35mm SLR to DSLR

<p>I have just ordered my first DSLR (Nikon D5200). I am no more than an enthusiastic amateur who has by no means mastered 35mm SLR photography but I'm fairly comfortable with operating my 35mm SLRs and like to think I understand all the basic principles of photography.<br>

However, I am aware that it's going to be quite a transition to start using my DSLR so I would love any tips to cover the fundamental differences between the two types of photography.<br>

For example, am I right in thinking that where you need to be more aware of exposing for the darkest areas on film it's the highlights that need more attention with digital?<br>

I usually shoot in aperture priority mode; is that a reasonable way to begin on a DSLR as well?<br>

I don't want to end up getting overwhelmed, going fully automatic and owning a very expensive point and shoot!</p>

<p>Yes - expose for the highlights, ie treat it like a much more forgiving slide film. Aperture priority is probably what most DSLR users use most of the time with the lovely addition that you can also set up auto-ISO if you like in order that you don't absolutely have to keep checking the shutter speed isn't stupidly low.</p>

<p>Most of the time, program mode will get you there, and when you have a specific need, you can easily shift the program for whatever aperture or shutter speed you want that is within the available exposure range. Combine that with center and lock exposure on the highlights and you will almost never miss, while being totally ready for anything without any fiddling whatsoever. I know opinions vary, but with today's cameras, it rarely makes sense to have the camera set to a specific aperture at all times.</p>

<p>A priority is okay...Shoot and experiememnt lots!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... I am aware that it's going to be quite a transition to start using my DSLR so I would love any tips to cover the fundamental differences between the two types of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At the risk of stating the obvious that you may well be aware of, here are a few differences that will change how you operate your camera. And how they affect me.</p>

<p>- No more film and processing expenses, no more choices for film types. IOW, they all come with a digital camera. I save bundles on film/processing (the savings from the first two years alone paid for the dSLR!), and shoot a lot more frames.<br /> <br /> - Instant gratification, no more waiting for film processing and printing. I can view the results, shoot again right on the spot to correct the mistakes. I can share my photos right after I shoot, and to a much wider audience on the Net.<br /> <br /> - Using the histogram helps me eliminating many poor exposures.<br /> <br /> - No more dealing with the chemicals in a traditional darkroom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> I don't want to end up getting overwhelmed, going fully automatic and owning a very expensive point and shoot!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure how you operate your film body (care to tell?). Here are some of my experiences switching from film to digital, from another thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- I manual focus on the film bodies. I can't manual focus accurately with the D200's viewfinder, and has to switch to AF instead. IOW, say good bye to my MF lenses and buy AF lenses. The AF system on the D200 (and dSLRs in general) is extremely complex, and needs some getting used to.<br /> <br /> - I focus and recompose on the film bodies with ease. It took some digging in the D200's manual to figure out how to use "Back Button focus".<br /> <br /> - On occasions I use multiple exposure on the film bodies. The D200's multiple exposure works very differently and is far less flexible.<br /> <br /> - After getting a first dSLR, setting up a digital darkroom can be expensive and the learning curve will be steep. For me, it was less of a problem. By the time I got my D200, I had already learned how to film scan my slides, how to use PS and how to print digitally. So it was just a matter of learning how to use the D200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And also this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After reading tons of books on digital photography, I came across this book in 2007 and wished that it was available when I first transitioned from film to digital. Its merit is not the "how to", many other books are far superior. But it is a godsend for those transitioning from film to digital. Amazon's comments eloquently explained why.<br /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/158115433X/?tag=nmphotonet-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/dp/158115433X/?tag=nmphotonet-20</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I echo Robert K about the importance of setting up a 'digital darkroom' which is assuming you want to do it yourself of course. Buy something such as Aperture (Mac only) or Adobe Lightroom and learn how to use them. If you've always been happy getting your films processed commercially that option is still available of course.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the fundamental differences between the two types of photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The more changes, the more stays the same. There are no two types of photography; there are just two types of recording media inside the camera. Meaning: all the truly important things are still the same. Composition, getting exposure right, focussing, tming - no fundamental changes at all.</p>

<p>Some of what Robert mentions is, in my view, about getting comfortable with your camera and learning to operate a device. The same happens if you would buy another film camera today. But no doubt it is worth investing time into it. The easier you find your way around your camera, the easier it is to focus on the more important issues (the above mentioned).<br>

The digital darkroom - important, but not 100% strictly necessary to get started with immediately. I'd first take the time to learn your D5200 well, get really comfortable with it, and then dive into post processing. If you want to get the best from your camera, sooner or later you will want to learn it, but it can wait a bit. First things first.<br>

Enjoy the new camera!</p>

<p>Learn how to interpret the histogram--and set your LCD to display that data for each image you take. Not sure if you can show Red, Green, Blue channels on the histogram but do that if the camera is capable. Also, learn how to use the exposure compensation to adjust your exposure (histogram) for what you want. Have fun!</p>

<p>If you are accustomed to aperture priority you should use your new camera that way.</p>

<p>"I know opinions vary, but with today's cameras, it rarely makes sense to have the camera set to a specific aperture at all times."<br>

<br />I would only agree with this statement if the OP was a beginner, as stated the OP is confident in Aperture priority which gives the user command over the camera, as opposed to letting the camera decide what the composition is to look like. <br>

The further away from having the camera decide the composition the better, with higher chances of unique quality photographs.<br>

<br />Just my $.02</p>

<p>I would hesitate before buying Aperture or Lightroom, mostly because powerful options such as GIMP are available for free. I'd try them first (www.gimp.org); if you don't get on with it, and it can be intimidating, <i>then</i> get some commercial software.<br />

<br />

Aperture and shutter work just as they do on a film camera to control the amount of light getting to the sensor. Get used to being able to change the ISO according to your requirements (and look at auto-ISO so the camera can help you).<br />

<br />

Don't let the thing scare you. Scene modes drive me nuts, because I never know what the camera is trying to do. Use S/P/A/M modes just like you would on a film camera and everything works the same - although I often tend to shoot in manual mode with auto-ISO (sadly, a little harder on the D5200 because exposure compensation is harder to get at). Set the camera up so you can find your way around it while you're sitting at home with the manual, then teach yourself new features one at a time - better than trying to jump in the deep end, even if I tend to be a fan of reading the manual before starting out (I'm a geek, but I don't expect to <i>remember</i> the whole manual, just think "oh yes" when I need something). Remember there's a help button.<br />

<br />

Good luck!</p>

<p>Since you have bought the DSLR my main point is redundant ... that I am glad then about 12 years ago lack of finance stopped me getting a DSLR and I got a good Bridge camera. I have mainly avoided them since :-)</p>

<p>So ...<br />Camera and editor are companion tools to be developed in tandem [ skill at]<br />Over exposure is the worst thing you can do so have 'blinkies' switched on to warn you of blown highlights .... the digital camera does not have a shoulder and foot like film. [ Assuming you have a basic or better knowledge of sensitometry :-) ] <br />Perhaps the main message I would give is "Trust your camera" With your film experience you should be able to tell when it is likely to lead you wrong and change settings from auto to avoid that. Instant playback quickly tells you when auto got it wrong and it is usually easy to re-shoot ... at no cost only your time .... so it is fun to experiment.<br />In situations where in film I would be happy to use a long exposure perhaps uncaping and capping the lens [ fireworks ] with digital I take a number of exposures and combine with better compositional control in editing. Reason ... noise buildup in a hot sensor left on too long<br />You need fewer filters, just polariser infra-red and NDs, with digital as everything else can be done in editing where you have precise control instead of the 'stab in the dark' of in-camera adjustments.<br />Another principle as you gain skill with editing is to expose to get a file that you can develop in editing to produce the result you want. You do not <strong>have</strong> to get it right in-camera, and what comes out of the camera may not be 'right' but what comes out of the editing stage is the important thing.<br>

I currently mainly use MFT becuase the bridge camera developed in ways which didn't appeal; to me ... I wanted a large sensor medium zoomed bridge camera and it 'ain't made' :-(</p>

<blockquote>I wanted a large sensor medium zoomed bridge camera and it 'ain't made' :-(</blockquote>

 

<p>Off-topic, but JC: Powershot G1X? Or possibly the Leica X Vario, though that may not be a very convincing option (IMHO).<br />

<br />

I just wanted to say that the "expose for the highlights" thing can be over-stated. It's true that digital sensors don't have roll-off, but most cameras emulate it to some extent; digital highlights are much better than they used to be. It's best to avoid clipping generally, but doing what the meter tells you and trusting that modern sensors have a lot of dynamic range will help you in places where you'd have been stuck with most films - especially if you shoot in raw so you can recover some detail. It's not like slide film, where "expose for the highlights" meant "and hope everything else is within a small number of stops".</p>

<p>Don't shoot it like it's Fujicrhome. Shoot in Raw and Expose To The Right, moving the histogram to its right side, without blowing out any important highlights. Small amounts of blowout can be okay, but don't blow out a whole snowy egret or a brides gown or a really interesting cloud. When you preview the image on the back of the camera it may look washed out, but that's not important because you'll normalize it in Raw conversion. You want to avoid under exposure, because you'll add noise in conversion as you try to bring up shadows or dark areas. Turn on the highlight warning "blinkies" but look at the histogram to really know where you are on exposure.</p>

<p>Many of us use aperture priority, as you plan. There's no reason to change for this transition. Remember, you can change ISO and +1EV from shot to shot. This is one of the huge advantages of digital over film. Since your not used to it and you plan to start in aperture priority mode, you may fail to use this tool as much a you should unless you make it a point to remember your newfound flexibility. When I shoot in Av mode, I chose my aperture based on DOF requirements or trying to get into the lens' sweet spot. For hand held shooting, I'm generally in ISO 400 or 800, but I move shutter speed with ISO, within the limits of the camera to be relatively noise free. (Most are good up to at least ISO 800 these days). For dark subjects I'll use +EV to bring out shadow detail and for white subjects I may use 0EV or -EV to avoid blowing out the whites. You'll need to understand where your meter is measuring. If you put a spot meter on a white subject, then you need +EV to avoid the white being rendered medium grey by the meter. If you're using a broadly based meter reading, with a white subject taking up a small percentage of the frame, then -EV is needed. You probably experienced that with film and Av mode.</p>

<p>You may need to upgrade your computer and start out with a good file management plan from the beginning, If you were already scanning your film images and working them in some software, you can continue that, but you need to consider the Raw conversion software, like Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro, Phase One and several others. You can do most of your work at time of conversion from Raw.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My progression was from Film/Darkroom to Film/Scanner/Inkjet printer to DSLR/Inkjet printer, so in many ways it was more gentle. If you used to use a darkroom, then your biggest transition will be moving to computers for working on the image and printing. I use a Mac, Aperture 3, and an Epson Photo Stylus R1800 printer (old now). </p>

<p>If you were already using scanners and inkjet printers, I have to say I don't notice that much difference in the taking of the images from film. The fact that I can look at what I have right after I take it is useful though, as is the histogram. My older Digitals only allowed me to look at the tiny rear screen. My Nex-7 allows me to look at it inside the electronic viewfinder which I like better. </p>

<p>If you are looking at the tiny rear screen on yours keep in mind that the final image after you get a chance to use a program like Aperture or Lightroom on it will probably be much better so wait till then before you try to edit the bad ones out. Good luck.</p>

<p>Andrew G.<br>

After x12 bridge cameras I found I must be adicted to the longer zoom, I also have both x1.7 and x2.2 Telephoto adaptors, becuase I found the kit lens on my Panasonic G3 very restricting [ 28-84 AoV ]... and I was taking loose shots rather than the tighter framing I have grown to make over my lifetime so I got the 14-140 zoom and subsequently have changed the body to a GH2 [ the GH3 came out a month too late as I was waiting for that but couldn't wait any longer] Though giving me a wider start it takes me back to 280 AoV from the 430 I have with my bridge cameras .... but I knew the 280 helped me take some great pictures with my first bridge camera so I am reasonably happy. I have been with Panasonic for nearly a decade so it is natural to stay with them ... I think they make a good product.... for my needs anyway. Better than other bridge makers seem to be from what I read on blogs and features that I take for granted but are not found in others when I suggest things to try and help people.<br>

The G1X is a short zoom, only x4 and has an abomidable tunnel viewfinder ... that is going back to the Ark :-) The Leica is worse with less than the kit len zoom only x2.5 plus I am not interested in paying for a red badge ;-)<br>

Sorry but while both probably take excellent photos they don't register for my needs.</p>

<p>JC - I didn't say they were good cameras, just that they were large sensor zooms. :-) But fair enough, just checking!</p>

<p>Why are we talking about "bridge cameras" for an experienced 35mm film shooter? There's absolutely no reason to put an arbitrary step in the way of someone that is experienced. I went digital in 2007 with a Canon G7, even though I'd shot medium format and 35mm for decades. I've got some great shots from my G7 era, but they'll only stand up to printing at around 28", where my 5D MkII pix (my next camera) are printing at 48 to 60" on the long side. Internet people told me that I shouldn't jump from P&S to FF, but that's pure BS.</p>

<p>Our OP is used to changing lenses and really only needs to learn about exposing digital sensors slightly differently from film. Going to a P&S superzoom, or some other "bridge" is a step backward, IMO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I usually shoot in aperture priority mode; is that a reasonable way to begin on a DSLR as well?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The exposure modes (P, A, S, M) has nothing to do with "darkest areas" and "highlights" or film vs digital. On the other hand, you seem to be familiar with A mode already, why not try all other modes (it wont hurt). Now that you have a DSLR, you can try a lot of things without cost</p>

<p>As I have written elsewhere in more polite terms it illustrates the blindness of the DSLR user to other valid systems and I doubt if many want to make 48" prints though that is quite possible from a 3Mp P&S camera according to Kodak literature.<br>

<em>I usually shoot in aperture priority mode; is that a reasonable way to begin on a DSLR as well?</em><br>

I think you would find most experienced users mainly work in that mode too though of course they know how to use the other modes and I suspect in reality you do too :-)<br>

Even though I have been using cameras for over sixty years when I bought my latest camera I worked in P mode for a few days to ensure I got good results as I became freinds with my new tool. It is the most sophisticated camera I have ever owned and both it and the manual, which I always carefully read on getting a new camera, were most daunting.<br>

As an experienced worker in film I think you are more likely to understand the manual than somebody starting from scratch ... yet newbies are sold complicated cameras and the manual is equally mystifying becuse they are written by people who know the photographic terms .. consumerism rampant :-(</p>

<p ><a name="00c3Xc"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5331729">David Stephens</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 09, 2013; 09:37 a.m.</p>

 

<p><em>Why are we talking about "bridge cameras" for an experienced 35mm film shooter?</em><br>

Well David I am very glad after experience with cameras from wholeplate downwards with plate and film that when I got my first 'good' digital camera finances stopped me from getting a DSLR [ $3000 in those days] and all I had was $2500 which got me a Nikon 5700 and exposed me to the potential of a quality bridge camera in experienced hands. I had already been making winning 15"x12" exhibition prints against SLR products from my Canon 3.3Mp P&S and the Nikon allowed me to crop just a little with its 5Mp.<br>

But it cured me of any misconceptions that I needed a DSLR to replace my SLR. <br>

True for the newbie it is easier to take good photos with a DSLR but for the knowledgable not a requirement. Cameras these day remove much of the need for skill that pre-auto film required ... why people buy a DSLR and think they are ready to shoot weddings .... LOL <br>

Mind you I would these days suggest not a bridge unless you have a real need for the super-zoom but rather a MFT with a medium zoom as I currently have since R&D of the bridge has gone the wrong way IMO but no doubt following market trends.</p>

 

<p>What are you talking about JC? Maybe the OP is tired of paying for film or lost her reliable place for processing it. Yes, there are many options to a DSLR these days, but Kimberley said that she ordered a DSLR and was wondering about differences from her SLRs (notice the plural).</p>

<p>I don't know what you were expecting out of a DSLR, but I would guess that very few experienced SLR users need to go backwards before going forward into DSLR. Kimberley asked the right question, basically, to paraphrase, "what differences can I expect." We answered that and then somebody started talking about "bridge" cameras. That discussion is totally out of context with the original question.</p>

<p>Some people like to tie one hand behind their backs, most people don't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Why are we talking about "bridge cameras" for an experienced 35mm film shooter?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. Meandering conversations about our favorite cameras are appropriate for the Casual Photo Conversations and various equipment forums. But these digressions can be confusing to new members and new photographers who ask questions on the Beginner Forum. It becomes a chore to wade through the digressions to get the answers to the actual question.</p>

<p>Let's please try to keep things focused on the beginner forum and direct our replies to the original poster.</p>