What camera to buy for a newbie like me...

S

Stanfotoman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

This may be a waste of your time and I'm sorry if it is. Basically I have no experience with photography outside of my GCSE but it is something I would like to get into.

I only ever use my phone camera (pathetic, I know) and what I would like to know is what would be a good camera to buy so I can start off taking decent pictures? I will pick things up reasonably quickly but don't want to spend too much money either?

Just so you can see the absolute limit of my knowledge, I've always wanted to achieve the finish where the background is blurred for the foreground and vice versa, my school teacher told me it was due to exposure levels... I could never get it right. I know these are called macro shots now.

I also know pro's use cameras where they attach lens, I think the lens you need vary based on how much you want to zoom or something?

I will be reading the stickies here too but it would be great to get an actual response to this.

Thank you!
 
Stanfotoman said:
Just so you can see the absolute limit of my knowledge, I've always wanted to achieve the finish where the background is blurred for the foreground and vice versa, my school teacher told me it was due to exposure levels... I could never get it right. I know these are called macro shots now.
Click to expand...

That is a common requirement and something people cannot get from their camera phone/small sensored camera. They are not however macro shots, they are just shots with a low depth of field caused by large apertures. Your teacher could have explained it in 5 minutes rather than just suggesting it was due to exposure levels, you should have questioned him more!
 
ernesto said:
That is a common requirement and something people cannot get from their camera phone/small sensored camera. They are not however macro shots, they are just shots with a low depth of field caused by large apertures. Your teacher could have explained it in 5 minutes rather than just suggesting it was due to exposure levels, you should have questioned him more!
Click to expand...

I see, thank you. I just tried and tried, couldn't do it so I figured it was the camera, they were just quite cheap digital cameras so maybe it wasn't possible?

What are macro shots then if not the effect I was after?

Also, any input on what camera to start with? Do I need a lens too?


Thanks
 
First off, what is your budget?
Which type of photography you wishing to do?
Do you want interchanable lenses?
 
skd said:
First off, what is your budget?
Which type of photography you wishing to do?
Do you want interchanable lenses?
Click to expand...

I would pay up to £400-600 unless you tell me that's useless and I need more. If I could get something decent for less that's even better.
I am mainly interested in people, but I would like to do everything..? :dummy:
What would I use the interchangeable lenses for though? Perhaps I don't need them?
 
You can get decent cameras in that range or cheaper for the basics.

Interchangeable lenses are for different subjects, like macro (shots of bugs etc) you may have a 100mm macro lens. for Portraits you may want a 35mm Prime lens which is nice and sharp but also gives great Depth of Field (blurred background) or sports you will want a nice fast telephoto lens.
 
skd said:
You can get decent cameras in that range or cheaper for the basics.

Interchangeable lenses are for different subjects, like macro (shots of bugs etc) you may have a 100mm macro lens. for Portraits you may want a 35mm Prime lens which is nice and sharp but also gives great Depth of Field (blurred background) or sports you will want a nice fast telephoto lens.
Click to expand...

Cheaper is good, I like cheaper! - I will start looking if you point me towards some good options online, please?

If I get a 35mm lens then that would be all I need to get started. Do I need a flash too?
 
Stanfotoman said:
Cheaper is good, I like cheaper! - I will start looking if you point me towards some good options online, please?

If I get a 35mm lens then that would be all I need to get started. Do I need a flash too?
Click to expand...

its really hard to point people to the right direction for a new camera, I love me Sony A77, but some people dont. Its all about what feels right in your hands, is easy for you to use, you like using etc.

All I can say is look for a camera which has the following modes (P,M,S,A) on the camera and you can get the control that you would like/need.

A flash will be need plus more kit like spare batteries, tripods, extra lenses the list goes on. Well thats with the DLSR route anyways
 
skd said:
its really hard to point people to the right direction for a new camera, I love me Sony A77, but some people dont. Its all about what feels right in your hands, is easy for you to use, you like using etc.

All I can say is look for a camera which has the following modes (P,M,S,A) on the camera and you can get the control that you would like/need.

A flash will be need plus more kit like spare batteries, tripods, extra lenses the list goes on. Well thats with the DLSR route anyways
Click to expand...

thats the DSLR route? So I have other options too? I think the DSLR is what photographers use though don't they, unless I can achieve similar results without them?

It is certainly something I need to put money aside for, costs build up :lol:
 
If you are happy buying used then you can do it all pretty cheaply to start with. For example there are decent DSLRs around for between £100 and £200 with a standard zoom lens 18-55, lenses that give you low depth of field (a 50 1.8) for £80 - £130 and so on.
 
ernesto said:
If you are happy buying used then you can do it all pretty cheaply to start with. For example there are decent DSLRs around for between £100 and £200 with a standard zoom lens 18-55, lenses that give you low depth of field (a 50 1.8) for £80 - £130 and so on.
Click to expand...

I don't mind buying used at all, given it comes with the right warranty etc.

If I bought what you said, will I then just need the flash and spare batteries before I can start using the camera?
 
Maybe something like this to give you an idea on dslrs,by no means the latest bodies but it would still give you good images.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...as/used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d200/

or

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...ras/used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d60/

With;

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...enses/nikon-af-s-18-105mm-f/3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-2/

And(if your feeling flush)/or;

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...nikon-fit-lenses/nikon-af-s-35mm-f/1.8g-dx-2/

Before anyone starts I know it's just Nikon:p but I don't know enough about the others.
 
Just read this tutorial used a canon 400d, which I looked up on Amazon. A good camera? I can't seem to see any of the letters skd mentioned though.
 
Macro refers to being able to reproduce images at life size and is used when photographing any small subject. Therefore, if when taking a photo of an insect that is 10mm long, the image of the insect on the camera sensor is also 10mm long then that would be described as a macro shot.

Some lens manufacturers use the term macro for some of their lenses which are able to reproduce images that are half or a quarter life size (ie 1:2 or 1:4). However, I think there is a general consensus that true macro begins at 1:1. There many macro lenses which will produce 1:1 images and there are also specialised (and expensive) macro lenses which will go above life size.



To get an idea of two types of digital camera have a look at this link.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/compact-vs-digital-slr-cameras.htm

A camera that the above link omits is the bridge camera. These come in between a compact camera and a DSLR. Bridge cameras tend to have larger sensors, more features and a larger zoom range than a compact camera and can produce better quality photos or photos in situations that compact camera could not cope with. They tend to be larger and heavier than compacts but not as heavy as DSLRs. What type of camera you want depends on what you want to do and how much you want to spend, not just now but in the future.

There are also other types of digital camera.


Dave
 
Stanfotoman said:
Hi All

This may be a waste of your time and I'm sorry if it is. Basically I have no experience with photography outside of my GCSE but it is something I would like to get into.
Click to expand...


No, it is not a waste of our time, after all isn't that what Talk Photography forum is all about, to exchange advice, tips, help, information, for the experienced to pass on the skills to the first timers. So you are very much welcome to post such questions even if you lack experience, after all you gotta start somewhere, so you may as well start here.


I only ever use my phone camera (pathetic, I know) and what I would like to know is what would be a good camera to buy so I can start off taking decent pictures? I will pick things up reasonably quickly but don't want to spend too much money either?
Click to expand...

Again no, using a camera phone is not pathetic, photography is not all about the cameras, cameras are just tools, it is about the people who holds the cameras, it is about us being able to find something, frame something, and take the photo. I'm sure many of us (I myself being one) used a Polaroid (SX-70 or 600 series or similar) when we started first time. Nothing wrong with you using a camera phone as your starting point and moving on to the next step being a camera.

Every cameras will have its own pros and cons, every cameras will be considered better than another, people will say Nikon is better than Canon, other people will say Canon is better than Nikon, they will say Sony is better, Olympus is better, this and that is better, etc. People will say a DSLR is better, others will say compact is better, others will suggest different bridge cameras, compact systems, and so on, other members will suggest budget range, some will suggest what kind of photography you want, but...

You have to make sure that whatever cameras you narrow down to, you got to pick them up and see how do you feel holding them, you must be comfy how you hold them, how you control them, if they feel okay or too heavy for you, you mention GCSE, let me guess, you're a teenager, either still in final years of school or already in college? Okay, so an example would be you may not like to buy a big powerful camera only to find it too big for you to hold. When you have narrowed down your list, based on your own research or based on other members' advice to you, before you buy one, go and try them out. If a friend got a same or similar model as what's on your list, ask if you could borrow to try it out.

Welcome to the world of photography, and good luck.
 
Stanfotoman said:
I don't mind buying used at all, given it comes with the right warranty etc.

If I bought what you said, will I then just need the flash and spare batteries before I can start using the camera?
Click to expand...

All depends what you are shooting. You may not immediately need a flash or spare batteries. Just the camera and lens does for me.
 
Stanfotoman said:
I don't mind buying used at all, given it comes with the right warranty etc.

If I bought what you said, will I then just need the flash and spare batteries before I can start using the camera?
Click to expand...

Not really.

You do not have to wait for the flashgun before starting photography. Most cameras will have built-in flash which you can use for the time being, but assuming you got a camera with no built-in flash, you can just use it anyway, when you got the budget ready for a flashgun, then buy one, but you don't have to wait.

Whatever camera you buy will come with batteries and charger, so you can use it right away, again you don't have to wait until you have spare batteries. Assuming you're more likely to be taking photos after photos at home just for training, you'll be fine. It is if you're planning on a trip somewhere and going to take hours and hours, then yes, spare batteries would help.
 
Major Eazy said:
No, it is not a waste of our time, after all isn't that what Talk Photography forum is all about, to exchange advice, tips, help, information, for the experienced to pass on the skills to the first timers. So you are very much welcome to post such questions even if you lack experience, after all you gotta start somewhere, so you may as well start here.




Again no, using a camera phone is not pathetic, photography is not all about the cameras, cameras are just tools, it is about the people who holds the cameras, it is about us being able to find something, frame something, and take the photo. I'm sure many of us (I myself being one) used a Polaroid (SX-70 or 600 series or similar) when we started first time. Nothing wrong with you using a camera phone as your starting point and moving on to the next step being a camera.

Every cameras will have its own pros and cons, every cameras will be considered better than another, people will say Nikon is better than Canon, other people will say Canon is better than Nikon, they will say Sony is better, Olympus is better, this and that is better, etc. People will say a DSLR is better, others will say compact is better, others will suggest different bridge cameras, compact systems, and so on, other members will suggest budget range, some will suggest what kind of photography you want, but...

You have to make sure that whatever cameras you narrow down to, you got to pick them up and see how do you feel holding them, you must be comfy how you hold them, how you control them, if they feel okay or too heavy for you, you mention GCSE, let me guess, you're a teenager, either still in final years of school or already in college? Okay, so an example would be you may not like to buy a big powerful camera only to find it too big for you to hold. When you have narrowed down your list, based on your own research or based on other members' advice to you, before you buy one, go and try them out. If a friend got a same or similar model as what's on your list, ask if you could borrow to try it out.

Welcome to the world of photography, and good luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the helpful post. I did do photography back at GCSE level, but since then I've been college, Uni, and now work full time- I'm 24. :)

I just always felt like I had a bit more talent than I gave myself credit for, but ofcourse it just feels like a huge learning curve, theres so many variations of cameras, flashes, things like ISO and reflectors etc that I get lost.

Great link Tringa, thanks for that. Ii would eventually like to be making some money on the side, so for that purpose I would need a DSLR right?
 
Short answer - you need an interchangeable lens camera with a larger APS-C size sensor. That's basically either a DSLR or CSC (compact system camera). Not a compact or bridge camera.

Get that with a kit zoom, around 18-55mm. They're good versatile all-rounders and great value. Then also get a 50mm f/1.8, also great value, and that will give you the blurry backgrounds - good for pictures of people. Should be possible for around your budget, though you'll get better value buying used.

Then get shooting and learning, learning and shooting some more, ask questions, learn, shoot etc.

Suggest go to a shop and ask to have a look at DSLRs and CSCs around your budget. See what takes your fancy then come back here before you actually buy, and explain what it is you're thinking of getting :)

PS Do you want video?
 
Where are you based Stan (if that's your real name?)? There may be a member local enough to you who would be happy to meet up and chat about the options available and costs etc. If you're anywhere near Exeter, I would be happy to do so.

Personally, knowing what I do now, I would be tempted (as a relative newbie) to start with something easy to use as a P&S but which offers a reasonable amount of user input as and when they want to explore. The types that spring to mind are bridges and the fixed lens compacts and since they're the models I know well, I would suggest the Fuji HS range for superzoom bridges and the baby X series for compacts. X-10s can be had for around £200 second hand and may even be around that for recons from Fuji. Entry level DSLRs aren't too pricey 2nd hand now and if you're happy with older (and lower pixel count) ones, they're even cheaper (under £100 for a D70 Nikon) and kit lenses aren't likely to break the bank either.
 
Not bothered about video Hoppy, if it happens to have video in it fine but I wouldnt buy a camera for that.

I will post here before buying one, so far in this thread I've been shown a couple of Nikons, and I have heard about the canon 400d.
 
Don't disagree but you won't be getting those blurry backgrounds with a bridge or X10 of course. It also depends how quickly you learn - I was happy using a DSLR within minutes as I am a quite technical (probably too much!) and never saw what the fuss was about, others may find the opposite...
 
Nod said:
Where are you based Stan (if that's your real name?)? There may be a member local enough to you who would be happy to meet up and chat about the options available and costs etc. If you're anywhere near Exeter, I would be happy to do so.

Personally, knowing what I do now, I would be tempted (as a relative newbie) to start with something easy to use as a P&S but which offers a reasonable amount of user input as and when they want to explore. The types that spring to mind are bridges and the fixed lens compacts and since they're the models I know well, I would suggest the Fuji HS range for superzoom bridges and the baby X series for compacts. X-10s can be had for around £200 second hand and may even be around that for recons from Fuji. Entry level DSLRs aren't too pricey 2nd hand now and if you're happy with older (and lower pixel count) ones, they're even cheaper (under £100 for a D70 Nikon) and kit lenses aren't likely to break the bank either.
Click to expand...

I'm up in Bradford - Stans an amalgamation of my full name, just smashed together and I end up with Stan :)

I don't really want to buy another one later though, I also want something that looks like a proper camera, so if I do end up charging someone their perception of me is that I know what I'm doing even if I don't lol.

Can you use different brand lenses with different cameras?
 
Stanfotoman said:
Not bothered about video Hoppy, if it happens to have video in it fine but I wouldnt buy a camera for that.

I will post here before buying one, so far in this thread I've been shown a couple of Nikons, and I have heard about the canon 400d.
Click to expand...

If it's a DSLR you're wanting, and that would be my choice, then go for Nikon or Canon. There's nothing wrong with Sony and Pentax, but Canon/Nikon have 80% of the market between them and there's just much more choice, especially buying used.

In terms of which model to go for, frankly they're all much of a muchness pound for pound.

Only consider a CSC (eg Sony, Olympus, Samsung etc) if small size is important. They're not so good at fast focusing and most don't have an eye-level viewfinder.

Also, don't even think about charging anyone for photography until you're a lot further down the line. By which time, you'll probably have changed the camera twice and have a few more lenses, flash, tripod etc etc. Most importantly, you'll have learned how to use it all.
 
I totally get what you mean, nobody wants amateurs giving pro's a bad name - I work in digital marketing and I see it all the time :)

You should see the standard of photography around here though, half an hours playing with my camera and I'll fit right in :) - but advice taken, thanks.
 
Stanfotoman said:
Can you use different brand lenses with different cameras?
Click to expand...

You can use different brand lenses on different cameras but...

Your camers has its own lens mount and any lens you want to use must obviously be able to mate with the camera.

For example... Canon DSLR's will take Canons own EF lenses and possibly (depending upon the model of camera) Canons EF-S lenses too. Other companies including Sigma, Tamron and others also make Canon EF and EF-S compatible lenses which will also mount on Canon cameras. Take care to ensure that you have picked the right Sigma/Tamron lens for your make and model of camera before buying (it will be stated if they are Canon or Nikon or Pentax fit.)

Some lenses such as those made by Nikon for Nikons own DSLR's will not mate directly to a Canon camera but it may be possible to mount them using an adapter. Note though that when doing this some functions may be lost.

Generally, with DSLR's it's probably best to keep things simple and stick to the manufacturers own lenses or those of the well know third party manufacturers (like Sigma and Tamron) until you know more about the subject and if in doubt ask the supplier or ask here.

Compact System Cameras such as those made by Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and others will take just about any lens ever made via a suitable adapter but some functions (such as auto focus) may be lost.
 
r1bazza said:
Maybe something like this to give you an idea on dslrs,by no means the latest bodies but it would still give you good images.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...as/used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d200/

or

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...ras/used-nikon-digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d60/

With;

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...enses/nikon-af-s-18-105mm-f/3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-2/

And(if your feeling flush)/or;

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...nikon-fit-lenses/nikon-af-s-35mm-f/1.8g-dx-2/

Before anyone starts I know it's just Nikon:p but I don't know enough about the others.
Click to expand...

I've been looking around and I think the D200 will be a good option.

From the lenses you mentioned, which 1 would you recommend, given the thing that first got me interest in photography is depth of field shots?

Also about lenses (question open to everyone) where it says a range, say like 20-120mm (if thats possible!) does that mean it has a larger range of focus? and the f/x ... how do we judge this? Is the lower the number the better it is?
 
My two pence worth - you can't go far wrong with the Nikon D3100, perfect for beginners, lacks a few of the more advanced features but you wont need them until further down the road and as it's Nikon any lenses you buy will be compatible with future camera bodies.

They can be picked up brand new from Amazon with a kit lens(18-55mm) for just shy of £300.

Be prepared to buy a lot more equipment when the photography bug bites though!
 
ChefRobLeeds said:
My two pence worth - you can't go far wrong with the Nikon D3100, perfect for beginners, lacks a few of the more advanced features but you wont need them until further down the road and as it's Nikon any lenses you buy will be compatible with future camera bodies.

They can be picked up brand new from Amazon with a kit lens(18-55mm) for just shy of £300.

Be prepared to buy a lot more equipment when the photography bug bites though!
Click to expand...

how does it compare with the d200? Also, have you got an answer for my post above yours asking about lenses please? thank you

Once I become good at taking the photos, I don't mind paying for more equipment! :lol:
 
The d200 is an older camera but more semi-pro than the d3100, should be better build quality, more external controls, better viewfinder, faster continuous shooting etc (I haven't used one)

The D3100 is more entry level but scores with a newer sensor, more mega-pixels, smaller lighter and more modern features e.g sensor cleaning.

Both cameras will take great photos, personally I would go with the D200, I would probably go for a d90 or d300 if I could afford as they have a newer sensor.

One thing to watch for with Nikon cameras is the internal focus motor. The D3100 does not have one and some of the older lenses won't autofocus. e.g The Nikon "D" lenses are quite often a lot cheaper than their newer counterparts but they won't work on the D3100.

I have had good experiences with second hand cameras and lenses and would go that way to save money.

I agree that Canon or Nikon give the best choices in the second hand market so would go that way.

To get the background out of focus an inexpensive 50mm or 35mm prime is definitely the way to go. (I have a Nikon 50mm f 1.4 prime that cost me £175 from the bay, its great for that kind of work)

It is the f number that tends to indicate the quality of the lens, the lower the number the wider the aperture (hole) that the lens can make to allow the light in. The wider the aperture the easier it is to shoot in low light and the more out of focus the background gets.
 
sponner said:
The d200 is an older camera but more semi-pro than the d3100, should be better build quality, more external controls, better viewfinder, faster continuous shooting etc (I haven't used one)

The D3100 is more entry level but scores with a newer sensor, more mega-pixels, smaller lighter and more modern features e.g sensor cleaning.

Both cameras will take great photos, personally I would go with the D200, I would probably go for a d90 or d300 if I could afford as they have a newer sensor.

One thing to watch for with Nikon cameras is the internal focus motor. The D3100 does not have one and some of the older lenses won't autofocus. e.g The Nikon "D" lenses are quite often a lot cheaper than their newer counterparts but they won't work on the D3100.

I have had good experiences with second hand cameras and lenses and would go that way to save money.

I agree that Canon or Nikon give the best choices in the second hand market so would go that way.

To get the background out of focus an inexpensive 50mm or 35mm prime is definitely the way to go. (I have a Nikon 50mm f 1.4 prime that cost me £175 from the bay, its great for that kind of work)

It is the f number that tends to indicate the quality of the lens, the lower the number the wider the aperture (hole) that the lens can make to allow the light in. The wider the aperture the easier it is to shoot in low light and the more out of focus the background gets.
Click to expand...

Do we really ever need more than 10 megapixels if the image just going to go on an a4 or a3 frame, or a large canvas? If the pictures will begin to look pixelated here then I may have an issue but I think 10.4 megapixels should be fine?

I'm now starting to get a sense of what the aperture does, and how I would potentially manipulate field of depth etc... just need to get a camera now so I can start actually taking pictures! Thanks for your help.
 
10 mp is enough, I think the newer sensor should be an improvement in other areas too, its probably a matter of deciding what you want to spend and going for it, any of the cameras mentioned is more than capable of taking good images.
 
Last edited:
Stanfotoman said:
Do we really ever need more than 10 megapixels if the image just going to go on an a4 or a3 frame, or a large canvas? If the pictures will begin to look pixelated here then I may have an issue but I think 10.4 megapixels should be fine?
Click to expand...

Probably not but the amount of MP is a sign of the sensors age as rightly or wrongly the MP count has gone up each few years. The older sensors do not handle hihger ISOs as well as the newest sensors so if low light/high ISO is of importance to you then the newer the sensor the better (generally speaking)

As an example I had a Canon 20D a year or so back (8MP) and I was happier with the IQ from that than from newer cameras in good light/daylight. In low light however it is a different story and ISO 800 was starting to get dodgy!
 
ernesto said:
Probably not but the amount of MP is a sign of the sensors age as rightly or wrongly the MP count has gone up each few years. The older sensors do not handle hihger ISOs as well as the newest sensors so if low light/high ISO is of importance to you then the newer the sensor the better (generally speaking)

As an example I had a Canon 20D a year or so back (8MP) and I was happier with the IQ from that than from newer cameras in good light/daylight. In low light however it is a different story and ISO 800 was starting to get dodgy!
Click to expand...

So the ISO controls the light into the sensor, and so we want the camera to be able to work in low light which will help the blurry backgrounds?... the higher the ISO the better? Or is this to do with the white balance more than the light? Thanks
 
There are 3 things - known as the "exposure triangle" - that you need to balance. ISO is one of these.
Shutter speed - how long a time light is allowed to fall on the sensor
Aperture - how much light is allowed through the lens
ISO - how sensitive the sensor is to the light (technically more to it - but that will do for now)

Essentially setting a low ISO on your camera results in less noise in the image (again more to it but think of it as giving you a "cleaner" image) - but might not allow you to use the shutter speed and aperture combination you want. Setting a high ISO allows you to take pictures in lower available light but introduces more noise into the image. One of the areas that cameras have improved is the reduction in noise at higher ISO settings which means you can potentially take photos in lower light without noise being a problem.

There is a lot more to it than that very brief explanation. You might want to look in the tutorials section of the forum where Pookeyhead has created a good thread on exposure that describes the 'hows and whys' of combining shutter speed, aperture and ISO to get the effect you want.
 
Last edited:
Stanfotoman said:
So the ISO controls the light into the sensor, and so we want the camera to be able to work in low light which will help the blurry backgrounds?... the higher the ISO the better? Or is this to do with the white balance more than the light? Thanks
Click to expand...

The blurry backgrounds thing is primarily a shallow depth of field effect (ie usually a low f/number, eg f/1.8) but there is a lot more to it if you want max 'subject isolation'. For that, start with a longer lens and move your subject forward from the background, then shoot at lowest f/number.

As a newcomer though, you just need to get a camera and have a go. Things will begin to drop into place. As I mentioned in my earlier post, suggest a DSLR with standard kit zoom as a versatile all-rounder, then a 50mm f/1.8 lens for portraits with out of focus backgrounds. All that is doable and affordable - take it from there.
 
Krisstiffer said:
There are 3 things - known as the "exposure triangle" - that you need to balance. ISO is one of these.
Shutter speed - how long a time light is allowed to fall on the sensor
Aperture - how much light is allowed through the lens
ISO - how sensitive the sensor is to the light (technically more to it - but that will do for now)

Essentially setting a low ISO on your camera results in less noise in the image (again more to it but think of it as giving you a "cleaner" image) - but might not allow you to use the shutter speed and aperture combination you want. Setting a high ISO allows you to take pictures in lower available light but introduces more noise into the image. One of the areas that cameras have improved is the reduction in noise at higher ISO settings which means you can potentially take photos in lower light without noise being a problem.

There is a lot more to it than that very brief explanation. You might want to look in the tutorials section of the forum where Pookeyhead has created a good thread on exposure that describes the 'hows and whys' of combining shutter speed, aperture and ISO to get the effect you want.
Click to expand...

I definitely will be checking out the tutorials, thanks.:)

Bit off topic but we could do with a 'like' button on the forum, I've had a lot of help and it would be good to show gratitude.
 
If you want to learn more, i can recommend any books by Scott Kelby - love him or hate him I find his informal style of writing really easy to understand
 
Last edited:
Stanfotoman said:
I've been looking around and I think the D200 will be a good option.

From the lenses you mentioned, which 1 would you recommend, given the thing that first got me interest in photography is depth of field shots?
Click to expand...

The 35mm but a 50mm would probably be better especially for portraits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top