birds often appear as dots in the sky or sat in a tree a long way away :grin:

When I was using my 35mm-camera (Praktica), I had a 72mm-200mm zoom lens, with a 'doubler' adapter to give 400mm, but the pics were so 'grainy' there were near useless :sigh: - My present camera has almost twice as much 'reach' and, even at maximum zoom, the quality is superb, plus I don't have to swap lenses every time :laugh:

This pic was taken at approx 35mm(ish) zoom....










In the shadowy area midway along the left-hand side of the water, is this.... (Max zoom)


----------



## buccaneer

Thank you for correcting me Werebo:smile:. You do take such lovely pics youknow. I am not too good at identifying birds so could I ask what bird is it thats in the second pic? How did you get it to pose for you so nicely? Did you wait with your finger on the button until you got it in the perfect pose? Please do post more pics. (Btw I didnt know there was a camera brand called Practika- shows how ignorant I am about things in general!). (Also Werebo, do tell me if that period was required after the closing brackets in the previous sentence. I am confused about whether I should place the period inside the brackets or outside it.)


----------



## WereBo

The bird is called a 'Heron' and are fairly common here, especially if there's water around. I took the 'long-shot' first, then noticed something in the water, so I just zoomed in to frame the bird, then snapped it :grin: - I don't think it saw me or the camera though, usually they either fly off or just turn their backs, when they see me with a camera :grin:

*Praktica* is an ancient German company and were superb for good-quality budget-priced cameras. I chose Praktica cos they had a sale in my local shop and they were cheaper than the Nikons, Canons etc. I've still got it somewhere, along with the bag of lenses, flash-guns, filters, motor-drive and other various toys for it - I'm too reluctant to part with it, even though I've not used 35mm-film for years.

If you want to see more pics by me and our members, take a browse through the various threads here (past and present ones) in the Photographers Corner, there's loads scattered about :laugh:


----------



## yustr

Werebo,

You should dig up that old camera bag: the lens may be worth something. I own a bunch of old 42mm screw-mount lens. They mount on my DSLR via an adapter and function in manual mode. I use them almost exclusively. 

I also bought an hot-shoe adapter that lets me use my old flashes on my DSLR. No thru-the-lens metering but with digital I can make adjustments on the fly at zero cost. 

Just a thought...

No back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.


----------



## WereBo

The camera has the 'Bayonet' mount for the lens, rather than the screw-thread - I also fairly recently discovered that the 70m-210mm zoom has got broked, the focus-ring is locked solid and the slide-zoom is like grinding sand.... I suspect the lens-rails have worked loose but when I asked a repair-shop about it, he reckoned it was cheaper to buy a new lens than to repair it! Like I'm going to throw away a lens with Zeiss glass in it....









The S2500HD doesn't have a hot-shoe mount (or changeable lens), but I do have a light-triggered 'trigger' for an extra flash-gun (it picks up the original camera-flash and instantly triggers the 2nd flash)

Here's some of the pics I managed to find an' scan, taken with the BX20....





























This one's a Peregrine Falcon that's just pulled out of his high-speed stoop, he's clocking approx 150MPH here, hence the slight blurring.....


----------



## buccaneer

Darn it, another delay with my reply, I humbly apologize. 

Oh so that is the Heron. I've heard of the name before but never knew what bird it was. Yes Werebo, I have taken a peek at some of the threads in here and there are some great pics in here. I thank you for taking the effort to post more of your raptor pics.  The first pic- how did you get the owl (its an owl right?) at the perfect moment just as it was taking off? Did you wait around until it decided to get airborne? All of them are wonderful pics, I wish I could take photos like those hehe. You guys have been doing photography for a very very long time havent you? I didnt know there were different types of lens mounting mechanisms like the screw on lenses yustr mentioned. Btw, I have an engagement (of my niece) coming up and I was thinking of trying to get a few pics just for the experience and was going to take my 55-200mm lens so that I can stand back a little and still get nice pics- or is that a bad idea? The only other lens I have is an 18-55mm. (I ask too many questions don't I? :tongue


----------



## WereBo

It was partly planned and mostly luck - I was visiting the '*International Centre for Birds of Prey*', some time in the mid-1990's with my new Praktica motorised film-winder (hold the shutter release and shoot 5 frames/second until you release the button or run out of film... :laugh. I saw the demonstrator lift her hand to call the bird, so I started snapping - this pic was 3rd-4th of the sequence :grin:

As you've most likely noticed with my pics, I'm not into photographing people that much, but I'd take both lenses along****. The 55mm-200mm will be great for getting the distance-shots, but you won't get the sense of depth that you would with the 18mm-55mm. Getting 'close-and-wide' will give an almost 3D effect, but don't go too wide otherwise you'll get 'Spherical Distortion' or '*Fisheye*' effect, like when tall buildings appear to bend inwards at the top and bottom.


****I'll be making an exception to this, at the end of October, the Indian community in London is holding a massive Diwali (Festival of Light) celebration in Trafalgar Square, I'm hoping to either totally fill my 16Gb SD-card or flatten all my batteries trying :grin:


Oh, asking questions is the reason why we're all here, the only silly question is the one that's not asked :wink:


----------



## buccaneer

Oh there are such things as motorised film winders huh. It must be harder for the techs to make it possible to do continuous shooting on film than on digital cameras right? 
Oh I dont think I am a people photographer Werebo, but as I have to go to the engagement anyway (I dislike crowds so I dont usually go to stuff like this), I thought maybe I could take the camera along to get some experience in shooting, rather than just stand around trying not to look bored. Thank you for the links you put in into the reply.:smile: I guess I'll use the 18-55mm first and then when it gets crowded and other people are standing around taking pics I'll use the 55-200mm to stand a bit away. (I wish I had a 600mm lens- then I could stand right outside the church hall and snap away, but the blame thing costs more'n a new Nikon D4 camera- I had a look at the local store's price chart!) 

You are going to try and fill up a 16Gb SD card?  That must be like 4000-4500 pics? I have a couple of 2 Gb cards and a couple of 4 Gb ones and even the 2Gb hold about 525 pics in .raw format. Oh maybe your format is larger? Or do the good photographers tend to shoot as many pics as they can, Werebo? Just asking because I have never even half filled my 2Gb card. I must try and emulate you and shoot a lot I think hehe.
And ty so much for being my long suffering listener:grin:


----------



## WereBo

Yep, the mechanical film-winders couldn't go too fast otherwise the film would tear, or the mechanical shutter would jam. It also needed a rather powerful motor and a lot of gearing to overcome the friction of all the mechanical bits (film-advance and shutter-mechanism reset). It was a beautiful bit of engineering though, it simply screwed into the tripod-hole underneath the camera, and the drive-lugs and electrical-contacts were all lined up ready; as I said though, it was a bit more than heavy, especially with 4x'AA' batteries in it









My present Fuji-Finepix only saves pics in .JPG format, they're at best quality and max size so each pic is approx 4Mb-5Mb - I suspect I'll need quite a few sets of batteries to fill the 16Gb card though, I'm getting over 300 pics per set of 4 batteries (*Sanyo Eneloop*) :grin:


----------



## buccaneer

I'm glad I asked which lens to take to the engagement, because I ended up shooting exclusively with the 18-55mm. I wouldnt have taken it along but for you telling me to, Werebo, so you saved me there hehe. I would've foolishly taken just the 55-200mm which wouldnt have been of much use. I did dislike the way the pro photographers who were called to cover the event kept making the girl and guy pose for them, it looked sort of artificial to me, maybe it's just that I dont have a sense of aesthetics or what looks good. I had three Nikon batteries in total and exhausted one of them after taking about 40 pics. Must be because I kept the camera on all the time. Are you supposed to turn the camera off when you know you wont be taking any shots for the next few minutes? I missed some shooting chances because I take so long to focus manually so I have to work on that. Presently, I rely heavily on the little dot that appears on the viewfinder when the subject is in sharp focus. Perhaps that is not the right thing to do, maybe I should just rely on my eye (which isnt too good) to bring things into focus and then just check whether the dot is on too. Hearing that you get 300 pics from 4xEneloop battery set makes me wonder whether my batteries arent good enough quality. I save my pics as .RAW and they come only upto 4.5-5.25 mb. Should upgrade when I save up enough money.:grin:


P.S. I have taken the liberty of sending a pm to you Werebo, sorry. But please do have a look.


----------



## WereBo

Posed pictures are fine for a 'formal' occasion like weddings etc., but I still think the candid shots are more fun and natural looking :grin: - When Mrs WereBo and I were married, we didn't bother with a professional photographer, we just asked all the guests to let us have a copy of their prints instead - We got some absolute beauties, including Mrs WereBo about to cut the wedding-cake, she had a maniacal grin and the knife held high above her head as if she's a mad slasher about to rip the cake apart









Leaving the camera on does drain the batteries, but then you run the risk of losing a snap-shot if you turn the camera off - A lot of newer cameras can turn themselves off after a preset time (usually 2 or 5 minutes) which saves a lot of power. Also, if your camera makes lots of sounds for everything (shutter-clicks, beeps to let you know it's ready for the next shot and so on), that can help drain the battery too - My camera is totally silent and set to turn off at 2 minutes, it takes approx 4-5 seconds to 'boot up' from powering on, so I have to keep a wary eye open for possible shots and turn on ready.

I think your Nikon uses it's own special Nikon batteries, so you wouldn't be able to use the Eneloop ones, thy only come in standard 'AA' and 'AAA' sizes. Then again, batteries do 'fade' with age so it might be worth getting some new ones when you can.

As for focussing, it's whatever works best for you personally, it can be difficult to focus accurately through a tiny viewfinder and not all rear-screens are clear enough to see the details properly so autofocus can come in very handy. It's mainly when trying to focus on something in the 'mid-ground' and the camera insists on picking a 'foreground' or 'background' object that it's a pain - 'Swings and Roundabouts' :laugh:

Sadly, my new camera is on hold at the moment, all my savings have now been blown on getting my car repaired, which is a lot more of a necessity than a new camera :sigh:

(PM received and answered :wink


Oh, I was feeling a bit nostalgic after posting about my old 35mm-camera, so I dug it out and set it all up :grin:

The complete assembly....











The lenses L-R 28mm Wide-Angle, 35mm-70mm Zoom (on the camera), 2X 'Teleconverter' (double the range of whatever lens is used) and a 70mm-210mm Zoom (broken)



















Finally, the basic camera and 'film-winder'....











All that lot including various filters in the carry-bag weighs a tad under 4Kg!!! - I'd be walking lopsided at the end of the day, with that lot on my shoulder :grin:


----------



## buccaneer

Lmaoooo! I hope Mrs Werebo doesnt read your posts, Werebo. Actually, you were absolutely right in not calling in any pro photographers I think. 

Oh my camera doesnt have any beeps or such, but my cam does seem to turn on instantly, not much "booting time". I have one battery which came with the camera, and two which I bought myself after I got the cam. I dunno I just use the manual focus, dont use the auto, prolly coz I am nuts and think the manual focus is the way to go hehehehe.

Ohhh yeah cars are ofcourse a more basic necessity than a cam. I am currently begging my parents to get our car repaired (I cant afford it)! 

How did you end up breaking the 70-210mm lens Werebo? Does using a lens a lot ummm "break" it? Your lenses seem to have a lot of dials and calibrations (is that the term?) on them. Ah but you are a pro and I am a noob hehehe. Thank you so much for showing your camera Werebo, I really appreciate you taking time to show it. :grin: All that lot weigh FOUR kg? :SHOCKED:. Whee that's a lotta weight. Ummm a question if I may- How did you learn so much Werebo? Professional course? Or just experience?


----------



## WereBo

Zoom lenses have 'rails' inside that the lenses slide along to adjust the focal length, I think the screws/bolts that hold the rails have come loose. Although all the kit is in a padded bag, they did get some shaking around when driving over rough country roads/tracks etc. :grin:

Although they look complicated, there's just the 'f-Stop' ring and focus, the zoom-lenses simply slide in and out and have a 'twist to focus' arrangement, so I didn't have to keep swapping from ring to ring :wink:

I'm not a pro by any means, just a keen hobbyist who's been at it since approx mid-80's, when I got my Praktica; it was my 1st SLR camera and, apart from 1 upgrade the only one (I 1st had a 'Praktica BCA', then replaced it with a BX20 approx 6 months later). I went on a 6-month course of evening-classes, but that was more about 'Artistic' composure (street-lights taken 45-degrees off-centre and other such stuff) than how to use a camera. I did learn how to develop and print my own B&W pics though, which I really did enjoy doing at home afterwards (along with winding my own rolls of film). It saved a small fortune in costs and lots of patience waiting for the processing-labs to sent the pics back (often a 2-week wait).


----------



## buccaneer

You travel a lot, dont you Werebo? Sort of a Phileas Fogg (spelling?). Anyways it's too many rings for poor me lol . Mid 80's? Gawd I must have been in year 4 or 5 then hehehe. Oh my good Lord, you know how to develope your own film! As far as I am concerned, you are a pro, so there!  Seriously, you have put so much effort into your hobby, it amazes me! I'm officially jealous lol.


----------



## WereBo

I enjoy travelling (and love driving), but have never been outside Britain unfortunately :sigh: - I only developed and printed B&W film, colour was waaay too involved and expensive for a hobby :grin:


----------



## buccaneer

Ha, you have been all over Britain though right? I have never been out of my home state. Oh, I dont know anything about developing film, I thought both B&W and colour films was processed the same way, with just the chemicals used being slightly different. Show me how much ignorant I am. (Well, I am a pretty much ignorant guy, I dont have much knowledge on any subject.) 
Um a question coming up- While I was trying to shoot the engagement my first pic was dark so I had to do something to gather in more light. But I am confused as to which is preferred- using a bigger aperture if available or decreasing the shutter speed? I had the exact opposite problem too, of over-exposure. And I wondered which one to alter- shutter speed or aperture. I suppose you have to consider other factors like what depth of field you want and whether you want to freeze action and then tweak either or both to optimal settings? But supposing I am not worried about other factors, just want to reduce the amount of light, which setting should be preferrably adjusted?


----------



## WereBo

The basic principles are similar, between B&W and colour film, but certain parts needed to be done 3 times (1 for each primary colour), though I can't now remember whether it's the developing or printing :grin: - Also, the photo-paper and colour-chemicals were a lot more expensive, along with the colour-enlarger used for printing the photos. It also took a lot of trial-and-error to get the colour-balance right too :sigh:

As you say, over/under-exposed pictures depends on factors like DoF and subject movement, it's often an on-the-spot decision which comes from experience, and that comes with practice :laugh: - A good exercise is to pick a spot somewhere like a local park-bench, or better yet if you have a window overlooking a busy street, just take photos of people/local wildlife using the different settings then examine the results on the PC (that's why a window is preferable, you can examine the results immediately :wink. OK the subjects might well be boring, but you're after the technical experience, rather than composition. It's also a handy exercise because the photos will be taken using the same light (cloudy, sunny, early/late light (the angle of the sun can make a huge difference to a photo), so you can see how the settings affect the same conditions. There's no 'preferred' adjustment between shutter-speed and f-Stops, it's learning to balance the two to get the effect you want at the time.

Most digital cameras store what's called 'EXIF' data (Exchangeable Image File Format) which contains all the camera settings for each picture (it saves having to write down each setting used for each picture) - You can download a freeware viewer from here - *Link*, it makes analysing your results a lot easier.


----------



## buccaneer

Oooops I forgot all about ISO. Tweaking that is a matter of experience too, yes? Thank you for that link for the EXIF viewer, Werebo.


----------



## WereBo

I rarely mess around with the ISO settings, too many chances of the pics being 'grainy' or under-exposed if set wrong - The 'Auto' setting does a very good job of getting it right on my Fuji :wink:


----------



## buccaneer

Unfortunately, I am stubbornly trying the manual mode hehe. I noticed that the pro photographers at the engagement had some sort of white thingy propped up behind their flash. Like a carboard reflector or something. What is that for?


----------



## WereBo

That's exactly what it is, a reflector :grin: Sometimes the direct flash-light can be too 'harsh' for portraits etc. causing dark shadows and/or over-exposed light areas. Having the flash bounce off a white reflector softens the light to give a more natural looking picture.

Depending on the location, you'll sometimes see an 'assistant' with a reflector at one side of the subject, they aim the reflector to bounce the light at the darker areas of what the photographer is aiming at, to lighten the darker areas i.e. under the chin of the model, where the flash can't reach.

You can get a similar effect by fixing a bit of thin white material over the front of the flash, though it can be fiddly to attach, at times - Alternatively, the cardboard 'lid' used in takeaway food dishes are excellent to use as a small reflector, they're white on 1 side and silvered on t'other side, so you get 2 different types of reflector for the price of 1 :laugh:


----------



## yustr

Bucc,

I suggest you start out more slowly. Learn one aspect then another, then combine the two. (As we have said, I'd leave iso alone for awhile. Set it at 200 and leave it there.)

First learn Aperture Priority Auto; This is the "A" setting on your Nikon

In this mode you select the aperture and the camera will calculate the correct shutter speed depending on metered exposure. Aperture is displayed on the viewfinder status bar and on the information display, turn the command dial to select different apertures. The range of apertures depends on the lens.

Then learn to use Shutter Priority Auto; "S"

In this mode you select the shutter speed and the camera will calculate the correct aperture. Shutter speed is displayed on the viewfinder status bar and on information display, turn the command dial to select different shutter speeds. Available shutter speeds (1/3 EV steps): 1/4000 sec to 30 sec 


Both of those description are shortened from HERE

Once you get a feel for what each does, then move on to full manual "M" control. That way, you'll be able to decide if adjusting the aperture or shutter speedor perhaps its a little of both will give you the result you're envisioning.


----------



## buccaneer

Werebo: Ahh so it's a reflector. They had those put up behind their bigggg flash units. Ty for telling me how to make a home-made reflector hehe.

Yustr: Yes sir, I suppose I was biting off more'n I could chew. I'll try the A and S modes and learn. Thank you for that link, sir. (And ty for coming back to this thread  )


----------

