Adapting to DSLR

[Geoff Chandler]

Has anyone else found it harder than they first thought it would be changing from a Point and Shoot to a DSLR??
I virtually learnt all my photography on a few film SLR's yet since I have been
using Point and shoot digitals I find photography quite different in many better ways.
Now I have a DSLR I am finding I have to work harder to get those good shots
For a start - depth of field is reduced and so focus is more critical, because of this I find myself stopping down more and so using slower shutter speeds or higher ISO settings.
Then there is so much to fine tune that it's often not quite right - exposure seems harder to get right as well
With practice the results are superb - but it's just as easy to get worse results...
Geoff

[coldrain]

It is normal, Geoff. Through the view finder you have to learn to look again.

But do not stop down too much all the time... the worst part of compact digital photos often is the depth of field, everything in focus, everything distracting, everything becoming the subject.

Just look at what others actually are doing when you see a photo you really like... and keep on looking and practising.

I had the same thing going from my S30 to my EOS 350D 2 years ago, even though I have used SLR's before.

This was the result after just a few (2-3?) months of getting used to the 350D:
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29674

[mcenut]

The first mistake I made when I started with Digital was that I thought everything had to be done in the camera. I didn't remember that in the film world there are the developing and printing process in the darkroom.

In the digital world the tools have changed but the processes are relatively the same. Instead of a darkroom we have programs like Photoshop. We do the same relative things like adjust for color (used to use chemicals, now software) and adjust for sharpness when printing (focus ring on the developer traded in for an Unsharp Mask filter.) So the tools are still the same, but we call them different things.

And grain and white balance used to be knowing what film to buy, now it is just adjusting for it.

[Geoff Chandler]

I also need to get back to using the DOF preview button - I used to use it all the time with Film SLRs.(FSLR?)
I am trying not to open the f-stop too wide as I find the lens does restrict the DOF and also at wide angle the edges become softer. Plus it looks really nice between f5.6 and f8
I am getting there though.Just got to get into that I'm OK groove!
Oh - I keep finding I am using a slightly slow shutter speed - again it's adjustment -I used to do the little sum - focal length = shutter speed - but of course I now need to multiply by 1.5, plus my previous camera had anti-shake - I got lazy!! Never used to have shake problems - so I need to re-learn.

[michaelb]

I also need to get back to using the DOF preview button - I used to use it all the time with Film SLRs.(FSLR?)
I am trying not to open the f-stop too wide as I find the lens does restrict the DOF and also at wide angle the edges become softer. Plus it looks really nice between f5.6 and f8
I am getting there though.Just got to get into that I'm OK groove!
Oh - I keep finding I am using a slightly slow shutter speed - again it's adjustment -I used to do the little sum - focal length = shutter speed - but of course I now need to multiply by 1.5, plus my previous camera had anti-shake - I got lazy!! Never used to have shake problems - so I need to re-learn.


One thing you may want to consider is picking up a 50mm 1.8 for about $100. It will let you really experiment with DOF and take pics that you can't with the wide DOF of most point and shoot cameras.

Here is an example...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/399303548_4b8ab91d1b.jpg

[michaelb]

You can do this with your 17-70 to some extent as well - here is one from my 17-70 from the other day.....

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/408880696_70ba5643cb.jpg

[Geoff Chandler]

Yes - the 50mm / 1.8 sound like a really good idea, might also work well as a portrait lens?
The 17 - 70 is OK but at wide angle you have to watch out for soft edges at large appertures - below f4 - it's fine further in the range or f4 and above.
Not sure how much the 50mm f1.8 would be in the UK but I am till paying for the rest of the kit!!

[michaelb]

Yes - the 50mm / 1.8 sound like a really good idea, might also work well as a portrait lens?
.....

I use my 50mm 1.8 as my main portrait lens; when I know I will be shooting people I make sure to brinig this lens along.

[toriaj]

I've been reading Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure." All of it is very familiar until he starts talking about digital cameras. He says a 7-21 mm lens on a DSLR is the equivalent of 38-155 on a 35 mm. :confused: Wouldn't a 1.6 crop factor make it 11-35 mm? He basically says there are no wide-angle lenses for DSLRs.
He also says that a 2.8 aperture on a DSLR is equivalent to f/11 on a 35 mm. Saying that small depth of field isn't attainable on a DSLR. This doesn't make sense to me, because I have experienced small DOF on my DSLR. Maybe not as small as it would have been on an SLR, I don't know because I've never used one. But it still seems small enough for creative use.

Hmm, can you explain this to me? Do you find yourselves hampered by the abilities of a DSLR?

[T06]

.... may have been having a bad translation moment from slr to dslr, that is a statement I cannot agree with at all! Crop factors aside we all have seen depth of field & field of focus as far as digital goes, then again maybe I've missed something in between, wouldn't surprise me.:)

[achuang]

I've been reading Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure." All of it is very familiar until he starts talking about digital cameras. He says a 7-21 mm lens on a DSLR is the equivalent of 38-155 on a 35 mm. :confused: Wouldn't a 1.6 crop factor make it 11-35 mm? He basically says there are no wide-angle lenses for DSLRs.
He also says that a 2.8 aperture on a DSLR is equivalent to f/11 on a 35 mm. Saying that small depth of field isn't attainable on a DSLR. This doesn't make sense to me, because I have experienced small DOF on my DSLR. Maybe not as small as it would have been on an SLR, I don't know because I've never used one. But it still seems small enough for creative use.

Hmm, can you explain this to me? Do you find yourselves hampered by the abilities of a DSLR?

Those focal lengths sound more like they're coming from non-DSLR digital cameras as that sounds about right. Most P&S cameras have a crop factor of about 5 or 6. The small sensor gives a larger DOF and f2.8 DOF being equivalent to f/11 on 35mm does sound possible.

[coldrain]

And the "no wide angle lenses" remark was (almost) true 3 years ago.
It just is a dated book.

[toriaj]

Thanks so muchfor the comments. That makes much more sense now :D

[Geoff Chandler]

I've been reading Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure." All of it is very familiar until he starts talking about digital cameras. He says a 7-21 mm lens on a DSLR is the equivalent of 38-155 on a 35 mm. :confused: Wouldn't a 1.6 crop factor make it 11-35 mm? He basically says there are no wide-angle lenses for DSLRs.
He also says that a 2.8 aperture on a DSLR is equivalent to f/11 on a 35 mm. Saying that small depth of field isn't attainable on a DSLR. This doesn't make sense to me, because I have experienced small DOF on my DSLR. Maybe not as small as it would have been on an SLR, I don't know because I've never used one. But it still seems small enough for creative use.

Hmm, can you explain this to me? Do you find yourselves hampered by the abilities of a DSLR?

Sounds like this got all confused!
With point and shoot digital cameras the mm vary from camera to camera.
The equivalent is often worlked out and told to us when we are buying or looking into it. I think my Olympus is 6.2 - 62 which is equiv to 38 - 380
But the figures vary depending on the camera - it's to do with the size of the sensor and the distance between the sensor and the lens. Wider angle lenses give greater depth of field - so my 6.2 to 62 gives lots of DOF.
With DSLR's they have larger sensors and so all the internal angles are different and the equivalent is nearer to the 35mm film - with the Nikon the factor is 1.5 - so a 50mm lens is equiv to 75mm - it will have a very slight increase in DOF over a film SLR - but not much
I hope this makes some kind of sense of it all

[toriaj]

Sure does. Thanks!

[ander75it]

Actually, the increase in DOF is not "slight" between FF and APS-C.

If you shoot a subject at 1.5 m with a 135 on FF / film, or the same with a 85 mm on an APS-C camera (both yield the same frame, pixel more, pixel less, as 85x1.6=135), you will find that DoF is much larger with the APS-C camera, even considering smaller CoC.

Example at f/2:
5d, 135 mm, 150 cm, CoC 0.03 mm: DoF 1.35 cm
30d, 85 mm, 150 cm, CoC 0.019 mm: DoF 2.23 cm = 65% more

at f/8:
5.39 and 8.94 cm (same proportion, more or less)

The numbers may seem small, but the effect is very much visible in portaits, at least in my experience.

[Norm in Fujino]

Now I have a DSLR I am finding I have to work harder to get those good shots. . . . - but it's just as easy to get worse results...

Yup, been there, done that. I went from an Oly C-755 to the E-300 and wondered what was wrong with me (or camera), particularly when I tried doing macros with the ZD 50mm f2 macro lens. It took a while, but after I became more conscious of focus and DOF issues, things took off.

Marchin' up the ole learning curve. . .

[ander75it]

It can possibly be compared with driving a Fiat 500 and driving a Ferrari; while the first is easier to drive, once you learn to drive the second you can do more.
;)

[Geoff Chandler]

Thanks all - this is what I am finding
Also - re DOF - it's been long enough that I can't really remember how much DOF I used to expect with my old OM2 - but i DID notice a huge increase when I got my 1st digital camera - now I am noticing the reverse with the DSLR - and, from that distance it seems fairly similar without a side by side comparison - but i do believe you - it's just that now I am finding I need to use the old DOF preview button again like I used to, also helps quite often to do manual focus at the same time to get exactly what you want.
Still working at it and still learning...

[drama]

Nice thread

I just picked up a 350D
Waiting for my lenses, working with the kit lens now
I am finding sharp manual focus with the optical view finder very difficult almost impoossible, AF is great though

I tend to do most of my shooting manually, so am a bit confused by this
Any suggestions ?

[danielg]

Nice thread

I just picked up a 350D
Waiting for my lenses, working with the kit lens now
I am finding sharp manual focus with the optical view finder very difficult almost impoossible, AF is great though

I tend to do most of my shooting manually, so am a bit confused by this
Any suggestions ?


Manual focus is good. My camera is in manual mode all the time. although with my poor eyesight, I ind myself relying on AF more and more.

[AdamW]

...although with my poor eyesight, I find myself relying on AF more and more.

Exactly. Me, too.:(

[Vich]

You can get a focusing screen, but it's more practical in one of the models with a larger viewfinder (5D, 1D series, etc).

Another thing about DSLR vs. P&S that can trip people up is that P&S does a LOT of in-camera processing, particularly on saturation and sharpening. You can apply that yourself, or even change the in-camera defaults. Or; just practice holding the camera more still and bulk PP changes on the computer (or not).

[Geoff Chandler]

You can get a focusing screen, but it's more practical in one of the models with a larger viewfinder (5D, 1D series, etc).

Another thing about DSLR vs. P&S that can trip people up is that P&S does a LOT of in-camera processing, particularly on saturation and sharpening. You can apply that yourself, or even change the in-camera defaults. Or; just practice holding the camera more still and bulk PP changes on the computer (or not).
Nothings ever straight forward is it!
I got my first P&S and was very impressed initially, great sharpness and DOF ~ nice colours. Then I wanted a wider angle and more natural photos - (although I had tweaked the camera in house to get pretty natural shots already) got my 2nd P&S more of a Prosumer really - manual zoom - very natural pics. Now I have the DSLR and I wonder what have I done - it's so hard to predict how the pics will come out - they are inconsistent, often awfully shallow DOF to the point I wonder if anything is in focus -no wait... that little blade of grass... just there - THAT's in focus!!!!!
I am going away to celebrate our 25th Wedding anniversary and I am seriously wondering if I should take a step back and take the Prosumer - at least I KNOW how all the pics will come out!!!
Oh - I don't want to do loads of post processing - yeah sure we all have to do some, I have to admit - I am getting more to grips with the camera - but it still lets me down sometimes - and this is just casual practice shots so it doesn't matter. Will I get seriously p'd off it it takes a load of under and over exposed blurred shots on holiday????
OK, OK I am over stating the case - I just expected more from a DSLR

[Geoff Chandler]

OK - it does work sometimes...
just re-sized - no tweaks no sharpening, just purely resized
straight off the camera
500th sec, F8, ISO250 82mm equiv
Nikon D80/Sigma 17 - 70

[ander75it]

Needs some sharpening (ALWAYS sharpen after resize!), but OK! :-)

In what mode do you use your DSLR typically? Manual, aperture priority, time priority, program, auto, scene modes?

[Geoff Chandler]

Needs some sharpening (ALWAYS sharpen after resize!), but OK! :-)

In what mode do you use your DSLR typically? Manual, aperture priority, time priority, program, auto, scene modes?
Thanks for that - actually - that was part of my point... I don't want to have to sharpen and tweak every photo - I haven't got the time :-( - though I do enjoy fine tuning the best ones :-)
This is another taken today - it's not sunny though so the colours are not as good
Again - only resized - but I have nudged the camera sharpness up one notch

[Geoff Chandler]

~ and if I like the pic - maybe one such as the one above?? - THEN I will have a tweak
- simple example is this one - just slightly slightly sharpened and gently framed...
So - this was done on the DSLR and worked out OK - so I guess I just need more patience?
(Nikon D80/Sigma17-70)

[Prospero]

Nice pictures, Geoff.

I agree with ander75sit that the first one does look a bit soft, but I also think that it is caused by the resizing. Of course sharpness is a matter of taste, but after resizing I often find my own pictures on the soft side as well. I often use the unsharp mask after resizing (0.7 radius and 70% strength) to recover the detail I lost.

The second one is great. The DOF is very nice and the picture looks crisp(especially the second version).

It is indeed a matter of patience, I guess. The Minolta you have is also a great camera, so it's hard to get similar results with a camera you're not yet entirely familiar with.

For me the adaption to dSLR was a lot different, every time I tried a close-up with my point and shoot (Olympus C450), the result was crap. When I got my dSLR, the results imediatly were so much better, even when I had it in automatic mode. Of course, it's not like I got great pictures immediatly, but at least it was an improvement over what I was used to.

[ander75it]

Geoff, you are not forced to edit every pic, just know that the defaults in your dSLR are more "conservative" than in your prosumer, and adjust the settings accordingly. Then, if you want you can PS to your heart's content, and if you don't, it's still OK; just learn your settings, test, test, test, and then use the values that give you the best results.

However, you DO have to sharpen when resizing, and that is true regardless of the source, because you are essentially throwing away details and therefore lose acutance. Me, I use Mike's Framer, a 10$ script for PS that resizes, frames (I don't do that), places a signature and sharpens. A click and I am done, it's not a waste of time at all, all of the pictures I have on Flickr are obtained in this way, and don't lose much from the original, whereas a simple resize often gives much duller pictures. Ah, settings: for USM, I use 150,0.3,1; I prefer a smaller radius for pictures sized for the web.

Bye

[Geoff Chandler]

ander75it, prospero
Thanks for all the encouragement!
I reckon it is purely a matter of time - I was starting to think the D80 was a duffer! - I remember learning the C-740 for quite a while - then the A-200 took longer as it was different in many ways and possibly sits right inbetween a point and shoot and DSLR in some ways. It was harder to get the nice sharp full bodied pics the C-740 got on the A-200 - but with time and patience I came to really appreciate the A-200 and learn workarounds for its few shortcomings. The D80 hasn't got those sortcomings as such - but needs to be worked to get the results and I am graqdually reverting back to my SLR ways - I am starting to use manual focus more as well.
What settings do I use?
Mostly I sit in apperture priority. I scroll the apperture and watch the shutterspeeds - also move the ISO around as well to suit the situations.
I didn't realise about sharpening after resizing down - I always thought the smaller images 'appeared' sharper anyway.
Thanks again guys - it's really helpfull and I feel a lot more posative now.;)

[Vich]

I agree. First shot is OOF.

2nd looks wonderful. Narrower DOF can work miracles for making something look less 2D. It's a huge advantage!

However; if you want wider DOF, stop down a bit (7.2 or above if it's sunny), step back from your point of focus, and stick to the wider lenses. f-stop, distance to focus point, and focal length play a dance to create the DOF width. Also; some lenses simply never focus sharply when wide open (and have CA and other quality problems - I have a cheap Sigma like that).

Your first shot above makes me wonder about your focusing technique. My first 20D + Tamron lens required that I pre-focus one or 2 times on every shot. Before learning that, I got many OOF shots. Also; put the cross hairs on some line of contrast.

A USM lens on a camera that's been factory calibrated for focusing (with that lens) is amazing for instant and sure focus, even at narrower DOF.

The P&S cameras, due to their tiny sensors, have very wide DOF so focusing isn't as critical. However; they can lack that wonderful blurred look unless in skilled hands.

[Geoff Chandler]

Thanks Vich
Actually - the shot was f8
That's where I am finding it hard - I am having to really bump up the ISO because the shutter speeds are getting dangerously slow due to wanting more DOF, obviously the combination of longer focal length and larger sensor and macro all weigh against me in that respect - but, as you say, you get a wonderfull 3D effect with background OOF - when it gets that critical I am starting to find manual focus better as the camera doesn't always choose the exact same focus point as I might - and moving the focus points around is slower than just turning the focus ring - also I can use the DOF preview at the same time - in the old FSLR days that's how I operated and got it down to a fine art - never had auto focus at all

[Clyde]

Nice thread


I am finding sharp manual focus with the optical view finder very difficult almost impoossible, AF is great though

I tend to do most of my shooting manually, so am a bit confused by this
Any suggestions ?


This troubled me quite a bit too. I went from an old pentax K1000 to various digital P&S's, and when I upgraded to the canon 350, I too couldn't really use manual focus. My friend with a pentax DSLR can focus manually. I think it is the relative size of the viewfinder. Still, AF is nice.

Clyde

[VTEC_EATER]

Since I have taught myself most of my photography on my DSLR, I find it difficult to use point and shoot cameras. I cant figure out the menus, I cant find where to adjust the ISO, where to adjust most of the user defined adjustments (aperture/shutter speed/white balance. ect...). And where the hell is the exposure compensation? These are the few things that I adjust for almost every photograph. I find it hard to operate a camera without having easy access to these simple adjustments.

Point and shoots for me, are like DSLRs to you. Very confusing, but when you get the hang of them, they are fairly easy to understand. All cameras operate on the same principals. They are all trying to find the proper exposure. If you figure out how to adjust the elements to produce to proper exposure, then thats half of the battle.

Composition and artistic expression is the second half.

[Geoff Chandler]

VTEC_EATER ~ you didn't mention what P&S's you were wrestling with?
My A-200 is quite SLR like anyway with most functions one button and scroll away. My C-740 is great because, despite having longer winded menus - it has a few usefull direct buttons and a user definable button, and has a huge range of user adjustable settings.
But I really do understand your point of view - and DSLR's are much more user friendly in the menu & buttons areas.

[Vich]

Thanks Vich
Actually - the shot was f8
That's where I am finding it hard - I am having to really bump up the ISO because the shutter speeds are getting dangerously slow due to wanting more DOF, obviously the combination of longer focal length and larger sensor and macro all weigh against me in that respect - but, as you say, you get a wonderfull 3D effect with background OOF - when it gets that critical I am starting to find manual focus better as the camera doesn't always choose the exact same focus point as I might - and moving the focus points around is slower than just turning the focus ring - also I can use the DOF preview at the same time - in the old FSLR days that's how I operated and got it down to a fine art - never had auto focus at all

Well, THAT shot was 1/500th, not slow at all. It's just plain OOF. A miss. It happens.

Welcome to the DSLR. It'll take some getting used to, but you're such a good photographer with the P&S I can see how switching is tough, but when you do adjust, you will be one amazing photo taking machine!

Like going from roller skates to blades. Like a leaving your old favorite bicycle for some pro wheels with all their sensitive turning response, lack of comforts, etc.

Hope to see many more shots! Very enjoyable.

[Geoff Chandler]

Well, THAT shot was 1/500th, not slow at all. It's just plain OOF. A miss. It happens.

Welcome to the DSLR. It'll take some getting used to, but you're such a good photographer with the P&S I can see how switching is tough, but when you do adjust, you will be one amazing photo taking machine!

Like going from roller skates to blades. Like a leaving your old favorite bicycle for some pro wheels with all their sensitive turning response, lack of comforts, etc.

Hope to see many more shots! Very enjoyable.
Very kind comments indeed!! - and it IS true, to all intents and purposes, the photo is OOF~ which I was a bit miffed about seeing as I had spent SO much time trying to get it right. Frustrating and the sort of thing that could get me running back to the shop telling them what I think of the darn thing!! - However, & I take a deep breath and recieve encouragement from here. I now find it may often be better to focus manually in these situations - further close inspection shows me that, even at F8, the DOF was very shallow and the actual focal point was of no use whatsoever - resulting in all the important stuff to be off focus. Subsequent shots taken with manual focus combined with depressing the DOF preview button really help me to get the desired focus point and range of DOF. The auto focus works perfectly well - but it was pointing at the wrong part and I didn't realise at the time. Back in the FSLR days it wasn't an ssue as I only ever had manual focus equipment - now I can choose between Auto and Manual - and, to be honest, manual is better at times.

[Geoff Chandler]

A pic and crop of in focus blossom
Top pic shows limited DOF - centre crop shows it does have an in focus bit.
Point and shoot would have had this one completely sorted with much more DOF and therefor an apparently better shot.