Hello

[benzen]

Just joined NG. My name is Ben. I was hanging around the library with my kids this week and found a book on Jane Bown with beautiful and stunning black and white portraits. Never thought about photography beyond my wife's iPhone images. I now want to learn....The internet is overwhelming and I would like to know from the vast source of knowledge here...how do I begin? Do I start with a film camera and a 50mm lens for a year or two? Seems more simple than digital. What cameras, films or do you recommend digital? How do you learn perspective, proper focal lengths, lighting and so forth. My main concern is being overwhelmed and just running in circles snapping pictures and learning nothing. I like the idea of walking around with a camera when I can in available light. Anyway, hello to all and I look forward to learning from all of you.

Ben

[Jack Dahlgren]

Ben,

I started with a film SLR with a 50mm lens. But I do not think that is the best way to learn anymore.

Digital cameras give you instant feedback and a nearly unlimited supply of "film" so you can experiment and see results as you change settings, change perspective, change focus ...

Some people will tell you that using film will give you "shot discipline" meaning you will take your time on every shot to get the best out of each, but in my opinion you either have discipline or you don't. The camera doesn't give it to you. It is something you need to develop by yourself, so ignore that advice.

Learning is done best through study and experimentation. You can study by looking at what other people do (like the photos on this forum) or a more formal approach by reading up at the library. Experimentation you can do on your own. You get better with practice.

I would start with learning how aperture controls depth of field and allows adapting to different levels of lighting or different shutter speeds. That relationship is at the heart of getting good exposures. Once you have that, you will have better results no matter what your subject, and you can start working on composition, etc.

Keeping to a single focal length is a good idea for practice and removing variables while you are learning. This is different from the advice about using film. You must learn what lenses do whether you are using digital or film media. So start with one and shoot up close, far away, etc. You will soon learn the limitations and strengths of that particular focal length.

Hope that makes a good start. Good luck!

[David H. Hartman]

Depending on the budget I'll recommend a dSLR. You might consider a Nikon D300s, D610 or something like that. If the budget is a little fatter I'd start with a Nikon D750. You won't learn much of anything with less than a camera that lets you set the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. You need a camera with a low shutter lag time, the time between pressing the shutter release and when the shutter opens. There is something to be said for the discipline of shooting film and finding out later but and it's a big but, instant feed back is extremely valuable. That is why I'll recommend a dSLR. I recommend a Nikon dSLR because I don't know other makers camera models.

For a lens you might buy a Nikkor 35/1.8 DX for a D300s or for FX such as a D610 a AF 50/1.8(D) or a AF-S 50/1.8G. I have a strong preference for the FX format which is the same 36x24mm format of 35mm film. Also you might consider an AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D Nikkor zoom which is an FX zoom. A pair of a AF 50/1.8(non-D) and an AF 28-70/3.5-4.05D Nikkor would be great and not too expensive. I think I bought 28-70/3.5-4.0 zooms from KEH.com (in the USA) for $85.00 and $108.00 (USD). A Nikon D610 would be fine to start with. The D thing is an improved model of lens that sends additional information to the camera about the lens and about the focus distance. A D-type lens will cost more. I feel it's not so important for the 50/1.8 but is for a zoom lens. I see no problem learning with a zoom lens. More on that can come later. One of each for under $100.00 (USD) will let you learn the strengths and weakness of single focal length and zoom lenses. Without getting extremely picky these are lenses that are good enough for a 36MP Nikon D800. 

I hope this helps,

Dave Hartman

[benzen]

Thank you David and Jack. I took a detour on my way home from work today to visit Best Buy. They are not giving away these cameras

I looked at a few but all are too much money for me at this starting point. In addition, there are so many buttons and dials. If I am to concentrate on ISO, aperture and shutter speed, why so many other options? I played with a few in the store and all were quite confusing. The auto focus illuminations were all over the viewfinder....blinking and moving around. Is it not more simple to manual focus without all that technology? Can you still manual focus anymore? I may be in over my head here. Thought it would be a bit more simple.

Interesting to see how simple it once was reading through the Jane Bown book and her insistence on making 1/60th at F2.8 work for her most often. I am sure in reality, it was never that simple but her photographs were wonderful. It has inspired me to give it a go but the complexity today is rather discouraging.

I did look at some film cameras for sale locally but after further research, I cannot buy film or have it developed locally and the cost online was quite surprising. I think it would cost a fortune to learn on film today.

Ben

[Bruno Schroder]

Hi Ben,

I would suggest that you start with a 2nd hand camera like a D3200 or even a D3000 or D3100 and the kit lenses 18-50mm and 55-200. They can be had very cheap in 2nd hand and will resell after a year with a limited loss or no loss at all. If you have 100$ left, buy also the cheapest Canon Selphy you can find to print the pictures you like and look at them "in real life", not only on a screen. If you still have 100$ left, buy the Nikkor 35mm F1.8 DX.

Put the  camera on A mode and start shooting. In the beginning, take the same picture at various apertures. When looking at your pictures, and those you like on books or online, and asking for feedback, you will easily understand when to change aperture, speed or ISO to get something you prefer. If you shoot regularly and check your pictures often, in 6 months you will have the required understanding to start knowing what to do. You will soon realise if the limitation of the camera you have is a problem and, if needed, will be ready for a next model.

Resell the D3X00 and buy 2nd hand again a D90 or better a D7X00 and a faster aperture lens of your preferred focal length. At that time, you will know which one it is by simply looking at the most used focal length of your preferred pictures. You will then also be ready to experiment with a lot of old Nikon AF or manual lenses, which these cameras allow. They are much cheaper than modern lenses but are often of really good quality. They will help you learn further. They are also no risk: if you buy one that you don't like, simply resell, they don't lose 2nd hand value.

After 6 months or a year, you will know if and why you would need an up to date camera.

Don't hesitate to post pictures or ask questions. This is a friendly, non judgmental community, with lots of skilled photographer, professional or not. For me, this forum has been the best source of help and knowledge. Every time I had a problem, several people step up to help me with advices or answers.

Good luck.

[David H. Hartman]

One can obtain a used camera with a good guaranty from KEH.com if you are in the USA. There guaranty on used lenses was 180 days but now I think it's expanded to 365 days. I don't know if they will guaranty not to sell "gray market" camera bodies. Nikon USA will not service these at any price. I think Nikon Canada has the same policy. If the budget will allow it I'd recommend a new camera body and anyone can repair the lenses I mentioned.

A new D7500 might be a nice camera. I don't think you get any metering with old manual focus lenses if that matters. I'm sure the lenses I mentioned would work fine on a Nikon D7500.

Dave

[benzen]

I have had a couple of days to hunt the classified ads, talk to some friends and colleagues and check eBay.

David, the D7500 seems to be a "new" camera and way beyond my starter budget. I did look on eBay and craigslist for some D3300, D3400 and the like but again all were in the $300+ range without a lens.

I wanted to stay under $350 with a lens or two. I purchased today a D200 with an 18-70 DX and a 35 DX. All in wonderful shape seldom used. I really do not know the differences yet between any of these cameras mentioned. I simply decided to stay local where I could see it in person and get some personal starter advice.

I am told the D200 is 10MP but that really does not mean anything to me. Something about resolution the previous owner explained to me. He also said that the 35 and the 18-70 is really not a 35??? I have a camera with a smaller sensor so the 35 is a 50. I read online today that I have a crop camera so there is a multiplier for the focal lengths.

So.....that is where I am at for now. I should get a manual and read it. Thanks everyone for your encouragement.

Ben

[Jack Dahlgren]

The d200 will do just fine. It can use almost any of the new or old lenses that Nikon has made so it can be cheap to learn using used lenses.

Someone who tells you a 35mm lens is not a 35mm lens is not being accurate. Lens focal lengths do not change when they are put in a different camera. What does change is the amount of the image you capture with a smaller sensor. Imagine a movie being projected on a screen. If you change the size of the screen to something smaller, you will lose the parts of the image that extend beyond your smaller screen, therefore the angle of view is narrower.

A longer lens will also have a narrower field of view, so some people say that the 35mm is “equivalent “ to a 50mm lens, but it only is in terms of field of view. You will will do better in the long run if don’t start using sloppy terminology.

Have fun with it. You can turn off autofocus if it bothers you. I never use it.

[Frank Fremerey]

The D200 is a good camera for the price you paid. enjoy.

I love the 1.8/35 DX. Great lens for the price. With that combo you got more than a film camera with a 50mm.

PS great advice given above!

[David H. Hartman]

I wanted to stay under $350 with a lens or two. I purchased today a D200 with an 18-70 DX and a 35 DX. All in wonderful shape seldom used. I really do not know the differences yet between any of these cameras mentioned. I simply decided to stay local where I could see it in person and get some personal starter advice.

My first dSLR was a D2H. The D200 probably would have been better for me but it wasn't available when I bought the D2H. The D200 has an interface much like the D300/D300s. It has the all important for me, dedicated AF-ON button.

About a decade ago a moderator on another board called my advice, "Stupid" when I recommended a D200 and a AF 35/2.0 to a guy who specifically asked what a normal lens was for DX camera. I asked for an apology in private mail and got myself banned for 30 days. 

I think a D200 and an AF-S 35/1.8G is a good starting combination. I think a mix of primes and zooms is fine for learning so the AF-S 18-70/3.5-4.5G ED DX should be a good addition. You get to see the strengths and weaknesses of both primes and zooms.

Enjoy your new camera!

Dave Hartman

Even if you don't use NEF(s) at first I recommend shooting NEF + JPG Fine if the D200 offers that feature.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The D200 was and still is a robust camera and highly useful. However, don't expect too much in terms of (high) ISO performance. ISO 400 is the cut-off point.

You can indeed shoot NEF (RAW) + jpg combined and that is certainly a good introduction to what modern image processing can offer in terms of flexibility and features.

If only thinking in terms of angle of view, 35 mm on a DX is "normal" by definition. Don't ever fall into the trap of believing the 35 then suddenly is "50" mm though.

[benzen]

The ISO is the camera's sensitivity to light. Correct? I am reading the manual (boring) but just need to start taking pictures and experiment a bit. The camera itself really does not mean much to me other than I have a starting point within my budget and it was a local buy. I plan to use the 35mm DX exclusively for a while to see if I can "see" well with it.

Looking at the Jane Bown book quite inadvertently at the library just a week ago inspired me to this point. I was sure I planned to buy a film camera and a 50mm lens with black and white film. However, after discovering just how much film, processing and printing would have cost me, I was immediately deflated.

I did briefly look at the camera and lens section of this site when I joined but the information is overwhelming (regarding digital and modern camera technology) and really just wanted to take pictures.

Thanks for everyones helpful comments, hints and guidelines.

Ben

[Jack Dahlgren]

ISO is indeed the camera’s sensitivity to light.

In general, at lower ISO you get less noise (similar to graininess in film) and you also are able to capture a wider range of brightness (deeper shadows or brighter highlights) without them falling off the end of the scale into pure black or pure white.

At higher ISO those things start to creep in. With the d200 Bjorn says ISO 400 is where it gets noticeable. I’d say that ISO 800 is still usable. Try a few shots at 1600 and see what happens!

The most common trade-off for ISO is time. You can use longer shutter speeds to reduce your ISO if your subject is not moving. Tripods can be used to hold the camera steady for a long time allowing you to have your preferred aperture as well as setting the ISO to an optimal value.

Some advice about ISO, just because a camera has a high maximum ISO doesn’t mean those high values are usable. Often it is best to avoid the top third or even half of the possible ISOs unless you have no alternative.

[Hugh_3170]

Every cloud has a silver lining - the D200's noiseyness as the ISO settings are increased does let one easily explore the creative possibilities of grain in producing "griity" images, especially in monochrome or B&W.  In the case of my copy of the D200, anything above ISO 640 and the noise started to show.  Otherwise a good camera - my first DSLR.

ISO is indeed the camera’s sensitivity to light.

In general, at lower ISO you get less noise (similar to graininess in film) and you also are able to capture a wider range of brightness (deeper shadows or brighter highlights) without them falling off the end of the scale into pure black or pure white.

At higher ISO those things start to creep in. With the d200 Bjorn says ISO 400 is where it gets noticeable. I’d say that ISO 800 is still usable. Try a few shots at 1600 and see what happens!

The most common trade-off for ISO is time. You can use longer shutter speeds to reduce your ISO if your subject is not moving. Tripods can be used to hold the camera steady for a long time allowing you to have your preferred aperture as well as setting the ISO to an optimal value.

Some advice about ISO, just because a camera has a high maximum ISO doesn’t mean those high values are usable. Often it is best to avoid the top third or even half of the possible ISOs unless you have no alternative.

[HCS]

Welcome to the forum Ben.

If you're just starting out in photography (as you seem to be), read up on the exposure triangle: shutter speed - aperture - ISO sensitivity (a.k.a. film speed). With that, you can understand the basis of photography and some of the discussions on this forum.

To speed up you learning curve, do go out and take pictures and show some on this forum to get feedback. Not all of that feedback will be pets on the back, but they will help you grow.

Keep at it and again welcome!