spraynpray said:
Well, that's told me!

;^)

Hi spraynpray,

I did fail to mention that I, too, was among that league of extraordinary gentlemen for oh so long a time. :-)

My best to you,

Mike

Well, that's told me!

;^)

Hi all,

It was the American author Mark Twain who said "Experience is the best teacher, but it's the fool's only teacher."

A class can work wonders.

My best,

Mike

I took classes when younger but most of what know is self taught. I like shooting M and its a great way to learn with digital. If your willing to do a little legwork. Take a photo see how it looks. Change something. See how it changes the photo. This has been a great thing for me but I learn more hands on and less if someone is trying to explain it to me.

spraynpray said:
IMHO the vast majority of DSLR's are probably under-utilised in terms of what they can do, but are still giving pretty good results even on auto. It is a good thing for us though because the sales help increase the market size so the manufacturers continue to drive technology forward to have a chunk of it.

Very good point, it's the 90% that don't really know how to use their DSLR that makes that gear affordable to the 10% that do know what they're doing :)

It's also just a thing that digital photographers have to deal with though: their constant geekish desire for new gear that they don't really need. I used to spend so much time reading reviews of lenses that I didn't really need, time I could've better invested in actually taking pictures. I think this will sound very familiar to you all. In fact the majority of threads on this forum is on gear, not on the actual content of pictures. Which lens should I get, which camera is better, technical issues etc...

I went from OM1 and OM2 film cameras to the E10 digital. The jump to digital was simple at that time. Apart from a couple of p&s's, the next camera was the D5000 DSLR. WOW! What a shock. Fantastic little camera and had all the 'pro' ranges so not limiting in it's abilities but boy oh boy had digital come a long way since the E10. If you aren't really up for learning the complexities of these VDSLR's now, you'll get swamped.

IMHO the vast majority of DSLR's are probably under-utilised in terms of what they can do, but are still giving pretty good results even on auto. It is a good thing for us though because the sales help increase the market size so the manufacturers continue to drive technology forward to have a chunk of it.

It's a fact that people are buying far too advanced cameras or at least not using their gear to the max. I spoke about this with a camerashop owner a while back and she told me that 90% of people using a DSLR never take it off Auto. While this is not 100% indicative of if the camera is too advanced for that person, I think we can all agree those people don't really understand what's going on.
I used to have Canon Ixusses, which I actually really liked. My first DSLR was a D60. This wasn't really a conscious choice for Nikon, it was just the cheapest model with the best price to quality ratio. I soon upgraded to D90 for the CMOS sensor. Right now that camera pretty much suits all my needs, I'd only upgrade to full-frame now for better high ISO performance but if you ask me once your camera is of a certain quality (say, D90 or above) it doesn't really matter that much any more, your vision is far more important.

I moved from a compact to a D70 back in 2004, and that transition didn't at all seem unusual. Granted, that was before the D50 came out (so the D70 was the "low end" model), but I would probably do something similar today if I had to start out again.

To me, the D7000 sounds like a logical starting point because it has most, of all the advanced features that someone could want. The more expensive cameras have better build quality, bigger sensors, and larger buffers, higher frame rates, etc..., but it's just that- an extension of existing features. If someone doesn't know what to do with a feature (WB, autofocus settings or picture controls for instance) then they can just leave them in the default settings and still be able to get good results.

? To me, the A & S ranges are simple - but then I only had manual on my OM1...

I do like the auto ranges on the D5000 though, to flip it to food and shoot away is great. Especially for me when I am slavering to eat the food before it gets cold....

I got my first dSLR 3 years ago, D90, glad I did..it was a great introduction. I think there is a great leap from P&S'er to dSLR'ers(?)..passion.

Got my first DSLR last year. A D300s. Was I overwhelmed? Yes. Was that feeling filled with dread? No. It was a feeling of excitement about additional variables that will also take a lifetime to master. Have I read the manual cover to cover? No. Do I carry it with me and use it as a reference? All the time. Do I leave everything possible set to auto in the bag? Yes. Do I grab a shot when I see a composition and then go for more control after looking at that wonderful electronic "Polaroid?" Yes. Will I stick with Nikon glass even after I win the Lottery? You bet. With a new diagnosis of cataracts, glaucoma, and diabetic retinopathy am I going to quit saving for that 600mm F/4? No freakin' way man... Do I religiously refrain from just deleting everything I don't like and waiting until it is on the computer monitor so that I can drag the best quality out with NX2 and Photoshop? Virtually all the time.

Drab said:
Some people need to get off the pigheaded belief that the science and art of photography are mutually exclusive.

+1
I also agree with your comment that A and S are simple enough modes for anyone that wants to take pictures. I can't figure out why people are so afraid of them but maybe it's because there are numbers involved.

I went from a P&S to the D5000. For me so far it does everything I need and stuff I still don't know about. I learn new stuff all the time. I think the biggest problem is people always want more. The new body or the new technology. I think if you went from nothing straight to a very expensive pro body you could be overwhelmed easily. It does take some work/learning and I have seen it where people are frustrated with the cameras because they really don't know how to use them. It even took me a little while to get used to the D5000. I still forget to change settings or do something wrong with it and pictures don't turn out every so often. I would buy what you could afford, but if you wanted to invest in something I would spend more on nice lenses then the pro body.

I think most including myself get a dSLR thinking they will get the same results as some national geographic guy with a pro body and $10000 lens. While the cameras will take excellent pictures I still think some are disappointed. I have also seen it with everyone that was waiting for the D7000 and then realized once they got it that it wasn't that much better then the D90 they just sold. Personally bodies are somewhat disposable and can be upgraded when needed. A nice lens will work great on the lowest and best bodies. If a low level body will help you learn and make progression into a pro body easier then it is worth it in my opinion...instead of being frustrated and possibly giving up. Also reading the manual and or about the cameras FTW! People that are asking questions like how do you change a setting in the menu really need lots of help.

aslightdelay said:straight to a higher-end SLR would probably lead to a bit steeper learning curve than I wanted.

Not to be pedantic, but far from agreeing with me, that is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I do not believe a D3 is any harder to learn on than a D3100. Shooting in the scene modes teaches one nothing more than the mechanics and should be discouraged, IMHO, when trying to learn. They may be great for "production" but are a thick layer of abstraction which interfere with the ability to understand anything at all about cameras.

A or S mode is plenty simple to learn on. They both allow you to experiment with only one variable in play - the foundation of structured learning.

Don't understand a feature? Leave it at the factory default until you do. No need to get overwhelmed.

I'll actually repose that in the form of a question:
Is there a single factory default setting on a single Nikon SLR which a noob should be expected to change in order to get going and producing photos good enough to learn from?

I believe the answer is no, but welcome discussion on that.

TaoTeJared said:
To be honest I push most of my friends into P&S rather than DSLRs mainly due to everyone's suggestions above. Most have little to no experience with cameras and just want to take pictures of their kids and family. When talking to them, (not talking at them-that is key) they really don't want the size, the expense or to take the time to learn the camera at all. Those who do, than complain that their photos don't look like mine and unfortunately their photos turn out very poor. They just think a DSLR is what they need to have.

I totally agree. The problem is that people see my photos (i have a lot of the very best glass and a d700) and expect super shallow DOF. When I tell them that super shallow DOF comes at the risk of missing focus they brush it off. When I tell them to get a P&S they are not happy because of the massive DOF. P&S's also have the added disadvantage of being hopeless inside and needing a flash all the time, which needs to at least be bounced.

I started not too long ago from a P&S to the D7000. I have to say im rather happy with buying the d7000 over the 3100. A friend of mine went that route and both of us have "outgrown" the 3100. He now wishes he would have went with the d7000. I will also say, there is a learning cliff. Once you figure out how everything works(read the manual and not shooting in auto), everything has become rather fluid.

I think that by the time the replacement to the d700 replacement comes out, i might be ready for that. :p tons to still learn and try.

My first DLSR was the D3s. Seriously. I know,......what was I thinking?
Well,...it was a gift from a company I support and they new my interest in photography.

I have been taking weekly classes and have surpassed my expectations. I LOVE THIS proffesion and really wished I developed this interest earlier in life.

I agree with Drab,..read the manual. Without that knowledge and a basic understanding of photography,....any camera would be a useless tool. Read, Read, Read,.....then make foolish post here so we can laugh. I do it all the time,..right Niko?

I have a D5000 which was my first new camera since I bought an Oly E10. IMHO it is a BRILLIANT starter VDSLR camera with which you can either progress on and use the P,A,S & M modes or if you find it is beyond you, you can stay with the 19 or so scene modes which give great results for people who are happy to stay at that level. Given the right user it will give the same IQ as the D90.

To be honest I push most of my friends into P&S rather than DSLRs mainly due to everyone's suggestions above. Most have little to no experience with cameras and just want to take pictures of their kids and family. When talking to them, (not talking at them-that is key) they really don't want the size, the expense or to take the time to learn the camera at all. Those who do, than complain that their photos don't look like mine and unfortunately their photos turn out very poor. They just think a DSLR is what they need to have.

I find the hardest part I find in helping them is their initial thoughts of a DSLR camera are a little off.
Examples: (how many have heard these?)
-Having a camera that can shoot 1/4000 of a second will make my kid not look blurry when I take a picture of him and his birthday cake in a room only lit by candles.
-setting to ShutterP and setting the shutter speed to the max or 10x higher than is should be.
-The idea of fast glass: It is how fast it auto focuses.
-Setting the camera to shoot at ISO 1600+ all the time but the images look bad.
-Thinking the AFL/AEL on button tracks their kid moving across the screen. (no settings set except the AEL.
And so on...

If someone is truly interested in a DSLR I match their price point with lenses then add the camera unless I can tell this will become a large hobby for them. These days, a 18-55vr (every day), 35mm prime (birthdays) and 70-300vr for their little baseball player with any camera will serve them for the next 5 years. Bodies come and go, lenses do not.

It's all about matching what people need for what they want to do.

aslightdelay said:
I'm with Drab also (and, no surprise, with Mike, who's his usual concisely eloquent self). I was actually on the fence for a bit between the 300 and the 7000. I realized that coming from a P&S (with limited exposure -- pardon the pun -- to SLR's) straight to a higher-end SLR would probably lead to a bit steeper learning curve than I wanted. I have the patience to sit down with the manual (have already bought a book for the 7000 so I can get something of a jump on that stuff) and to learn the settings, but I think it's a good idea starting out to have a full-auto option.

Granted, you don't want to shoot that way all the time, 'cause it defeats the purpose of buying an SLR in the first place. But I think it's useful to someone who's a neophyte to be able to just get the shot at those times when thinking over the settings would mean missing the shot. We don't all have the level of experience yet that allows us to get the settings right without much thought. It's like training wheels in that regard.

All of which is a long-ish way of saying, I probably wouldn't go for a D3, which I think would intimidate the hell out of me, but I also wouldn't go with a 3100 because I think that once I got over the initial hump, I'd be frustrated by its limitations.

You know, I'm not as frustrated with my D40 as much as I thought I would. Yes there's the part of me that just wants to throw it out and get a D7000, but I like extracting every bit out of it.

Maybe part of the reason is that I got new glass, the 105 macro and am still trying to learn it.

And even yesterday I took the D40 out with the 35mm 1.8 while it was still snowing. More water got on it than any other time- I was afraid water would get into the mode dial. I periodically brushed away water and snow flakes and the camera performed like a champ.

It surprises me how well built the D40 is. Yes I won't be too successful shooting sports with it, but I know its limitations and i know it'll be able to fit in small spots, which will be useful for me when I do macros of bugs in the summer.

@Mike: You're welcome. "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to that counts."

Hi IndyGeoff,

The original question was sort of a mash up of mixed DSLRs that likely wouldn't be on nearly anyone's list of possibilities.

In reality, anyone buying their first camera doesn't know if they are going to like photography as a hobby or they're going to shoot a few snaps and just get it out for holidays.

It's easy to have grand ideas.

In the end, it might be better to measure the pocketbook and plan what's affordable.

And to aslightdelay, thanks, I think, although that likely should go to Miss Miller. Everything that is meaningfully I learned in second grade.

My best,

Mike

I would push them towards getting the best glass they can afford, then a more advanced camera. Not that most would listen to this and they would end up with lenses they do not want anymore. I admit it, I have a couple lenses I now know were not the best choices.

I'm with Drab also (and, no surprise, with Mike, who's his usual concisely eloquent self). I was actually on the fence for a bit between the 300 and the 7000. I realized that coming from a P&S (with limited exposure -- pardon the pun -- to SLR's) straight to a higher-end SLR would probably lead to a bit steeper learning curve than I wanted. I have the patience to sit down with the manual (have already bought a book for the 7000 so I can get something of a jump on that stuff) and to learn the settings, but I think it's a good idea starting out to have a full-auto option.

Granted, you don't want to shoot that way all the time, 'cause it defeats the purpose of buying an SLR in the first place. But I think it's useful to someone who's a neophyte to be able to just get the shot at those times when thinking over the settings would mean missing the shot. We don't all have the level of experience yet that allows us to get the settings right without much thought. It's like training wheels in that regard.

All of which is a long-ish way of saying, I probably wouldn't go for a D3, which I think would intimidate the hell out of me, but I also wouldn't go with a 3100 because I think that once I got over the initial hump, I'd be frustrated by its limitations.

casperwb said:
This leads me to think that people are jumping from point and shoot to advance cameras and being overwhemled by features and settings that they do not know how to use properly.

Perhaps the P&S people are expecting "better quality" cameras that work the same way as the P&S they are used to?

I know .. it's really a case of "Don't expect an F1 sports car to handle like a Ford Fiesta."

Isn't what is really needed something like a big red button, call it "auto", that puts the camera into full auto mode and disables every other control except the shutter release?

Make a big point of making a DSLR camera with that feature on it - not as just a setting on a mode dial.

You'd then have a bunch of really satisfied P&S users (with "better" P&S pictures), a happy camera maker (more sales to satisfied customers) and then the really better pictures would come from the more advanced users, who know what to do when the big red auto button is set to off?

;-)

Oh - I know. The 'correct' solution is to educate people how to use a DSLR properly... but it's much less fun...