Learning curve for Dslr

[snaz]

I keep reading that there is a large learning curve for a Dslr. I currently use a canon G6, most of the time in manual mode. What type of learning curve is there?

I am considering a Dslr for improved AF times, less noise and better ISO. The canon is great in bright light and ok in less than bright light.

[aparmley]

I would dare to say that coming from the G6, which you said you used alot in manual mode, to a Canon DSLR that the learning curve would not be as steep as it coulde be... What little curve that does remain, will not be a burden but a wonderful learning experience delivering great results...

The biggest thing I've learned is that the harsh learning curve applies to ones wallet, it takes some getting used to on the money side of things... LOL ie. lenses, accessories...etc etc!

Good luck!

[Ant]

There isn't a very steep learning curve at all. In fact to tell you the truth I think that many photographers exaggerate the technicalities and difficulty of both photography and SLR use. To paraphrase a well known saying; photography is hardly rocket science. There's a learning curve, sure, but it's not too steep at all.

I think the hardest part of DSLR use is post processing. With a P&S digital you tend to take what you get straight out of the camera, and they are designed for this, but with a DSLR you really need to start getting into post processing to get the best results..you don't have to of course, but you'll end up with far better photos if you do.

So the learning curve isn't so much with the DSLR as with photoshop :)

[aparmley]

You know I thought about this post on my drive to work...

This hit me -

The learning curve does not really exist if you mean learning the camera and settings... its just like everything else in life, a new television has a new remote with new features, have to read how to work it... just as your G6, you had to read how to use the more advanced features. Same as a DSLR you can use existing knowledge to take good photos with a DSLR. The real learning curve I think is in composition and in choosing the creatively correct exposure. Thinking outside of the normal snapshot approach is also where the curve exists. It seems that with a DSLR/SLR these concepts and approachs come into play more, because you really can tell the differnece in those shots that everything worked well, lightening, angle, subject etc etc... and you will try consitantly be looking on how to create the best photograph of your subject and thats where the learning curve exists...

With the right approach to each photograph, with good equipment, very little post editing is needed... So maybe learning how to limit your post editing is where the curve exists?

[Ant]

The real learning curve I think is in composition and in choosing the creatively correct exposure. Thinking outside of the normal snapshot approach is also where the curve exists. It seems that with a DSLR/SLR these concepts and approachs come into play more, because you really can tell the differnece in those shots that everything worked well, lightening, angle, subject etc etc... and you will try consitantly be looking on how to create the best photograph of your subject and thats where the learning curve exists...

I agree to a certain extent, but I think that many of the things you mention are more to do with an inherant natural ability than with a learning curve. I've seen photographs from people who have been shooting for only a couple of years that look breathtaking. I've also seen photographs from people who claim to have been doing photography for over twenty years that look like somebody's snapshots. To a large degree good composition and vision is not something that can really be learned, you've either got it or you haven't; and it's got nothing to do with DSLRs.


With the right approach to each photograph, with good equipment, very little post editing is needed... So maybe learning how to limit your post editing is where the curve exists?

I wouldn't really agree with this. A camera merely takes light and turns it into a fixed image. wether you choose to let the camera do all the work, or do most of it yourself in photoshop it's essentially the same thing. I would also refute that any camera settings can match what a competent person can produce in a good editing program, but then it all depends what type of photography you do as well.

[aparmley]

I am speaking from personal experience. I can see your points and they are good ones.

I was not saying that a DSLR will cause your vision for a good photograph to be better, I was just making the point that it will cause one to think more, work a scene better, which in turn would develope ones eye for photography.

The pictures that come out of my Canon XT compared to my Canon A95 not only look a lot better they require less post editing. With the A95 I would have to adjust the shadows and highlights, contrast, and hue and staturation levels on every photo graph to get the optimum image to my eye. With the XT I rarely have to do any of that. Occasionally a slight adjustment in shadows and highlights but thats about it. the contrast and saturation rarely if ever need to be tweaked. But again, these are just my results.

I am sure all those schools of photography would hate to have people thinking that they are either born with the ability to take good photographs are they aren't. But, I agree to certain extent that ones on personality may have a result on their ability to create wonderful photographs. I was not born with the inherent understanding of what makes an exposure the a correct one, but after working with cameras for a few months, and especially my DSLR and its light meter I have come to understand all the components of a good exposure more than I would have with my P&S.

Again - These are my results and experiences.

I completely agree with you Ant that some of the pictures taken with P&Ss from complete novices can be outstanding, Just as some so called pros will take the occasional snapshot.

But, I think we can all agree that post editing applications are fabulous and extremely powerful, but like my highschool golf coach used to always tell us, You can't make chicken salad out of chicken $h*t! Meaning if a vast majority of the pictures out of the camera are crap, theres not much that can be done about it no matter how good you are in photoshop. but you're right to an extent. It really all depends on what your shooting, for what purpose... For example some of my low light high ISO shots from my A95 don't come close to what I can do with my XT and 50mm 1.8 lens. So from that standpoint, to get a usable picture from my A95 may take a lot of Post editing and still not be as good as the ones from the XT - but very little if any editing would be required with my XT to get an acceptable image. Those are just the results and conclusions from a few of my experiences. I thought I would share those.

Good compositon is definetly something that can be learned. I don't think anyone is born with a innate ability to compose photographs. You learn it through trial and error, a book, a class, etc....

Again, I would just like to point out Ant that I am speaking from my own personal experience going from a Point and shoot to a DSLR. It really opened my eyes and it could have very well been my own naive photographic eyes, but I give a lot of credit to the DSLR to opening those eyes and making me see a few things more clearly that I didn't have a firm grasp on prior. So the DSLR was a learning tool for me and I am thankful I made the leap!

good stuff though Ant.. Good points I think the middle road here is a safe answer to Snaz's question??

Making an Extreme point here, but do tell me if I misunderstood you here

I wouldn't really agree with this. A camera merely takes light and turns it into a fixed image. wether you choose to let the camera do all the work, or do most of it yourself in photoshop it's essentially the same thing.

So if I move from dim interior lighting with my manual settings of 1 sec at F4 at ISO 400 set my camera up outside to shoot a flower in my garden at high noon. If I were to leave my manual settings untouched and took the picture it would result in a horribly overexposed photograph washing out nearly all the color. I could then, by your rationale, take that resulting photograph with photoshop and create the exact same photo I would have created by using the correct camera settings? That takes so much PS talent that I don't think I could possibly comprehend. I will elect to select the correct exposure settings for each photograph instead of doing all the work in PS, thats just me though. Again an Extreme point, plus I am just in a smart A** mood today. I mean no offense at all, seriously I don't. Just offering up my example here trying to understand your point... I don't think I get it. Maybe I need more help understanding where you are coming from...

[D70FAN]

There isn't a very steep learning curve at all. In fact to tell you the truth I think that many photographers exaggerate the technicalities and difficulty of both photography and SLR use. To paraphrase a well known saying; photography is hardly rocket science. There's a learning curve, sure, but it's not too steep at all.

I think the hardest part of DSLR use is post processing. With a P&S digital you tend to take what you get straight out of the camera, and they are designed for this, but with a DSLR you really need to start getting into post processing to get the best results..you don't have to of course, but you'll end up with far better photos if you do.

So the learning curve isn't so much with the DSLR as with photoshop :)

Actually photography is the understanding of physics, and particularly how different light interacts with the camera, sensor, lens, and subject.

There is a big difference between using a dSLR and mastering a dSLR. I have used my d70 for about 16 months, but still have not mastered it. Every time I change lenses requires a new learning event.

If you are taking snapshots then the learning curve is almost zero. If you are mastering the art of photography there's a heck of a lot to learn both in and out of the camera.

Going from a G6 in manual mode to a dSLR (or any other camera) in manual mode will require relearning many things especially if there is no film SLR experience.

It's not rocket science, but it is science, and art thrown together. You can learn both.

[Ant]

So if I move from dim interior lighting with my manual settings of 1 sec at F4 at ISO 400 set my camera up outside to shoot a flower in my garden at high noon. If I were to leave my manual settings untouched and took the picture it would result in a horribly overexposed photograph washing out nearly all the color. I could then, by your rationale, take that resulting photograph with photoshop and create the exact same photo I would have created by using the correct camera settings? That takes so much PS talent that I don't think I could possibly comprehend. I will elect to select the correct exposure settings for each photograph instead of doing all the work in PS, thats just me though. Again an Extreme point, plus I am just in a smart A** mood today. I mean no offense at all, seriously I don't. Just offering up my example here trying to understand your point... I don't think I get it. Maybe I need more help understanding where you are coming from...

Ah, my point probably wasn't clear enough ;) What I meant to say was something closer to: Imagine that a photograph would look perfect with just the exact amount of contrast. You probably couldn't get that precise amount of contrast straight out of the camera, the in-camera settings are a little too coarse, so you'd have to tweak the contrast yourself in post editing. Of course you'd need to set up the basics of exposure first and get the camera to do as much of the work to get you there; but for that final tweak to perfection (if ever such a thing exists) requires post process. Again, though, it depends what results you're after.



Actually photography is the understanding of physics, and particularly how different light interacts with the camera, sensor, lens, and subject.

There is a big difference between using a dSLR and mastering a dSLR. I have used my d70 for about 16 months, but still have not mastered it. Every time I change lenses requires a new learning event.

If you are taking snapshots then the learning curve is almost zero. If you are mastering the art of photography there's a heck of a lot to learn both in and out of the camera.

Going from a G6 in manual mode to a dSLR (or any other camera) in manual mode will require relearning many things especially if there is no film SLR experience.

It's not rocket science, but it is science, and art thrown together. You can learn both.

Absolutely, I agree. I didn't mean to imply that there was no learning curve at all, just that I find it's quite often axaggerated. Like just about everybody else I've learned many different things in life and the mechanics of photography...the physics as you aptly call it, isn't one of the more difficult things. Of course mastery of photography is a different matter and not something I'd ever claim to have :) but then I'm just talking about learning the basics of DSLR use to get you up and running, which is what I assumed the OP was talking about.

[snaz]

Thanks for the responses. Overall, I don't think it will be that big of a jump; I have some film slr experience and the G6. I know there will be a lot to learn with a new dslr, but I think it is doable for me.

But...the responses raise another point of interest for me. I don't like to post process, just don't have alot of time for it. I have read that a dslr actually produces soft photos striaght from the camera and to get the sharp crisp look oftern requires more post processing than a point N shoot.
Any truth to this?

Right now, the benmefits I see from a dslr are fast AF and good ISO. I know there are others, but this is what is important to me. Just trying to see if the jump to a dslr is worth it for me.

[Ant]

T
But...the responses raise another point of interest for me. I don't like to post process, just don't have alot of time for it. I have read that a dslr actually produces soft photos striaght from the camera and to get the sharp crisp look oftern requires more post processing than a point N shoot.
Any truth to this?


Yes and no. By default P&S cameras tend to highly sharpen the pics straight out of the camera, DSLRs tend not to. So, yes, the photos may appear softer from a DSLR. However, there are in-camera sharpening settings you can adjust to amend this.

You don't have to post process with a DSLR, there are many in-camera settings that can adjust the way photos look. It's just that from my experience most DSLR users like to get into post processing too to get the exact look they want.

[Ant]

Just to add that the level of sharpness you'll get from your DSLR is also highly dependant upon what lens you're using too :)

[Jredtugboat]

<some snippage>
You don't have to post process with a DSLR, there are many in-camera settings that can adjust the way photos look. It's just that from my experience most DSLR users like to get into post processing too to get the exact look they want.

I've enjoyed reading this thread. To put another point on it, I think this post processing urge goes exactly to the temperament that a lot of SLR and dSLR owners already have: using a SLR/dSLR is no great feat. But mastering it, as George said, and tweaking it, as you have both said, are other matters entirely.

As photographers (professional and amateur) we enjoy the challenges and possibilities of working with images and contributing to what I call the "visual vocabulary" of the world; this is our artistic imperative. Digital SLRs offer a whole new world of possible control (both in kind and extent) toward making that contribution and that's what makes them exciting

I own a Powershot G2; it's a wonderful little camera. Most of my photos are taken in Program mode, which forces me to think about how to use artificial/natural light and a lot of composition. Moving to the SLR means a number of things, mo I want to go to an SLR for the higher performance (especially burst rate and AF speed) and I'm committed to learning post processing because, as others have already stated, the photos that come out of the camera are going to be a different type from what I'm used to on my P&S.

Just some thoughts.

Julian

[eastbluffs]

Yes and no. By default P&S cameras tend to highly sharpen the pics straight out of the camera, DSLRs tend not to. So, yes, the photos may appear softer from a DSLR. However, there are in-camera sharpening settings you can adjust to amend this.

You don't have to post process with a DSLR, there are many in-camera settings that can adjust the way photos look. It's just that from my experience most DSLR users like to get into post processing too to get the exact look they want.

From the perspective of someone right near the start of that learning curve.

1. Yes, its a very exciting process. I am immediately getting far "better" results than with the P&S. I had an SLR in the old days, even read a book, and got a few good photos but almost never anything stunning. On the digital P&S, I've occassionally captured that perfect moment with my P&S but usually found those shots clouded with luke-warm camera performance of the P&S. Only rarely would perfect camera performance and perfect moment coincide.

So, I needed the help of more consistant equipment performance (low light, fast shutter speed, more DOF control).

Now my expectations are not tainted with lower expectations as with P & S.

2. I'm only now learning that my P&S actually lacked any significant DOF control. I never did too much with "manual mode". Recently found the 400 ISO setting - but nearly always used Apeture Priority setting.

Here is a shot I took yesterday with my Canon 20D with a decent lense (Tamron 28-75 f2.8).

This would have been impossible on a P&S, at least for me.

3. By "Straighten Out" in P&S, and softer shots in the DSLR... I have noticed that while everything is in-focus (no DOF) on my P&S, that the results are rarely what I would call "very sharp". Infact; soft pictures was about number 4 on my list of dissatisfaction with my Canon S60. However; I've not noticed any softening in the DSLR, if I'm exactly in focus. To the contrary.


I would say that if he's thinking about DSLR and always uses manual mode on a P&S, that he will actually find it easier on a DSLR despite the 10 dozen obscure settings because it will be a much more gratifying and successful try-and-learn process.

Note: This is a straight-from-camera shot - only editing was size reduction. ISO 400, f2.8 70mm zoom, Large/High JPEG mode.. Speed was about 500, but didn't record it. Still haven't figured out how to get that info (but need to learn it!).

[aparmley]

Ah, my point probably wasn't clear enough ;) What I meant to say was something closer to: Imagine that a photograph would look perfect with just the exact amount of contrast. You probably couldn't get that precise amount of contrast straight out of the camera, the in-camera settings are a little too coarse, so you'd have to tweak the contrast yourself in post editing. Of course you'd need to set up the basics of exposure first and get the camera to do as much of the work to get you there; but for that final tweak to perfection (if ever such a thing exists) requires post process. Again, though, it depends what results you're after.


I See your point now. Thanks. This is true... with a little tweaking you can make a good photo better. I have saved a few in my day ;)

[aparmley]

East could you resize that photo to something like 800hx533w so we can all see it on one screen, your photo exceeds both height and width parameters of most screens! Thanks!

[eastbluffs]

East could you resize that photo to something like 800hx533w so we can all see it on one screen, your photo exceeds both height and width parameters of most screens! Thanks!Be happy to do that tonight - at a friend's now.

However - 533 x 800!?! Is your resolution under 1024 wide?

I wanted to make it nice and BIG to demonstrate the DSLR quality, and make it more dramatic, but I see the extra width (1163w) is causing the horizontal scroll bar to appear on a 1024 x 768 display. (My home laptop is at 1600 x 1200). However; I'd wonder if anyone has less than 1024 horizontal pixels and is surfing a photo site - and if so the ounis is on them to increase to a reasonable minimum ... I find the tiny photo postings sort of anti-climatical. If its worth posting, well lets really see the thing!

Sorry to mess up your display - will be fixed tonight.

[D70FAN]

Be happy to do that tonight - at a friend's now.

However - 533 x 800!?! Is your resolution under 1024 wide?

I wanted to make it nice and BIG to demonstrate the DSLR quality, and make it more dramatic, but I see the extra width is causing the horizontal scroll bar to appear on a 1024 x 768 display. (My home laptop is at 1600 x 1200). However; I'd wonder if anyone has less than 1024 horizontal pixels and is surfing a photo site - and if so the ounis is on them to increase to a reasonable minimum ... I find the tiny photo postings sort of anti-climatical. If its worth posting, well lets really see the thing!

Sorry to mess up your display - will be fixed tonight.

You might want to look into a photo hosting site like smugmug for diplaying full resolution pictures. Many of us are using lower cost laptops for work and travel so 1024 x 768 is the norm.

Oddly enough most of us on the dSLR boards actually use dSLR's so we are pretty aware of the picture qualities and capabilities of dSLR's.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as we have all gone throught the "holy cow!!!" stage, and certainly don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, just realize that we are not all using a $3000 laptop or a 21" display most of the time.

That said, the posted picture was worth the scrolling around, but again it would be better viewed on a decent gallery or hosting site.

Thanks for your kind understanding.

[eastbluffs]

You might want to look into a photo hosting site like smugmug for diplaying full resolution pictures. Many of us are using lower cost laptops for work and travel so 1024 x 768 is the norm.

Edit: It's done. Hope that's better. Its now 700 pixels wide and cropped.

Man, its so great to finally be able to get creative with the camera! "HOLY COW!!!"

Thanks for the kind words on the photo. Film SLR was just too difficult (and expensive) to learn with. Accidental good results happened, but not too many got repeated.

"snaz", don't be afraid, go DSLR. You will love it!:)

[snaz]

Here is a related question. Will the canon rebel XT or the Nikon D50 or even the canon 300, all with kit lens, have a better quality than the G6, not that the G6 is bad. In fact in bright light it is incredible.

Just checked out 3 dslrs mentioned above and although I would really like the XT, i did not like the way it felt; too small for me. Really liked the way the D50 felt, but overall I like the images and menu of the canon a little better. What about the 300 rebel, would that be a worthy upgrade from the G6? I like the way this one felt also.

[D70FAN]

Edit: It's done. Hope that's better. Its now 700 pixels wide and cropped.

Man, its so great to finally be able to get creative with the camera! "HOLY COW!!!"

Thanks for the kind words on the photo. Film SLR was just too difficult (and expensive) to learn with. Accidental good results happened, but not too many got repeated.

"snaz", don't be afraid, go DSLR. You will love it!:)

Many thanks. Maybe its lower rez, but now I can appreciate the whole image, and it looks even better. Actually I've had a D70 now for about 16 months and I'm still invoking the sacred bovine. Made the mistake of "playing" with a new D2X and... c'mon lotto. ;)

P.S. Thanks for the spelling correction. This was one of those words that the spell checker couldn't fix (i.e. holy and holly). Although a holly cow might be an interesting topiary.

[aparmley]

Be happy to do that tonight - at a friend's now.

However - 533 x 800!?! Is your resolution under 1024 wide?

I wanted to make it nice and BIG to demonstrate the DSLR quality, and make it more dramatic, but I see the extra width (1163w) is causing the horizontal scroll bar to appear on a 1024 x 768 display. (My home laptop is at 1600 x 1200). However; I'd wonder if anyone has less than 1024 horizontal pixels and is surfing a photo site - and if so the ounis is on them to increase to a reasonable minimum ... I find the tiny photo postings sort of anti-climatical. If its worth posting, well lets really see the thing!

Sorry to mess up your display - will be fixed tonight.

I use 800x533 or 533x800 for posts here, depending on whether I shot in portrait or lanscape. Basically, the XT and I believe the 20D use the aspect ratio of 3:2 - So reducing in size to view on the web at or near full screen requires the photograph to be reduced dimentionally - You're saying, duh! I know - but 800 x 533 is a 3:2 ratio so therefore it will warp the content of the photograph.

20D photo deminsions = 3504 x 2336px ~ 3:2 ratio ... I suppose I could have used 850 x 567 ... I just use 800 and 533.. keeps things simple... I hope you didn't think I was saying you must use 800x533 or else! LOL wasn't the point I was just hoping you'd reduce the size to a reasonable size so we could take in the photograph and its entirety with one glance versus scroll up and down side to side...

Thank you very much for doing that for us! I appreciate it. It is a sharp photo thanks for sharing...

I use 1024 x 768 here at work and at home... I don't have any high res monitors.

[TheObiJuan]

I always use 800x533 and if needed, I use a 200x200 100% crop in one corner to demonstrate the lens' abilities.

[aparmley]

I always use 800x533 and if needed, I use a 200x200 100% crop in one corner to demonstrate the lens' abilities.

Little assistance please -

Obi - when you say 100% crop... if its 200x200.. what makes it a 100% crop? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the 100% crop... maybe you can help

[eastbluffs]

You're saying, duh! I know - but 800 x 533 is a 3:2 ratio so therefore it will warp the content of the photograph.

20D photo deminsions = 3504 x 2336px ~ 3:2 ratio ... I suppose I could have used 850 x 567 ... I just use 800 and 533.. keeps things simple
Actually; I didn't think about that. I just wanted big. I usually just use the auto setting in Photoshop CS to keep the ratios the same, and choose a reduction value (in pixels) that's evenly divisable (like 1/3, 1/2, 1/4 of the total) although I don't really know if that's necessary - just seemed to make sense to avoid dithering mistakes as much as possible. I'm sure I'll find out differently now that my ignorance is on display on this matter. I'll use your suggestion for 850 x 567, thanks!

I see now that my response to you was, well, requiring enough flexibilty on my part to actually reach my foot to my mouth. Sorry.

As Obi knows; I've been obsessed with Depth of Field lately. It's such a major part of photographic art. I find the Blur (what's it called, Bohemish ???) on that lense striking.

It was relevant for Snaz's decision for going DSLR to realize what he's missing on the P&S's. The "full manual control" claim is sort of weak on a camera that all but lacks DOF control (due to tiny sensor and lense size). Hopefully that photo was a good demonstration of that - and that a rank novice can learn just a few things and start snapping good stuff that's impossible on the P&S.

So; unlike most lense demonstrations, this one wouldn't benifit much from a crop. But having a full screen display where the subject is still clearly in focus, and showing good color, contrasts, detail, etc, and framed by some really interesting wildlife blurs seems to work. In other words, the lense and camera performance was more of a "whole package" on this one (I think). However having to scroll around to see it is lame. Oops.

By the way, how DO you do a crop? I see a little square in a photo, then a blow up of that tiny square. Is there an automated tool to do that?

[eastbluffs]

Many thanks. Maybe its lower rez, but now I can appreciate the whole image, and it looks even better. QUOTE]
I can use all the complements I can get. But I'm also open to suggestions for improvement - whether at photo time or post-processing (which I know so little about). I did have the "simultaneous RAW" setting on that photo so I have the matching .CS2 file. I couldn't get the .CS2 plug-in to work for photoshop CS and haven't loaded my canon software yet. I guess what I'm mainly looking to improve is my ability to recognize a good shot when it happens, and recognize it during post-processing.

[QUOTE=George Riehm]Actually I've had a D70 now for about 16 months and I'm still invoking the sacred bovine. Made the mistake of "playing" with a new D2X and... c'mon lotto. ;)
No worries. It'll be obsolete in a year and you'll get it for half the price. Or maybe the camera fairy will see all your great shots online and decide ... sorry, dreaming again.;)