Beginner Newbie seeking advice

T

Tjm2986

Messages
97
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys

I am relatively new to photography only been properly doing it for around six months. I started with a fujifilm X-A20 mirrorless but soon upgraded to a Canon Eos 2000D. I am massively into film photography so also have a Canon AE-1 and a Canon EOS 500n. I am after some advice on when to upgrade my DSLR and what to upgrade it to. I have no one subject when it comes to photography I do a bit of everything.
 
Thanks for that I guess the camera shop I use just want my money as they do nothing but tell me my 2000D is a pretty poor camera and I should upgrade it asap. I currently shoot Jpeg as I don't know how to go about shooting in Raw. Is there a tutorial or anything on here that can give me some beginner tips on shooting in Raw?
 
YouTube is probably your best bet - there are lots of tutorials on just about every topic. Do be aware of the ones that are just 'pushing' sales though, rather than giving advice - you'll soon spot the type.

I don't know Canon gear I'm afraid as I use Nikon, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer advice on them. :)
 
Sky said:
YouTube is probably your best bet - there are lots of tutorials on just about every topic. Do be aware of the ones that are just 'pushing' sales though, rather than giving advice - you'll soon spot the type.

I don't know Canon gear I'm afraid as I use Nikon, but I'm sure someone will be along shortly to offer advice on them. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks I will take a look. How do I post my Flickr link in my signature like you have? I really am a newbie haha
 
Tjm2986 said:
How do I post my Flickr link in my signature like you have?
Click to expand...

Go into your profile (click on your avatar on the title bar) and click on signature, then click on the chainlink icon. This will bring up a box where you can add the link to your Flickr account and whatever text you want. Feel free to cut and paste my text if you want it the same.
 
Sky said:
Go into your profile (click on your avatar on the title bar) and click on signature, then click on the chainlink icon. This will bring up a box where you can add the link to your Flickr account and whatever text you want. Feel free to cut and paste my text if you want it the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much. I have so much to learn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
You'll get there - we all started the same way. Just take it one day at a time.

If you want to speed things up, then watch tutorials, take online courses and read/study as much as you can. Maybe join a local camera club - it's a slow way to learn, but you'll meet other people local to you that may help you improve.

Although digital photography is a lot more technical than film ever was, the beauty is it won't cost you a fortune in developing and printing costs.

It will help if you don't rush things when you take a picture just because you can. Take time with your composition and think about what it is you're trying to achieve.

Most of all enjoy the journey - it can be very rewarding.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Thanks for that I guess the camera shop I use just want my money as they do nothing but tell me my 2000D is a pretty poor camera and I should upgrade it asap.
Click to expand...
They would say that.... 2000D is a great entry level camera, with a modern 24mp sensor. Stick some decent glass on it and there’s nothing stopping you taking some amazing images. Telling a beginner that he needs to upgrade his body is pretty bad (even unscrupulous) advice. I took some of my best images with my entry level Nikon D3300. I had it for about 5 years before upgrading. Gear gear gear blah blah blah. If you have money burning a hole in your wallet, splash out on some shiny new kit. If not, just get out and shoot with whatever you have.
 
Sky said:
You'll get there - we all started the same way. Just take it one day at a time.

If you want to speed things up, then watch tutorials, take online courses and read/study as much as you can. Maybe join a local camera club - it's a slow way to learn, but you'll meet other people local to you that may help you improve.

Although digital photography is a lot more technical than film ever was, the beauty is it won't cost you a fortune in developing and printing costs.

It will help if you don't rush things when you take a picture just because you can. Take time with your composition and think about what it is you're trying to achieve.

Most of all enjoy the journey - it can be very rewarding.
Click to expand...
I find digital I shoot things willy nilly as I know I can just select the best exposures and discard the rest. The beauty I find with film is that you take much more time on composition and making sure the focus is just right. I find this especially true when I use my AE-1 due to the manual focus etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sky
Tom Pinchenzo said:
They would say that.... 2000D is a great entry level camera, with a modern 24mp sensor. Stick some decent glass on it and there’s nothing stopping you taking some amazing images. Telling a beginner that he needs to upgrade his body is pretty bad (even unscrupulous) advice. I took some of my best images with my entry level Nikon D3300. I had it for about 5 years before upgrading. Gear gear gear blah blah blah. If you have money burning a hole in your wallet, splash out on some shiny new kit. If not, just get out and shoot with whatever you have.
Click to expand...
I did think this myself. He was telling me I need full frame to get the best results and was trying to sell me a 6D Mk2. I have a few lenses. I'm yet to buy a macro lens yet is a macro worth it?
 
I have been taking photos for about 60 years mostly on 35mm SLRs but for about the last 22 years on digital as well and since 2008 on a Nikon D40 DSLR. It has a 6mp sensor, the ISO is not much good above 800, the screen does not move, it does not take videos etc etc.
Without being boastful I could buy the top range full frame DSLR and a set of lenses without denting my finances but I do not find the D40 too limiting, I adjust my shooting to suit my equipment.
The important thing is to see a picture, get the right lighting, get the right composition and get the timing right.
I should add that I take pictures for my own enjoyment, not for sale and not for getting likes :)
Here is an example of what can be done.
Common Hawker.jpg

You only need to upgrade if you get frustrated when your camera starts limiting you.
 
Last edited:
Tjm2986 said:
I did think this myself. He was telling me I need full frame to get the best results and was trying to sell me a 6D Mk2. I have a few lenses. I'm yet to buy a macro lens yet is a macro worth it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, he’s just a salesman trying to get your money. Full frame will you give a slightly more dynamic range and low light performance. Fractionally shallower depth of field. Really only needed when your shooting stuff that’s really pushing those criteria. Lots of pros use aps-c bodies like the Fujifilm X-T4 or smaller sensors like micro 4/3. As Suvv has shown, you can get great results with really old bodies.

Regarding macro lenses, I would much sooner spend money on new lenses than new body and a macro lens is a good example of something you need to get a certain type of image. You could buy a cheap reversal ring, which basically mounts your lens on backwards and by the magic of physics allows you to take really close images. They’re like £5. Google it and maybe have a play with that before spending on a new lens.
 
Suvv said:
I have been taking photos for about 60 years mostly on 35mm SLRs but for about the last 22 years on digital and since 2008 on a Nikon D40 DSLR. It has a 6mp sensor, the ISO is not much good above 800, the screen does not move, it does not take videos etc etc.
Without being boastful I could buy the top range full frame DSLR and a set of lenses without denting my finances but I do not find the D40 too limiting, I adjust my shooting to suit my equipment.
The important thing is to see a picture, get the right lighting, get the right composition and get the timing right.
I should add that I take pictures for my own enjoyment, not for sale and not for getting likes :)
Here is an example of what can be done.
View attachment 290940

You only need to upgrade if you get frustrated when your camera starts limiting you.
Click to expand...

Was that taken on said nikon? That is absolutely phenomenal.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Was that taken on said nikon? That is absolutely phenomenal.
Click to expand...
Thanks, yes that was taken on the Nikon D40 with the cheapish 55-200 AF-S lens which cost about £130 ten years ago.
I have dropped the camera a few times, there is a crack near the lens mount which does not cause any problems at the moment and once when I dropped it the battery shot out and broke the bottom of the camera so I have to use a battery grip now. It still does what I want though.
As others have said lenses are more important than the box they fit on :)
 
If you want to spend money there's a macro lens in the classifieds!;)
 
Tjm2986 said:
Hi guys

I am relatively new to photography only been properly doing it for around six months. I started with a fujifilm X-A20 mirrorless but soon upgraded to a Canon Eos 2000D. I am massively into film photography so also have a Canon AE-1 and a Canon EOS 500n. I am after some advice on when to upgrade my DSLR and what to upgrade it to. I have no one subject when it comes to photography I do a bit of everything.
Click to expand...

Cameras can limit your results if you push them to their limits. For example Canon have arguably (or not even arguably) been behind the curve in sensor technology for years so if you shoot in situations which would require a state of the art sensor in your camera the chances are that something other than a Canon could do a better job. Ditto with noise. Other limitations could be related to the focusing ability of your camera or the frame rate. Cameras can limit your opportunities and no matter how good a photographer you are or how good you are at processing, some limitations of the kit could limit you.

Or you could be the sort of person who only takes pictures in good light which don't push your camera anywhere near its limits.

So the first thing to do is realistically and honestly look at your needs.

Personally I'm mirrorless and I'd hate to go back to a DSLR. For me the advantages of mirrorless are real and useful. I like the accuracy and consistency of the auto focus, I like the fact that I can focus anywhere in the frame, I like the face/eye detect which is IMO a real game changer if you take pictures of people. I also love the WYSIWYG and the in view DoF, exposure and focus aids.

I can see how you may wish to stay with Canon as you have Canon film cameras too but whatever you look at to potentially replace your 2000D I'd make sure that something mirrorless is on the list.
 
Last edited:
Tjm2986 said:
My best effort today.
Click to expand...

Found it on your Flickr, a bit sharper there than here on TP

I would expect your 2000D to have 'low to no noise' at ISO 1600 so why stick at 200 for such a poor light subject! Such an increased ISO would have given a more useful shutter speed compared to the 1/13th in this Juvenile Robin image.

I agree with @Suvv post and others re: use & learn what your current body is capable of and whem you find it is truly limiting your creativity........that will be the time to look at how other higher specification body/ies might improve your photography.
 
Tjm2986 said:
My best effort today.
Click to expand...
Hi Terry, not bad! What Box Brownie is trying to explain is that your image is not entire sharp, not because you missed focus or your lens is soft, but because your shutter speed was too slow. 1/13 is a really slow shutter speed at the best of times, but at 400mm you'll really struggle shooting hand-held (without a tripod). One way of increasing your shutter speed is to increase your ISO, which was at 200. This will give you more noise in your image but noise is better than blur. The rule of thumb is that if you're at 400mm you need a shutter speed of at least 1/400. at 200mm you would need 1/200 and at 100mm 1/100 etc. WIth a long lens this becomes tricky because longer lenses have smaller maximum apertures (think of light going through a tunnel).

On a compositional note, Robin is smack-bang in the middle. Consider the placement of the robin in the frame. Many people feel it works well to give an animal or person more space in the direction they're looking, which in your case, could mean putting the robin right hand side. This isn't a rule though and you should experiment, but have it in mind that you CAN put the subject in different parts of the frame.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Hi Terry, not bad! What Box Brownie is trying to explain is that your image is not entire sharp, not because you missed focus or your lens is soft, but because your shutter speed was too slow. 1/13 is a really slow shutter speed at the best of times, but at 400mm you'll really struggle shooting hand-held (without a tripod). One way of increasing your shutter speed is to increase your ISO, which was at 200. This will give you more noise in your image but noise is better than blur. The rule of thumb is that if you're at 400mm you need a shutter speed of at least 1/400. at 200mm you would need 1/200 and at 100mm 1/100 etc. WIth a long lens this becomes tricky because longer lenses have smaller maximum apertures (think of light going through a tunnel).

On a compositional note, Robin is smack-bang in the middle. Consider the placement of the robin in the frame. Many people feel it works well to give an animal or person more space in the direction they're looking, which in your case, could mean putting the robin right hand side. This isn't a rule though and you should experiment, but have it in mind that you CAN put the subject in different parts of the frame.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I tend to set the ISO manually (I use the camera fully manual) I have a nasty habit of setting the ISO to the light conditions as I am always afraid of getting too much noise on the image. I have subscribed to Adobe lightroom and started shooting in RAW now would I be able to stabalise the noise in lightroom? If so I might put the ISO back to AUTO and let the camera decide or bump up my ISO for such images like you suggested. Thanks for the advice guys keep it coming I have only been shooting digital for 4 months so still have a ton to learn.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Cameras can limit your results if you push them to their limits. For example Canon have arguably (or not even arguably) been behind the curve in sensor technology for years so if you shoot in situations which would require a state of the art sensor in your camera the chances are that something other than a Canon could do a better job. Ditto with noise. Other limitations could be related to the focusing ability of your camera or the frame rate. Cameras can limit your opportunities and no matter how good a photographer you are or how good you are at processing, some limitations of the kit could limit you.

Or you could be the sort of person who only takes pictures in good light which don't push your camera anywhere near its limits.

So the first thing to do is realistically and honestly look at your needs.

Personally I'm mirrorless and I'd hate to go back to a DSLR. For me the advantages of mirrorless are real and useful. I like the accuracy and consistency of the auto focus, I like the fact that I can focus anywhere in the frame, I like the face/eye detect which is IMO a real game changer if you take pictures of people. I also love the WYSIWYG and the in view DoF, exposure and focus aids.

I can see how you may wish to stay with Canon as you have Canon film cameras too but whatever you look at to potentially replace your 2000D I'd make sure that something mirrorless is on the list.
Click to expand...
The big issue for me too is I have 7 EF mount lenses. Thats a lot of money to spend to then change it to a Mirrorless system.
 
Would putting the camera back in to Aperture Priority and setting the ISO to auto with a limit of 1600 be better for me untill I get to grips with composition etc?
 
As you have a film background you've probably got a rough idea of what ISO is required for a correct expsoure in any given circumstance. Unlike film you're not stuck with the rest of the film being the same speed. Get the exposure right and noise is hardly noticable unless you're shooting in very difficult conditions and the ISO is sky high, or you're really pixel peeping. LR has noise correction features, but the more heavily you apply it, the more detail you loose.

The time to upgrade is when the camera prevents you from doing what you need it to do - but lenses are generally the best upgrades.
 
andrewc said:
As you have a film background you've probably got a rough idea of what ISO is required for a correct expsoure in any given circumstance. Unlike film you're not stuck with the rest of the film being the same speed. Get the exposure right and noise is hardly noticable unless you're shooting in very difficult conditions and the ISO is sky high, or you're really pixel peeping. LR has noise correction features, but the more heavily you apply it, the more detail you loose.

The time to upgrade is when the camera prevents you from doing what you need it to do - but lenses are generally the best upgrades.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I think the main thing to take from this is not to be scared to bump up the ISO. I always fear I'll lose detail but as others have mentioned having a higher ISO will mean I can use a higher shutter speed and not have an image thats blurry. Compromises.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Would putting the camera back in to Aperture Priority and setting the ISO to auto with a limit of 1600 be better for me untill I get to grips with composition etc?
Click to expand...
Most people agree that noise is better than motion blur from camera shake. Especially if it’s only 1600 or even 3200. If I’m dealing with changing light conditions and I need to shoot fast I do just that: aperture priority with auto ISO. The camera will take into account your focal length and apply the rule of thumb while keeping ISO to a minimum. I imagine that’s what most pro wedding photographers do tbh but I could be wrong.
 
Yes, you can fix noise to some extent, but you can't fix blur, so don't be afraid to raise it. When DSLR's came out 10-15 years ago, 1600 ISO was possibly the max and they were pretty noisy at that level, but now the noise issue is significantly better considering that there are three times the megapixels on the same size sensor. I'm not afraid of bumping up the ISO.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Thanks for the advice. I tend to set the ISO manually (I use the camera fully manual) I have a nasty habit of setting the ISO to the light conditions as I am always afraid of getting too much noise on the image.
Click to expand...
Well to be blunt; you set the ISO ‘wrong’, and that ruined your image (more below)
Tjm2986 said:
The big issue for me too is I have 7 EF mount lenses. Thats a lot of money to spend to then change it to a Mirrorless system.
Click to expand...
You can use your EF lenses with a canon mirrorless (at non-performance cost) and not swap till you’re ready for a genuine upgrade.
Tjm2986 said:
Would putting the camera back in to Aperture Priority and setting the ISO to auto with a limit of 1600 be better for me untill I get to grips with composition etc?
Click to expand...
Not just till you’ve nailed the ‘important’* stuff

there’s no benefit to forcing yourself into making the trivial decisions (ISO) as well as the important ones (where to stand, what to focus on, what to include and what to leave out). Many newb photographers make the same assumption (you’re only in control if you shoot manual), it’s nonsense, there’s a time and place for manual, and you’ll learn what that is.

the other thing that newbs obsess about is ‘noise’, only photographers care about noise, viewers don’t, subjects don’t, customers don’t.
If you and I take the same shot - yours is ISO 1600 and blurred, mines ISO 3200 and pin sharp, which one of us got it right? The one who successfully produced an image with slight noise? Or the one who ruined their shot because they set an arbitrary ISO limit?
 
hi.................sharpened and cropped using basic Adobe Photoshop Express

tn_IMG_2163_edited_edited.jpg




I set my Nikons to ISO200 with the option to increase to ISO 1600 at a minimum of 1/125 (shakey old hands...:)
 
Tjm2986 said:
Thanks for the advice. I tend to set the ISO manually (I use the camera fully manual) I have a nasty habit of setting the ISO to the light conditions as I am always afraid of getting too much noise on the image. I have subscribed to Adobe lightroom and started shooting in RAW now would I be able to stabalise the noise in lightroom? If so I might put the ISO back to AUTO and let the camera decide or bump up my ISO for such images like you suggested. Thanks for the advice guys keep it coming I have only been shooting digital for 4 months so still have a ton to learn.
Click to expand...

Tjm2986 said:
Would putting the camera back in to Aperture Priority and setting the ISO to auto with a limit of 1600 be better for me untill I get to grips with composition etc?
Click to expand...

Other people have answered these point but I feel the need to comment too.

There may be times when you'll want to set the ISO manually, as a well thought out and deliberate decision because you need to over ride what the camera would do left to its own devices, but mostly I leave auto ISO selected with the ability to use any ISO up to and including whatever the limit is on the camera I have.

I often just don't understand people who say they never go above a certain ISO, for example ISO 3200, as I wonder what they do, do they stop taking pictures? If for example a shot requires a shutter speed and aperture combination that causes the ISO to go to 6400 do they stop and not take the shot? I have pictures taken at high ISO's up to and including 25,600, the max my cameras will go to, which are usable for me and I'd much rather have them than not have taken the picture at all.

I can imagine someone producing a large print for an exhibition wanting a noise free and in every respect a technically excellent picture not going above whatever relatively low ISO setting they've identified as their maximum but for the rest of us isn't taking a picture better than not?
 
Yardbent said:
hi.................sharpened and cropped using basic Adobe Photoshop Express

View attachment 291402




I set my Nikons to ISO200 with the option to increase to ISO 1600 at a minimum of 1/125 (shakey old hands...:)
Click to expand...
Thanks so much :D looks much much better. Thats something else I need to learn. I do have adobe photo shop and lightroom but literally got them 2 days ago so am still going through the tutorials.
 
woof woof said:
Other people have answered these point but I feel the need to comment too.

There may be times when you'll want to set the ISO manually, as a well thought out and deliberate decision because you need to over ride what the camera would do left to its own devices, but mostly I leave auto ISO selected with the ability to use any ISO up to and including whatever the limit is on the camera I have.

I often just don't understand people who say they never go above a certain ISO, for example ISO 3200, as I wonder what they do, do they stop taking pictures? If for example a shot requires a shutter speed and aperture combination that causes the ISO to go to 6400 do they stop and not take the shot? I have pictures taken at high ISO's up to and including 25,600, the max my cameras will go to, which are usable for me and I'd much rather have them than not have taken the picture at all.

I can imagine someone producing a large print for an exhibition wanting a noise free and in every respect a technically excellent picture not going above whatever relatively low ISO setting they've identified as their maximum but for the rest of us isn't taking a picture better than not?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input :D I am going for a week away in cornwall next week and will take all this into account when I am out and about with my camera. I am planning on taking alot of film photography also as I am taking my Canon AE-1 with me.
 
Another quick one. My 2000D only has 9 focus points. I tend to leave it on the single focus and have it set to the centre point as I am used to a single focus point from using my manual film cameras. When would it be beneficial to switch to 9 point focus? As when I was using it I found my camera would sometimes focus on something in the foregroud rather than my subject which got very very annoying.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Another quick one. My 2000D only has 9 focus points. I tend to leave it on the single focus and have it set to the centre point as I am used to a single focus point from using my manual film cameras. When would it be beneficial to switch to 9 point focus? As when I was using it I found my camera would sometimes focus on something in the foregroud rather than my subject which got very very annoying.
Click to expand...

Rather than allowing the camera to decide what it wants to focus on, the nearest subject....the IMO prime benefit of having multiple AF points is 'compositional selection' i.e. you choose which point is best when composing the photo in VF. Much better than using "focus & recompose" with its issues of maintaining sharp focus on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Rather than allowing the camera to decide what it wants to focus on, the nearest subject....the IMO prime benefit of having multiple AF points is 'compositional selection' i.e. you choose which point is best when composing the photo in VF. Much better than using "focus & recompose" with its issues of maintaining sharp focus on the subject.
Click to expand...
Ok. So I have the camera set on AIFocus would I be better putting it to One shot AF? Which would get the camera to focus once then lock itself. I have been having focus issues with some of my shots.
 
Tjm2986 said:
Ok. So I have the camera set on AIFocus would I be better putting it to One shot AF? Which would get the camera to focus once then lock itself. I have been having focus issues with some of my shots.
Click to expand...
IMO the two settings of any value are One Shot AF and AF Servo. AI Focus is not something you should rely on because it is blend of both those 'settings' and is again letting the camera decide for you. Yes,I see where it is intended to be useful but in practice not so!!!

PS have you got the user manual and read it. Though they can be dry tomes the Canon ones IMO are good at explaining what most beginners need to get their first steps sorted.
 
Box Brownie said:
IMO the two settings of any value are One Shot AF and AF Servo. AI Focus is not something you should rely on because it is blend of both those 'settings' and is again letting the camera decide for you. Yes,I see where it is intended to be useful but in practice not so!!!

PS have you got the user manual and read it. Though they can be dry tomes the Canon ones IMO are good at explaining what most beginners need to get their first steps sorted.
Click to expand...
Ah thats where I am going wrong then. And thanks I'll take a look at it.
 
Well having read through the manual and looking at a few youtube videos I think I have a better idea of how the camera needs to be set up. Little question as I can get one fairly cheaply priced. Is a 90D a worthy update to the 2000D?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top