Hi totally new to photography been reading around so know a little. I an currently just using a digital bridge camera which is pretty good but I'm considering getting a dslr. I know a dslr is manual but what exactly can I control on that which I can't on my bridge camera? I've also been given an old film 35mm pentax me super slr will this have similar settings to a dslr so I can see if I can get used to it! I can't afford a dslr yet but wondering the advantages and whether to save up!
Newby with a stupid question
- Thread starter Toon49
- Start date
gadgeteer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,540
- Edit My Images
- No
Most modern DSLR's will have Auto and P modes which will set most of the settings for you just like on a point & shoot/bridge camera. Even my D600 has it which is a nod to the fact Nikon is not marketing as a pro camera.
You will be able to set the very same settings on your DSLR as your bridge camera. I guess the extra settings will be things like changing your focus point. I've not had a bridge camera for years now so not sure if you can set things like exposure compensation and bracketing on your camera but these are probably advanced techniques you can live without for now.
The main advantage with a DSLR over a bridge camera has to be image quality (IQ). I've yet to see a bridge camera deliver the same level of IQ. The other advantage of course is that you can swap lenses and choose lenses to suit the task in hand. For example low light or large telezoom. Of course there's also speed.
As for whether to save up, you can probably find DSLR's to suit your budget. You can get a Nikon D3200 for £411 with £40 cashback right now. But if you are willing to consider 2nd hand then you can probably pick up a decent DSLR with a kit lens for £200-300.
You will be able to set the very same settings on your DSLR as your bridge camera. I guess the extra settings will be things like changing your focus point. I've not had a bridge camera for years now so not sure if you can set things like exposure compensation and bracketing on your camera but these are probably advanced techniques you can live without for now.
The main advantage with a DSLR over a bridge camera has to be image quality (IQ). I've yet to see a bridge camera deliver the same level of IQ. The other advantage of course is that you can swap lenses and choose lenses to suit the task in hand. For example low light or large telezoom. Of course there's also speed.
As for whether to save up, you can probably find DSLR's to suit your budget. You can get a Nikon D3200 for £411 with £40 cashback right now. But if you are willing to consider 2nd hand then you can probably pick up a decent DSLR with a kit lens for £200-300.
JulesP
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,748
- Name
- Julian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You should be able to control everything, iso, shutter speed and aperture.. Also things like in camera noise reduction, white balance etc.
Or you could just stick it on auto and let it decide everything for you!
I don't know anything about film so cant help there.
I expect your bridge camera would have at least a certain level of manual control to it as well.
Or you could just stick it on auto and let it decide everything for you!
I don't know anything about film so cant help there.
I expect your bridge camera would have at least a certain level of manual control to it as well.
Thanks yes I can set iso aperture and shutter speed since learning about this my pictures have improved alot as I just used to use auto! I'm a student so second hand will be the way to go with savings and birthday money! I know there are different lenses which is an advantage but haven't yet read about this (as don't have the option yet) I understand zoom and macro but what's the difference with other lenses? Sorry for the stupid questions I could probably just Google it but I find its more helpful asking as everywhere says different things
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Most bridge cameras can do manual, and all DSLRs have several auto options. Basically fairly similar in many respects.
The main difference is DSLRs have larger sensor, so image quality is better and you have more control over depth of field.
Pentax ME Super was a great camera in its day, very small/light, and the biggest selling SLR for some years. It has aperture-priority auto and manual exposure modes.
The main difference is DSLRs have larger sensor, so image quality is better and you have more control over depth of field.
Pentax ME Super was a great camera in its day, very small/light, and the biggest selling SLR for some years. It has aperture-priority auto and manual exposure modes.
gadgeteer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,540
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Jade
Check if your camera will also let you take photos in RAW mode. They are much more useful than JPG's if you are editing your photos afterwards.
As for lenses, the main one you missed is prime. These are fixed so you cannot zoom in/out. You'd have to zoom with your feet by walking in/out. The advantage with these are they are sharper, let in more light (so you can take photos in darker environments without resorting to flash) and at the same time have a shallower depth of field (ie. more blurry background).
But I'd suggest you save up for a decent second hand camera with a kit lens and then get yourself a 35mm f1.8 prime lens for using in low light situations. It's a good starter combination and a sound base to learn from.
Check if your camera will also let you take photos in RAW mode. They are much more useful than JPG's if you are editing your photos afterwards.
As for lenses, the main one you missed is prime. These are fixed so you cannot zoom in/out. You'd have to zoom with your feet by walking in/out. The advantage with these are they are sharper, let in more light (so you can take photos in darker environments without resorting to flash) and at the same time have a shallower depth of field (ie. more blurry background).
But I'd suggest you save up for a decent second hand camera with a kit lens and then get yourself a 35mm f1.8 prime lens for using in low light situations. It's a good starter combination and a sound base to learn from.
Thanks just a quick question what does a larger sensor mean, basically I'm wondering if I buy a dslr with less megapixels than my bridge will the pictures still be better because of the sensor and lens?
Also on another note any idea where you can still buy film for my pentax amd where to develop them. I seems to have been in every shop waiting to get to jessops!
Is a kit lens the standard one you buy with the camera?
ernesto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes a kit lens is the lens that comes with the camera (usually an 18 - 55 as that covers a good range between wide angle and slight telephoto)
If buying second hand you don't need to spend that much. I use a Sony A200 that cost £100 (would be around £140 with a kit lens) and the camera does all I need (good IQ, quick AF, responsive, external buttons etc,.) and is small and light too.
If buying second hand you don't need to spend that much. I use a Sony A200 that cost £100 (would be around £140 with a kit lens) and the camera does all I need (good IQ, quick AF, responsive, external buttons etc,.) and is small and light too.
HoppyUK
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
DSLRs have physically much larger sensors than compacts and bridge cameras, like the size of a postage stamp vs the size of your little fingernail.
Larger sensors collect more light, and don't work the lens so hard for a given standard of resolution. This is what drives their better image quality (rather than sheer number of pixels, within reason) with better high ISO perrformance and sharpness.
Larger sensors also need longer focal length lenses to give the same field of view, and this reduces depth of field. Basically, with a DSLR you can get those nice blurry backgrounds much more easily than with a compact.
Your Pentax ME Super's film area is bigger again, roughly twice the area of a crop-format DSLR (same as a full-frame DSLR) but film quality has been overtaken by digital. Not sure where you can get film (post in the film forum on here for guidance on that) and there's a chance the Pentax may need checking over if it hasn't been used for a long time. It will need a new battery for the metering.
Thanks for the explanation and advice guys now I definitely want to get a dslr. Think I may try and sell my current cameras for funding if I see a one which looks good on the forum or ebay or somewhere else. If anyone knows anywhere I should keep a look out for a dslr let me know!
Also thanks managed to buy some film at poundland today may not be the best but worth a try to test out with my pentax. Will have a look at where to develop on the film forum
Also thanks managed to buy some film at poundland today may not be the best but worth a try to test out with my pentax. Will have a look at where to develop on the film forum
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You have an SLR, and that can teach you an awful lot about what is possible with a half decent camera... it just needs film, which can make it expensive.
However, I DONT actually agree that modern digital has yet achieved the same image quality that film 'may' deliver.... but it has achieved an image quality that's more than acceptable for most uses, and tends to be cheaper and or more convenient for most people.
At £1 a roll for film, and perhaps a fiver to get it developed, you can buy maybe 50 films, maybe 1800 pictures, before you have spent as much as a digital SLR, and you don't have to find all the cash upfront.
Its a good start.
The restrictions imposed by film; the conciouse reminder every time you load one, its costing money; impediment that the whole roll is a single ISO rating you cant change between frames, its all the sort of stuff that makes you think a bit more about what you are about, and use your frames more pudently, rather than firing away, letting the camera do all the work, then trying to make sense of it after.
Its as likely to be better learning therfore.
BUT... its about investing in a system.
Soon as you start thinking you want to try a different lens, or buy a flash-gun, you are going to be in a dilemah, that anything you spend on stuff to support the pentax... is possibly going to be rendered redundant in the near future, if you expect to go digital.... though there is a lot to be said for teh fact that a lot of stuff for obsolete film systems is cheap, and you can get a lot more and better bits of kit for your cash.
Problem I had.... I was given an Olympus OM10 in 1989... meant that through the 1990's I got more and more entrenched with more and more OM system 'stuff', so to switch horses and say go Nikon, meant I had an awful lot of stuff, that was an awful lot more expensive to replace to get the same level of capability as I was carrying around in the Olympus bag!
BUT... buy into the 'wrong' digital system, or buy the wrong bits of kit in the right system in Digital, you may not be any better off....
I have just bought my Nikon D3200. Its a crop sensor camera, and I only have the kit 18-55 lens for it...
Technically I can mount any of the legacy Nikon lenses made in the last half century; but all the old Manual Focus lenses are a pain in the bum, becouse the camera wont give any meter-info through them, let alone any auto-exposure modes. Means using a seperate hand-held meter if I wanted to use them.
Also, Nikon switched technology, and early AF lenses were driven by a motor in the camera, which my camera doesn;t have.... so these lenses, which are often cheaper second hand, are of limited use. some may allow meter modes on my camera, but they wont focus.
Finally, its a cop-sensor camera, and the kit lens is optimised for a crop sensor... put it on a full-frame sensor camera and its likely it wont give full coverage over the sensor and I'd likely suffer some masking or at least vignetting at the frame edges.
So, IF I buy another lens, say a 55-300... do I buy the cheaper crop sensor DX lens that will work great with this camera, or do I find the extra money to buy the full-frame 70-300 that would do the same job, but would be garanteed to work on a full-frame camera if I upgrade later?
I have little intension of going full-frame, so I am likely to get DX lenses if / when I get any more... but even so.... it's something worth considering.
And at the moment, if I want to do anything more adventurouse... I am back to buying film, so I can use one of my long lenses or the fish-eye or whatever.
So, before you leap in... its very well worth while, pondering where you think you may go, and taking a heads up and considering long term options.
Buying second hand, just to get in the game, could steer you down an avenue that's less helpful, or make it more expensive to get where you want to go.
So for now... I reccomend getting to know your Pentax. Spending some money on film, getting some pictures with it, and saving up a bit.
When you have some better ideas of what you are doing, what you want to do, and what would be more useful... and with a little more cash to one side to do it.... then ponder the options again.
Ultimately its a good photographer that takes good pictures, not a good camera.... work on your know how, you'll get better pictures with almost anything.
However, I DONT actually agree that modern digital has yet achieved the same image quality that film 'may' deliver.... but it has achieved an image quality that's more than acceptable for most uses, and tends to be cheaper and or more convenient for most people.
At £1 a roll for film, and perhaps a fiver to get it developed, you can buy maybe 50 films, maybe 1800 pictures, before you have spent as much as a digital SLR, and you don't have to find all the cash upfront.
Its a good start.
The restrictions imposed by film; the conciouse reminder every time you load one, its costing money; impediment that the whole roll is a single ISO rating you cant change between frames, its all the sort of stuff that makes you think a bit more about what you are about, and use your frames more pudently, rather than firing away, letting the camera do all the work, then trying to make sense of it after.
Its as likely to be better learning therfore.
BUT... its about investing in a system.
Soon as you start thinking you want to try a different lens, or buy a flash-gun, you are going to be in a dilemah, that anything you spend on stuff to support the pentax... is possibly going to be rendered redundant in the near future, if you expect to go digital.... though there is a lot to be said for teh fact that a lot of stuff for obsolete film systems is cheap, and you can get a lot more and better bits of kit for your cash.
Problem I had.... I was given an Olympus OM10 in 1989... meant that through the 1990's I got more and more entrenched with more and more OM system 'stuff', so to switch horses and say go Nikon, meant I had an awful lot of stuff, that was an awful lot more expensive to replace to get the same level of capability as I was carrying around in the Olympus bag!
BUT... buy into the 'wrong' digital system, or buy the wrong bits of kit in the right system in Digital, you may not be any better off....
I have just bought my Nikon D3200. Its a crop sensor camera, and I only have the kit 18-55 lens for it...
Technically I can mount any of the legacy Nikon lenses made in the last half century; but all the old Manual Focus lenses are a pain in the bum, becouse the camera wont give any meter-info through them, let alone any auto-exposure modes. Means using a seperate hand-held meter if I wanted to use them.
Also, Nikon switched technology, and early AF lenses were driven by a motor in the camera, which my camera doesn;t have.... so these lenses, which are often cheaper second hand, are of limited use. some may allow meter modes on my camera, but they wont focus.
Finally, its a cop-sensor camera, and the kit lens is optimised for a crop sensor... put it on a full-frame sensor camera and its likely it wont give full coverage over the sensor and I'd likely suffer some masking or at least vignetting at the frame edges.
So, IF I buy another lens, say a 55-300... do I buy the cheaper crop sensor DX lens that will work great with this camera, or do I find the extra money to buy the full-frame 70-300 that would do the same job, but would be garanteed to work on a full-frame camera if I upgrade later?
I have little intension of going full-frame, so I am likely to get DX lenses if / when I get any more... but even so.... it's something worth considering.
And at the moment, if I want to do anything more adventurouse... I am back to buying film, so I can use one of my long lenses or the fish-eye or whatever.
So, before you leap in... its very well worth while, pondering where you think you may go, and taking a heads up and considering long term options.
Buying second hand, just to get in the game, could steer you down an avenue that's less helpful, or make it more expensive to get where you want to go.
So for now... I reccomend getting to know your Pentax. Spending some money on film, getting some pictures with it, and saving up a bit.
When you have some better ideas of what you are doing, what you want to do, and what would be more useful... and with a little more cash to one side to do it.... then ponder the options again.
Ultimately its a good photographer that takes good pictures, not a good camera.... work on your know how, you'll get better pictures with almost anything.
Thanks that's useful advice. I've taken my first photos with my pentax and I'm looking forward to getting them developed. I would still like to get a digital in a few months when I manage to save up as sometimes I'd like to know at thetime that the picture has come out well. I'll still use the film camera though as I really like the aspect of thinking about what you're taking a picture of before taking it and the excitement of waiting for them to be developed!
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
I bought a D3200 specifically to use my pre-AI Nikkor lenses on it. It doesn't take much time to learn how to meter separately and focus manually.
Steve.
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nope, I'd concur... but can still be pain in the bum.
And some-what perverse to spend what, £350 to buy a camera with a pretty sophisticated integrated meter and raft of automatic exposure programs, NOT to be able to use it.
More so if you dont have legacy lenses, and have to go buy them, where if on restricted budget, that errodes what might have been available to buy lenses that could use the full camera functionality, even more if you dont already have a seperate meter as legacy and have to buy one of them too, and have to figure out how to work it!
It's not insurmountable.... just a pain in the bum! Extra faff and a bit of dissapointment...