Are DSLRs too complex for beginners

Don’t feel like you HAVE to use manual, use which ever mode to get the shot that you want in your head. Shooting in manual when the same shot can be done in Av with half the effort is a waste of time.

The only thing you need to learn is how they work and when the time comes and you need to, you know how to.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
But I am setting 2 of the 3 settings, do I not get any credit?
Click to expand...

The only credit I can give you is to say how wonderful your images are! They really are superb Raymond.(n)

You are saying exactly what I mean - use the mode on your camera which makes the shot the easiest :)
 
Last edited:
Manual with auto iso is a pretty auto mode too...
 
Professor1991 said:
... One thing I will say is that, manual modes open up a whole new field of creativity.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in why you think this is the case.

If you are shooting in a studio environment, with one or more remote manual strobes, then yes, technically manual opens a new field of creativity because non of the auto / semi auto modes will work.

But it you are in a situation where you are shooting in ambient light, I'm not sure I see the difference between shooting in say, Aperture Priority with Exposure Compensation, and Manual where you select the Aperture then dial in a shutter speed based on the cameras exposure meter (offset as you wish)?
 
soeren said:
Hmm shooting with an A6000 which is constantly lifeview with the ability to see setting effects there is no way Im gonna learn anything about exposure no matter if it in S, A, M or whatever mode. Just move the dial until things looks right, job done. It really takes dedication to take the cameras processor (matrix, evaluative etc)totally out of the equation and taping over the screen to get to the point where YOU have to do the heavy lifting and experience the cost of failure and then learn to look at the scene to evaluate if it's predominantly dark or light and by how many stops. Thank god (eh Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus...........) our cameras does such good jobs evaluative such a high number of scenes relatively correct and giving us the needed feedback instantly.
Click to expand...

Strangely, I actually think the A6000, coupled with a fast prime such as the 50 f/.8, makes an excellent tool for teaching how the different elements affect exposure.

Stick it into 'M', with fixed ISO, then because the EVF changes as you change the settings, you can clearly see how changing things changes the image (and as a bonus, if you look into the lens rather than the EVF, you can see the physical aperture changing as well, to reinforce the 'small number = big hole' concept).

Then change the ISO, and see how it does exactly the same.

It's such an 'instant' tool, it's great!
 
Faldrax said:
I'm interested in why you think this is the case.

If you are shooting in a studio environment, with one or more remote manual strobes, then yes, technically manual opens a new field of creativity because non of the auto / semi auto modes will work.

But it you are in a situation where you are shooting in ambient light, I'm not sure I see the difference between shooting in say, Aperture Priority with Exposure Compensation, and Manual where you select the Aperture then dial in a shutter speed based on the cameras exposure meter (offset as you wish)?
Click to expand...

This is merely a viewpoint so I am happy to be proven wrong but when I say creativity, I mean different techniques such as long exposures, time lapses etc....
 
Professor1991 said:
This is merely a viewpoint so I am happy to be proven wrong but when I say creativity, I mean different techniques such as long exposures, time lapses etc....
Click to expand...

That's just different technique.

Creativity is using the same technique in ways that hasn't been done before or on subject matter that you don't usually associate with those techniques.
 
Raymond Lin said:
That's just different technique.

Creativity is using the same technique in ways that hasn't been done before or on subject matter that you don't usually associate with those techniques.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected ! Since I've managed to learn manual controls, it's allowed me to better understand techniques such as long exposures and I'm beginning to take an interest in time lapses as well.
 
Professor1991 said:
I stand corrected ! Since I've managed to learn manual controls, it's allowed me to better understand techniques such as long exposures and I'm beginning to take an interest in time lapses as well.
Click to expand...

Now try to blend those time lapses into things more than traffic or waterfall, use it in ways that you don't normally see. Taking interest in time lapses is no more than learning that it works, that's nothing more than opening the lens for more than your eyes naturally sees things to give an effect. Think beyond it, think just open the shutter for longer, think the contrasts between the still and the moving.

Like blending stills with movement.

OFAVVTM.jpg


Or stacking images in camera, yes, this is done in camera. I don't do this enough, it can work really well.

DjHtRxn.jpg


Sometimes the silhouette is all you need.

nsWlucS.jpg


For example, same place, different results.

Day. Natural light

8ekFFyx.jpg


Night. Off camera flash.

doOm6H8.jpg
 
Orangecroc said:
Full manual is overkill as a starting point. Auto exposure is good to use until you understand the auto focus systems on the camera.
Once you know how auto focus works, learning the effects of aperture or shutter speed while using AF and either auto ISO or a set ISO is easiest to do in priority modes for each.
Click to expand...
 
Graham W said:
I find "Professional" DSLR's much less complicated than "Entry Level" DSLR's
Probably because I learned the same way as you Geoff.

Edit. For the same reason "Point&Shoot's" can be a complete mystery to me. :)
Click to expand...

This is true. They have proper controls. An entry level camera with everything important hidden in a menu is often the first suggestion that people make. I think my second digital camera was a Nikon D800 which many people recommended against as being a tool for an advanced photographer but the reverse was the case. The trend towards retro design has been a huge step forward in usability.
 
I've used point and shoots cameras in the past. Bought my first dslr in 2004. I found it easy to use. I think I used Program mode first then switched to Av. I used Manual a few times. Now I have a new camera and I'm finding it difficult to use, but slowly getting there lol
 
Professor1991 said:
This is merely a viewpoint so I am happy to be proven wrong but when I say creativity, I mean different techniques such as long exposures, time lapses etc....
Click to expand...
@Raymond Lin has proven my point admirably; but if you were a painter you wouldn't think of saying 'using a pallete knife, watercolours or charcoal had made you more creative. They're simply the tools we use. It's the craft not the art.

But sadly very few photographers consider creativity because photography appeals to technical types, and like musicians, it's easier to get tied into honing technical skills rather than 'creating' something different.

Not that there's a 'right and wrong', it generally rears it's head on threads like this when people confuse creativity with technique.
 
Professor1991 said:
This is merely a viewpoint so I am happy to be proven wrong but when I say creativity, I mean different techniques such as long exposures, time lapses etc....
Click to expand...

OK, that makes sense - for some types of photography, you need to be able to set all the parameters directly because you are bypassing the cameras metering system, and for that you need manual mode (with fixed ISO).

As Phil V said - it's the 'technical' skill of determining the correct settings that allows you to explore the 'Creative' art of producing different styles of image - the two are linked, as you need the technical proficiency to calculate the combination of settings, and set them in the camera, so produce the creative effect you require, but it's the creativity that produces the image (as Raymond Lin demonstrates).
 
Faldrax said:
...you need the technical proficiency to calculate the combination of settings, and set them in the camera, so produce the creative effect you require, but it's the creativity that produces the image (as Raymond Lin demonstrates).
Click to expand...

IMO creativity isn't about effects, it's about how you see and think, and it's about ideas. Sometimes that requires technical knowledge to produce an effect, sometimes it requires P mode and good timing.
 
Phil V said:
@Raymond Lin has proven my point admirably; but if you were a painter you wouldn't think of saying 'using a pallete knife, watercolours or charcoal had made you more creative. They're simply the tools we use. It's the craft not the art.

But sadly very few photographers consider creativity because photography appeals to technical types, and like musicians, it's easier to get tied into honing technical skills rather than 'creating' something different.

Not that there's a 'right and wrong', it generally rears it's head on threads like this when people confuse creativity with technique.
Click to expand...

For my own personal tastes, both in music and photography, technicality seems to run inversely proportional to creativity.
 
Often you will find people asking the wrong question - what settings was that?

That question is meaningless, there is no way using the same setting will get you the same shot. The question to ask is what was your intention leading up to the shot.

What you are looking for is the event leading up to a photo, whether a job or an event or by mere chance, the story leading up to a photo is more important than the settings used. Ask how they came up with the idea, ask what circumstances forced them into that idea, often some of the best photos are as a result of some other limitation. I recall reading a blog where a wedding tog on his off season sent in most of his kit to Canon to get it serviced and out of the blue he was asked to do a job with no noticed so he grabbed whatever gear he had left over which was 1 body, 2 batteries with unknown charge, a 45/TSE and a 70-200. What came out of it are photos that he never would have otherwise shot, with very interesting creative shots using the tilt shift effect.

If you had just asked “what lens was that”, what does that really tell you? Because to be honest, you can spot a tilt shift image from miles away anyway.
 
“One of the interesting things about having little musical knowledge is that you generate surprising results sometimes; you move to places which you wouldn’t do if you knew better, and sometimes that’s just what you need." Brian Eno.
 
Ste_S said:
For my own personal tastes, both in music and photography, technicality seems to run inversely proportional to creativity.
Click to expand...
Orangecroc said:
You like really creative musicians who can't play and creative photographers that can't use cameras?
Click to expand...
Well I think it’s a balance... but you can go a long way (in music at least) with one or the other. For example London Symohony Orchestra are technically some of the best musicians in the world but they don’t have the creativity of The Beetles who couldn’t even read music (at least Paul McCartney couldn’t not sure about the others).
 
Understanding the exposure triangle is probably the (just) most important thing an aspiring photographer should learn but it doesn't help when you have to delve through menus to change settings like most entry level dslrs. Fuji's are a breeze to use in manual with the evf and dials right in front of you but it doesn't matter what you use if you can't compose an image properly.
 
antihero said:
Understanding the exposure triangle is probably the (just) most important thing an aspiring photographer should learn but it doesn't help when you have to delve through menus to change settings like most entry level dslrs. Fuji's are a breeze to use in manual with the evf and dials right in front of you but it doesn't matter what you use if you can't compose an image properly.
Click to expand...

As I said in an earlier post I really don't think this is the case with digital; it was with film but now that exposure latitude is so wide with a DSLR I personally believe other things are far more important. If you don't believe this then how do we see exceptionally creative photographs from 'point & shoot devices'?

Composition, Focus & Creativity are far more important; I do believe Creativity is a gift and that is why there are exceptional photographers but you can still 'learn' creativity to a certain extent by carefully looking at others photography and developing your own style from practising. I find creativity very difficult so will never be exceptional as a photographer but I understand every control on my camera and what it does - it's just ideas I struggle with :-(
 
Fraser Euan White said:
As I said in an earlier post I really don't think this is the case with digital; it was with film but now that exposure latitude is so wide with a DSLR I personally believe other things are far more important. If you don't believe this then how do we see exceptionally creative photographs from 'point & shoot devices'?

Composition, Focus & Creativity are far more important; I do believe Creativity is a gift and that is why there are exceptional photographers but you can still 'learn' creativity to a certain extent by carefully looking at others photography and developing your own style from practising. I find creativity very difficult so will never be exceptional as a photographer but I understand every control on my camera and what it does - it's just ideas I struggle with :-(
Click to expand...

All of this^

Except the bit about exposure latitude, because exposure latitude on print film was brilliant and it's only a small proportion of digital the cameras in use that have latitude anywhere near (but people who own them take it for granted).
 
I probably didn't explain that in the best way Phil!

From memory colour film had a latitude of around three stops -1 to +2 and positives slightly less -1 to +1? (B & W film had significantly more though)

Remembering the film days would it be fair to say that most amateur photographers didn't have dark room facilities and sent their film away to be processed - often being returned with shadows just being completely blacked out.

I think most amateurs with digital find editing software fairly easy to use and can get reasonable results from a fairly poorly exposed image? If the results are reasonable (i.e. focus, composition and creativity are good and the software has corrected the poor exposure) then the encouragement still remains and theories like the exposure triangle can then be learnt at a later date to improve the image more?

Good exposure does not make a good photograph IMO
 
Last edited:
droj said:
No, but it's a sound basis ...

It might be down to creativity, or it might be down to luck, and who could tell the difference?
Click to expand...
The old Arnold Palmer quote covers that.

Sometimes we are indeed lucky, but the chance of us being lucky increases dramatically if we put some effort in too. I hardly ever shoot landscapes, which would explain how I've only ever managed to shoot one landscape image I'm proud of (and it was shot on a phone, I don't even know if I still have a copy). It was indeed pure dumb luck. Whereas the great images I shot on Saturdays wedding are down to years of practice, and the 'OK' images I shot at WRGB at the weekend are due to a complete lack of creativity, not enough practice and putting in a bit of effort on the day.
 
Phil V said:
Sometimes we are indeed lucky, but the chance of us being lucky increases dramatically if we put some effort in too
Click to expand...

Pretty much. You increase your odds by being in the right place for you chosen subject and just taking a load of photos. I think most of the more famous photographers will say they have a low hit rate, perhaps one image in a roll of 36 exposure film (in old money) ?

On advice for beginning photographers, I'd say just go and take a lot of photos. Look at them afterwards and work out which ones you like the best. Understand why you like those photos, and use that to influence your shooting going forwards.
Don't worry about the exposure triangle or junk like the rules of composition.

Ed Sutton said:
...if you take it literally
Click to expand...

:)
 
Last edited:
Ste_S said:
Pretty much. You increase your odds by being in the right place for you chosen subject and just taking a load of photos. I think most of the more famous photographers will say they have a low hit rate, perhaps one image in a roll of 36 exposure film (in old money) ?
Click to expand...

What I always say to newbies who get obsessed with their 'hit rate' is that it doesn't dramatically improve. What does improve is the quality of the keepers, and more importantly, the quality of the stuff that goes in the bin.

At first the bin is full of out of focus or exposure errors, eventually it's full if slightly missed moments, alternative not quite perfect composition etc.

I could publish a couple of hundred images from my reject pile this weekend and most people would say 'there's nothing wrong with those', they're just not as 'good' as the ones I picked, subjective, requires confidence and an understanding of what 'looks right'
 
As I've improved (although still not great) I've found I crop photos very little (i used to hack chunks off of my photos), I tend to allow myself a little leeway around each photo. What I do still struggle with is sharp focus when I'm in a rush, to get that shot.
All (well nearly all) the issues I have are related to me and my technique and not because I don't know how to use my camera. So do I think modern dslr's are complicated? No. If anything they're very user friendly. The principles of exposure I don't think have changed, shutter speed, aperture, ISO. You have a built-in light meter, align the needle in the middle and you've got a pretty close to right exposure in most cases. The skill comes in knowing how to interpret the meter and which metering mode to use. This is a skill that comes from learning and experience.
I'm sure many beginners look at photography as a technical exercise, without paying much attention to what they are photographing. The camera can do so much for you, why put it in manual mode? There are times for manual, but not that many. The semi auto modes are there to help you, so why not use them. That's not to say you don't need to know how your camera works or learn what all the menus and buttons do.
 
nandbytes said:
Learning to use a DSLR is one thing but there is also learning to photograph and compose well. Learning a DSLR inside out won't teach you this. Then there are those who say you either have the eye for it or you don't...

What is people's experience/opinion on this
Click to expand...

Just like camera operation skills, there's a lot of technical composition stuff which can be read up on & absorbed. In the end, though, it comes down to developing a sense of what feeling the composition conveys.

Some folk develop that sense more quickly than other; I've started to acquire it by doing the technical composition thing and analysing what I've made.
 
All who buy pianos do not become virtuosos.

Some have talent and some don’t. Some are willing to put in the learning and hours of practice, others not.

Some could do good things with or without talent or effort but very few will achieve greatness in the leagues of Ansel Adams or Henri Cartier-Bresson...
 
I am more gut feeling shooter. It's like this feeling, I could walk down the street and just put on the brakes and take the shot or notice there is something there and wait for it Same thing when I am editing, I just following my gut feeling.

The technical side is a given these days, it's like driving, once you have driven for a while you just don't stall anymore.
 
Gosh, i'm jumping in there and i've read nothing so it can be totally unrelevant.
but just to say, mid-range compact are as complicated as dslr. I bought a panasonic LX100 which i really like. I first thought it will be easy to get started but find out that you get all the bells and whisle that you have on a dslr. I think any camera if you move out of the set mode are as complicated to each others. Especially when it came to focusing system.
 
antihero said:
Understanding the exposure triangle is probably the (just) most important thing an aspiring photographer should learn but it doesn't help when you have to delve through menus to change settings like most entry level dslrs. Fuji's are a breeze to use in manual with the evf and dials right in front of you but it doesn't matter what you use if you can't compose an image properly.
Click to expand...
I am an Olympus user and found setting up my mates Nikon D3200 for light painting a horrible experience not helped by the lack of apparent features that my old Oly compact had that were easy to access.
 
alfbranch said:
and found setting up my mates Nikon D3200 for light painting
Click to expand...
Does the Nikon know how to shoot in "light painting mode", as your Olympus does? ;)

When I have to explain, how to use a DSLR, I start with aperture priority mode (AV, A) and manual ISO. The beginner may then look through the viewfinder, change the aperture up and down, and watch how the time value follows.
I would explain, which apertures to use basically and how this affects the overall sharpness and why you have to take care of the shutter speed.

Next I would explain, how to choose an useful ISO value.

That's pretty all, a beginner has to know for the first days, weeks, month... I'm still shooting 99,9 % that way. ;)
 
lemo said:
When I have to explain, how to use a DSLR, I start with aperture priority mode (AV, A) and manual ISO. The beginner may then look through the viewfinder, change the aperture up and down, and watch how the time value follows.
I would explain, which apertures to use basically and how this affects the overall sharpness and why you have to take care of the shutter speed.
Click to expand...

You lost me at manual ISO.:LOL:
 
In film times, there was fixed ISO from frame 1 to 36 or whatever. You only had to think about aperture and shutter speed for some time. That's why that was that easy to understand. If ISO does what it likes, it's hard to understand, which effects different apertures have.

When you're knowing that all and you're old and lazy, there's still time enough for auto ISO, but then you may get better results with full auto mode or some "creative modes" anyway. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top