Amateur Photographer Looking for Advice

Ozge - I remember about 9 years ago I was in a similar situation with respect to my assessment of my photography skills and equipment. I thought my composition showed some potential and was often quite good, but my photos were rather dull and unimpressive. I blamed the lacklustre images on my equipment and technique and bought some books on photography to learn what to buy. I learned that the body is just a box to control how much light reaches the film. I also learned that my lenses were probably not really to blame, especially not my 50/1.8. Most likely the problem lay with the processing of the prints. To test this theory I ran a roll of slide film through my camera and lo and behold, they looked awesome. Exactly the look I had been wanting.

 

Moral of the story is don't be too quick to blame yourself or your equipment for images that look dull and uninspiring if you're judging by prints. Try slide film. It doesn't improve your composition, but you just may realize that your equipment isn't to blame. At the very least, it's a cheap experiment and may give you an idea of where your equipment and your ability to properly expose film are at.

 

Now don't go reading into this that print film is somehow inferior to slide film. In fact it has many advantages to slide film and if you don't know what they are, then there is one more thing for you to research. Perhaps many of your archived negatives contain stunning photos which the print processing failed to do justice to. All I'm saying is that slides pretty much reveal what was exposed on the film - same as the negative; whereas prints are totally at the mercy of some photo lab tech or computer algorithm which may or may not (more often the latter in my experience) know how to generate a great print.

an m6 with a 35mm summicron will do a great job at both weddings and travel photography.

you'd even have money left over for a nikon fm2 and a 85/1.8 or 105/2.5. if it doesn't pan

out, sell it and get something else.

 

i also live in the la basin, but i wish i lived in nyc because there's so much more going on.

Ozge Merhaba,

Herkes fikrini belirtmis ama bende sana kendi tecrubelerimi yazayim. Bu arada umarim, turkce okumanda sorun yoktur. Leica makina ve objektif ile cekecegin fotograflarda son derece net veya alan derinligi olan fotograflar bulacaksin. Hele Siyah/Beyaz cekersen cok daha guclu ve vurgulu fotograflar elde edersin. Leica'nin objektifleri cok kalitelidir. Eger kullanmayi bilirsen muthis guzel fotograflar cekersin. Bunuda zamanla ilerletirsin. Ama rangefinder makinalar, SLR makinalar kadar kolay kullanilamaz. Fotograflarindan gordugum kadari ile daha cok portre, insan fotografi ve manzara cekmeyi seviyorsun. Genis aci lens ile yakindan calisabilirsen ve bir tane teleobjektif bana yeter dersen Leica rangefinder ozelliklede Leica M6 almani oneririm. Hem kucuk ve hafif, hemde cok kaliteli bir makina. Tabii burada karar verecegin baska bir konu, filmli makina kullanmak istiyormusun? DSLR makinalarda sen sadece konuya odaklanirsin ve kadraji ayarlarsin. Isik ayarini ve metre ayarini makina kendisi ayarlar. Ama rangefinder makina kullanacagin zaman herseyi sen yapacaksin. Netlik, kadraj, isik ayari, hiz ayari gibi...

Fakat elinde eski model gorunen bir makina ile kimseyi rahatsiz etmeden ve gurultu cikartmadan cok rahat fotograf cekebilirsin.

Ankara'dan sevgiler.

Tolga ANIL

John, what you said about lens mounts is obviously nonsense. Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasselblad, even Leica will use their current mounts 5 and even 15 years from now for many of their new digital cameras. And you can still get film and processing in 10 years, to say the least. I am offering $10 for all your film cameras and lenses in the mounts of your film cameras in 2012. You should take on the offer now as nobody else will make a better offer, if you turn out correct.

"This is part of the allure of the Leica -- that I can fall in love with the camera and have it

for a long time without having to replace it."

 

Well, the only way to find out is to buy one and see if love blossoms. You want a new

camera and you fancy a Leica -- I can't think of single reason why you shouldn't have one.

Buy and enjoy.

 

--alun

Very glad you posted your photos, Ozge. I enjoyed them. It looks as though you take some of the same kinds of photos I like to take.<p>

 

Sometimes for me there's a tension between (i)showing more background/context in my street photos to give a sense of the setting: <a href=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/177/457935959_077f3e65fe_o.jpg>pic #1</a>;

and (ii)getting in a bit closer, making them more like portraits, and still trying to leave enough background in the shot:

<a href=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/98/232135177_7c65bfae08_o.jpg>pic #2</a>. It's a challenge. <p>

 

Incidentally, I didn't see anything (at the posted size, of course) that suggested to me that your camera -- either camera -- wasn't up to the job. A couple of the Cambodia photos show the difficulty anyone might have in exposing for very bright and very dark portions of the same frame. Often that situation calls for specialized filters, more experience metering those scenes as you get the feel for what a given combination of camera/lens/film will do, and/or more work in the post-processing, either by the lab or later, by you in Photoshop. <p>

 

But as Alun Severn has noted succinctly above, what your current cameras can do may be beside the point. :-)<p>

I just traded two Canon 1Vs for a Leica M3 and a few lenses. I have snapped a few shots with the Leica and practiced some prefocusing (the only other rangefinder expereince i have is with a yashica Electro), but mostly i have been walking around with my light meter and taking notes so i can use the damn camera without a meter. Here is my advice to you, I have owned just about every type of camera out there, and from the way you travel and shoot, I would go one of two routes. If you have a ton of money, get an M6, how can you really go wrong. But if you have saved the $3000, and it isn't pocket change for you, I would seriously consider the used Nikon FM2N with some quality lenses. you will still have the new toy, and it is a hell of a lot of fun to use that camera too, you won't be disappointed. The fact that it is all manual is a bonus. Compared to DSLRs it is still a pretty unassuming camera. Like the wiser people have said before me, spend the leftover money actually taking picutures. I am sure a lot of people can sympathize with "the new toy" aspect, a few years ago i got an aquisition itch and bought a lot of camera equipment, that i have since been getting rid of. I have a canon FD system that i find more enjoyable than my canon DSLR and AF systems, and now the Leica is making me develop some new skills, so for that it is a useful tool for me. But you really got to think if switching to a rangefinder is going to improve your photography whereever you are at, and also if you will enjoy that style of phtography. You really got to look inside and buy a camera becasue it will be useful, not becasue it would be a nice toy, trust me I know from experience :)

practice, practice, practice.

Lots of good discussion here. My recent introduction into the Leica world has made me a

huge fan of the cameras form/fit/feel/function. I've shot a few differnt models of the

Canon line up, and still shoot a ton of stuff with their digital bodies. But as an all around

cam, I carry an M6. I've gotten to really enjoy the slower pace of shooting with it. (slower

on purpose, although I am sure some folks can shoot faster).

 

I bought my Leica equipment about a year ago. I found a vendor that had an auction of

old stock from a store foreclosure. Recently I've seen the same bodies going for the same

or more $$ than what I paid. There are some great deals to be had.

 

Personally, I don't see the death of film in the near future. Maybe my head is buried in the

sand to deep, but I just can't see it happening soon. Long live film...!

 

Cheers

i think you really want a leica and have the money to buy it, so my advice is get a used one,

use it for a while, and if you like it you keep it,of you don't, you sell it at almost no loss of

money.

Ilkka, thanks for the offer. Let's talk in 2012.

 

Meanwhile, I plan to shoot and scan a lot of silver before the inevitable digital viewfinder-type with 4/3 chip that's optically better than Canon G7 at a price that makes sense to me (5D $$). I think 2008 will be that year. Panasonic's close, but for that neo-slr form factor. And yes, it'd be nice if it accepted M/LTM primes, but it won't IMO.

 

Film's already dead with T-grain: inferior digital look.

Thanks, Paul A!! I am signing up for the summer semester of Photo 1 and beginning photoshop at the Covina school. I think in the meantime before I figure out what I am looking for I will invest in 1 good lens for the Nikon and learn on that for the summer and then once I get the hang of it, I can feel comfortable with the larger investment for my trip next year. I imagine the basics of film camera use will be the same for beginners and I'll probably have a much better sense of what I need once I am done with the class. Thank you all for your help. I really appreciate it. I'll continue to post photos as I improve -- the photos on this site have been inspiring so far. If you were going to buy a lens for the Nikon N75 what would you get? The camera itself is not great, I know, and if people think it might be worth investing in the Nikon F100 instead then I may be willing to do that (it comes highly recommended from you folks so I'm sure it's great). Anyway, I want the Leica but until I know enough to figure out which exact model to purchase, I think I need an interim camera to work with. Sorry for the barrage of questions.

I am convinced composition is the most important part of photography. To zoom or not to

zoom? A 24 or 28 to 90 or 105 plus an 80 to 200 will cover just about everything you

need. But then a single focal length lens teaches you discipline. If that's what you want,

get a fast 50. If that appeals, you would like the Leica approach.

First, good call on the photo class. Perhaps my best (and in one sense, my only) "investment" in my photography was an Intro class I took a few years ago -- 3 Friday evenings and 2 Saturday a.m. field trips -- at a community college down the road.

 

Second, these are two consumer level autofocus Nikkor lenses I have used and liked:

 

(i) 28 - 105mm AF-D Nikkor zoom

 

Pretty good carry-around zoom range, sharp, reasonably light, and has a close-focusing capability (not "true macro" but better than nothing). Readily available (new and used) and in my view, not overpriced.

 

(ii) 50mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor

 

Sharp, small, light, quite good in available light situations, and at approximately $100 new, a easy call to make ... provided you like the 50mm (so-called "normal") focal length. I do like it, but for some, a 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm might make for a better prime lens.

 

[Note 1: In both cases, the "D" means the lens transmits distance info for flash purposes.]

 

[Note 2: Neither of these lenses is "AF-S" so neither will autofocus on a D40/D40x dslr from Nikon (but both will autofocus on all other dslr's from Nikon). If you've got a sense you might go the D40/D40x route, that might be a factor.]

Incidentally, the F100 is head-and-shoulders above the N75 in just about every respect, but especially in its faster, surer autofocus and much better viewfinder. But it's also a larger and heavier body -- not immense, but certainly bigger than the N75.

 

You should see if you can handle an F100 with a lens on it before you decide. As photographers have dumped film cameras, prices have fallen on cameras like the F100, but the cameras themselves certainly haven't lost any of their capabilities.