Beginner Beginner with a DSLR, but not with photography

M

Mach 109

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been taking photographs since the 1970s, obviously with film until around ten years ago when 'phones started to have reasonable cameras built-in. A few years ago I obtained a hand-me-down camera from my daughter. In film days I was happy to shoot manually - no problem. But I don't trust myself to be able to shoot with my DSLR manually. I have tried to get across the various settings but I just am not able to do what I would like to do.

That doesn't tell you much but maybe this thread might throw something up which helps. The camera in question, by the way, is a Canon700D.
 
The methods used on the film cameras would still work quite well with a modern digital. Replace the speed rating of your preferred film with the ISO equivalent, and you can use manual mode, or semi-automatic shutter or aperture priority.

You'll soon figure it out - and unlike waiting for a film to come back from developing, you get an instant image to consider whether it worked, and with having hundred or thousands of shots on one card, you can experiment too!
 
As far as controlling exposure is concerned the 2 major changes the 700d brings are:
  • No aperture control ring on the lenses (this came with EOS cameras, but unless you had those it’s a different way of working).
  • ISO which is set with controls rather than being picked when you drop the film in.

Beyond that, photography is unchanged for over 100 years. There’s no ‘negative’ but a Raw file offers the same or greater levels of manipulation.

In fact as an old git; when I shot film I never really got into the darkroom, even when shooting professionally I’d outsource to pro labs.
But shooting digitally means I have had to learn some post processing. And that’s the real difference between film and digital.
 
Another once-film user here. There's no practical difference between film and digital when taking pictures, especially if you treat digital like slide film (so don't over-expose). Just work like you used to and don't be afraid to experiment.
 
Perhaps Andrew could give more details about what's worrying him.

I remember when I first went digital, the only real shock was realising that I didn't have to set the ISO and leave it set and instead I could change it from shot to shot. Later, auto ISO changed things for the better again and mirror less moved things on much further.

What are your issues Andrew?
 
Mach 109 said:
I have been taking photographs since the 1970s, obviously with film until around ten years ago when 'phones started to have reasonable cameras built-in. A few years ago I obtained a hand-me-down camera from my daughter. In film days I was happy to shoot manually - no problem. But I don't trust myself to be able to shoot with my DSLR manually. I have tried to get across the various settings but I just am not able to do what I would like to do.

That doesn't tell you much but maybe this thread might throw something up which helps. The camera in question, by the way, is a Canon700D.
Click to expand...


Welcome to TP, first of all.

As a "Gentleman of a certain age", you might be a manual reader. If you are, have a flick/scroll through it to see how to use the assorted modes. I'm a great believer in "P" mode but often shift away from the camera's suggested settings using either the scroll wheel to change the aperture and shutter speed at the same time (to keep the same exposure value) or using the EV compensation button and wheel to deliberately over or under expose from the camera's choice.

Or, just experiment with all the modes (well, the main ones - the scene type modes are probably best avoided if you have 1/2 an idea of how to shoot!) and see how you get on - such experimentation is basically free with digital.
 
Hi Andrew I'm another who grew up with film and the manual works in the same way with digital. One thing I would check is if auto iso is on. This can make things a bit weird as changing the aperture and shutter speed make little difference to the exposure as the camera compensates.
Bung the iso on 100 or 400 and try it that way, then increasing shutter speed makes it darker etc. Auto iso has it's uses but I find it best off in manual.
 
Auto ISO is a boon. Provided you keep an eye on it to make sure it does not run out of adjustment at the low end or get unacceptably high, you can control aperture and shutter speed pretty much as you like for the result you want. The ISO will change to maintain the correct exposure value.

Should you then want to adjust the exposure value just use the exposure compensation instead of locking the ISO.
 
Last edited:
I use Aperture priority mostly. I only switch to manual is some specific situations as setting the ISO takes time and auto seems to do a good job for me. I do use manual and sometimes without auto ISO but not too often.

- When low light causes the shutter speed to drop too low I switch to manual, dial in appropriate settings and let auto ISO look after the ISO.
- I set the ISO myself when doing a panorama.
- I set the ISO myself when doing a long exposure.
- I often check to make sure my sensor is clean and when I do I set the ISO.

I might think of something else later but at the moment those are the only times I use manual and the only times I set the ISO.
 
Last edited:
Andrew (the OP), you were a bit vague, but my guess is that you need to get to grips with setting up the camera via its menus (admittedly a labyrinth but I'm not to blame for that) - just sit down in a quiet time with the camera switched on & it's manual to hand, even if that's an online one.

There are various preferences that you can set up as defaults to tie in with your aim, after which you hardly have to think about them at all.

Some are to do with focussing, some are to do with exposure. Others are to do with which dials & buttons (& possible combinations of them) do what. Granted, it's a huge stack of stuff to ingest, but most of it you only have to do the once. Storm it, or take it slowly in bits, according to your nature & time available.

It can be done. Don't give up - not yet!

It can definitely be worth it, but only you can tell.
 
Everything you learnt with film still applies.
Digital cameras typically have a multitude of extra features, which can be daunting, but you don't need to use any of them!
It is worth remembering that things that were fixed in your selection of which film to use can now be altered on a shot by shot basis, Whilst you can keep these constant changing sensitivity (ISO) and white balance (daylight/tunsten etc) with conditions can offer benefits - no need for light correction filters...
Other than these (and you can use auto white balance, which will get it right most of the time) just set the camera to the mode that most closely matches what you used with film & start taking pictures. In time you may want to try out some of the new features, but get used to the camera first & remember hardly anyone uses as much as 20% of the features :)
 
woof woof said:
Perhaps Andrew could give more details about what's worrying him.

What are your issues Andrew?
Click to expand...

Ha - I'm not sure how to answer that. Thank you to EVERYONE, by the way, for your replies. I am slowly working through everything amongst everything else that has to be done at the moment...

A little background: My first proper SLR was a Pentax K1000 which I used for around 20 years. Totally manual, but I never got across ISO relying on film settings in ASA standards and the little light meter built-in. I did shoot some standard print film for a while but went over to slide, firstly with Kodak 64ASA and then onto Agfa 100ASA which I preferred because the pictures were warmer. In the very, very early days prior to the Pentax and an income to support it, I had taken monochrome film and developed and printed these at school so I had some idea of film even then.

I knew that if I took a picture of a sunset it would look nicely warm. I also knew that if I took a picture inside my home lit by incandescent light that would look very warm. I had a flash - I understood all that. Then I had a family and all the pictures became baby pictures, largely with flash and so on, and I was taking videos for about ten years.

During this time, my job had to change and I found myself being a news cameraman! That will sound a surprise but I not only discovered that I enjoyed it but that I kept learning about photography for the rest of my 25 years of work. News gathering cameras until recently have been top-flight digital ones with very nice lenses and - totally manual. I had to learn about colour temperature and so on and really became comfortable with the workflow, rarely having to correct the pictures in the edit, which I also did.

So, all good. I understand what I am dealing with, but with this camera I have not found a range of settings which will allow me to choose the look of the result that I want. I am happy (sadly) with auto for most things, but when I am shooting a nice morning light I don't want the camera to adjust the colours to change the white balance and so on, so on that occasion I am looking for a simple setting to go to which will, say, keep the camera at around 5600K and let the warmth in.

I'm sorry if that is a lot of words but I am not really sure how to explain it. Ideally, I would have an auto/manual switch and would be able to preset the manual to a particular configuration that I know what the result will look like and not have to colour correct afterwards which I currently have to do and which is quite subjective. So much that is shot these days looks totally over-processed and unrealistic, colourful though it is, and I do NOT want that.

(...end of rant...)
 
Mach 109 said:
So, all good. I understand what I am dealing with, but with this camera I have not found a range of settings which will allow me to choose the look of the result that I want. I am happy (sadly) with auto for most things, but when I am shooting a nice morning light I don't want the camera to adjust the colours to change the white balance and so on, so on that occasion I am looking for a simple setting to go to which will, say, keep the camera at around 5600K and let the warmth in.
Click to expand...

I would expect there to be a white balance setting which lets you fix colour temperature. However most of us treat digital raw files like negatives (or positives) for preparing in our digital darkrooms.
 
I think this is white balance. The camera (700D) has a button on the back ‘WB’ which will let you amend the settings to preset conditions or set a custom value.
 
Two possible ways forward and assuming that shooting raw is the best way forward.

- Forget about white balance until you come to process your pictures and adjust it then.
Or
- Set your white balance at the scene or adjust it shot to shot.

As the white balance can affect the exposure I suppose it is best to adjust it for each shot or at least to set it at the scene even if shots will need tweaking later as the lighting will probably still change from shot to shot but that takes time. Adjusting the white balance in post capture processing can occasionally be a bit of a PITA but I'd rather do that than rely on setting it as even if setting it there still may need to be some adjustment later. Keep in mind that I'm just a happy snapping amateur.

Good luck with this but I'd guess that most people with even the slightest time constraints will just shoot raw and set the WB in post capture processing.
 
Mach 109 said:
I don't want the camera to adjust the colours to change the white balance
Click to expand...

It sounds to me like are not a customer who wants Auto White Balance (AWB). Sadly it is often turned on by default.

Personally I set Cloudy white balance and adjust (where required) later in post processing.
 
Many of us set the camera to record RAW files, in which case the WB hardly matters since it's adjustable in software post-capture with no detriment to the image quality. But to do that you have to subscribe to a workflow that involves computer-based processing of all files, and time, interest & commitment are needed to do this.

If you want the 'easy' way of outputting jpg files, you have to get everything pretty well as you want it in camera, because they don't stand much post processing without degrading. It equates rather to using slide film - except that you CAN vary WB as you want to in-camera (easy enough), along with ISO.

Auto ISO once set up is pretty handy - its limits can be defined.

Auto WB also works pretty well most of the time, but is easily overidden for particular circumstances.
 
Last edited:
For £8.50 I think I'd snap this up. I find manufacturer manuals exhausting.

Canon 700D Expanded Guide by David Taylor

Link is to a used copy - I think it must be out pf print now.

I've had a couple of guides in this series and found them a great help in getting up to speed with an unfamiliar camera.
 
Mach 109 said:
A little background: My first proper SLR was a Pentax K1000 which I used for around 20 years. Totally manual, but I never got across ISO relying on film settings in ASA standards and the little light meter built-in. I did shoot some standard print film for a while but went over to slide, firstly with Kodak 64ASA and then onto Agfa 100ASA which I preferred because the pictures were warmer.
Click to expand...
ASA was adopted by the international standards organisation (along with the DIN rating) most just use the first part which is the same as ASA. New standards have since been added (to determine the sensitivity of digital materials which can't be done using the original standards) but all should give roughly comparable sensitivity.

You can use white balance to make your shots SOOC a little warmer than real life if that's your desire. Most cameras allow WB to be set in Kelvin or by conditions (sunny/shade etc)

I don't know about the 700D, but my Pentax DSLRs also allow the JPEG output to be set to a range of classes (vibrant, natural, etc) and to have the colour tweaked to boost chosen hues. This may be why I tend to shoot JPEG, but I suspect it's more laziness.
 
Once again, thank you! A lot to chew over. Thank you, also, John_M & Boots - book ordered, and from my favourite second-hand book seller, too!

I do output everything as RAW & JPEG and have used the Canon grading programme and also have Affinity 2 and Gimp to play with; my goal, though, is not to have to post-process after the event unless absolutely necessary. That might seem a tall order but I didn't worry too much in film days. Ideally, I'd like to shoot auto as default and press ONE button to fix the white balance to what Boots calls "Cloudy White" (around 5600K when I was shooting news on a Sony HD camera...). That had a switch on the side with "P", "A" and "B". I can't remember exactly which one I used but I had one set to a really cool white, one to a normal sunny white and one to around 3200K which meant that shooting inside was not TOO orange but still looked orangey enough to look like it was indoors.

Another thing which I have noticed for years now with DSLRs: The lenses that they come with, and even the expensive ones, have this HORRIBLE focusing ring which gives no feel at all and has no end-stop. Why?... I prefer the older ones which were stiffer and did have end stops. I tend to go auto and press on the screen of the DSLR to make sure that the item that I want it to focus on is actually in focus.
 
If only your DSLR had been a Nikon, you could 've mounted any manual focus era F-mount lens on it & achieved tactile manual focussing ...
 
droj said:
If only your DSLR had been a Nikon, you could 've mounted any manual focus era F-mount lens on it & achieved tactile manual focussing ...
Click to expand...
Not a problem Canon's EF mount can be adapted to many manual mounts M42, PK, & F among them (but not FD) It's physically more adaptable than nearly all other SLR mounts, whilst Nikon cameras can only use Nikon lenses unless extra optics are added.
 
Mach 109 said:
Once again, thank you! A lot to chew over. Thank you, also, John_M & Boots - book ordered, and from my favourite second-hand book seller, too!

I do output everything as RAW & JPEG and have used the Canon grading programme and also have Affinity 2 and Gimp to play with; my goal, though, is not to have to post-process after the event unless absolutely necessary. That might seem a tall order but I didn't worry too much in film days. Ideally, I'd like to shoot auto as default and press ONE button to fix the white balance to what Boots calls "Cloudy White" (around 5600K when I was shooting news on a Sony HD camera...). That had a switch on the side with "P", "A" and "B". I can't remember exactly which one I used but I had one set to a really cool white, one to a normal sunny white and one to around 3200K which meant that shooting inside was not TOO orange but still looked orangey enough to look like it was indoors.

Another thing which I have noticed for years now with DSLRs: The lenses that they come with, and even the expensive ones, have this HORRIBLE focusing ring which gives no feel at all and has no end-stop. Why?... I prefer the older ones which were stiffer and did have end stops. I tend to go auto and press on the screen of the DSLR to make sure that the item that I want it to focus on is actually in focus.
Click to expand...
I'd forgotten the D7200 has a touch screen. I've been playing with the D5500 I got for my wife, and I like it. I still miss the classic knobs, as I infer you do (I'd love to see a digital K1000), not to mention aperture rings and depth of field scales, but every now and then there is some progress!

Hope the book helps. The Nikon ones were by a different author, but I think they all follow a similar format and the indexes seem to find me what I want.
 
IIRC, the Nikon Df has more dials for adjustment than the other models. Quite a "filmy" handling body compared to the DXXXX models.
 
Petrochemist said:
It's physically more adaptable than nearly all other SLR mounts, whilst Nikon cameras can only use Nikon lenses unless extra optics are added.
Click to expand...
This is true.

Unfortunately, neither Tamron nor anyone else have produced an AF equivalent to their T-range of lenses and adapters. Those could be used with nearly all manual focus SLRs from the 1960s onwards (and even some earlier designs). I imagine that no one has made an effort on that front because there have only been four major players (Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Sony) in the full frame market.

Perhaps it's more viable to build the different barrels than to design an interchangeable mount.
 
My book has arrived (thank you, John_M & Boots once again) and I am ploughing through it - thoroughly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top