Need help I have never used a Digital Electric Camera before.

Does anyone know of any Digital online Course for her Digital Photography

Thanks for all your help I will stick with what I know Film

I suppose I should point out the learning pages on this site. Digital photography is more or less the same as non-digital - composition is more important than anything, especially since the camera (like most film cameras since the late 1980s) will make exposure decisions for you. There's no course like doing, though.

Cambridge in colour is worth a look. So is luminous landscape, but much is behind a pay wall these days. Be wary of Ken Rockwell's site - it's got some good information, but it's prone to hyperbole, highly opinionated, and often opinions outweigh facts.

Good luck!

Annette, don't be put off from digital by your experiences with the Coolpix 5700. My first digital camera was a the similar Coolpix 5000, and I had a 5700 briefly. These early digitals are capable of quite nice results but their control interfaces are fiddly, frustrating and counter-intuitive. You could easily spend a long time learning its quirks, then find yourself having to start over if you decided to upgrade to something more up to date. As digital evolved, the designers improved and somewhat standardised the control systems so that moving from one camera to another didn't involve hours of reading manuals.

You can get very decent slightly earlier digital SLR's for little money, for example I won a Nikon D200 for £55 a few weeks ago. They are so much easier to use than the 5000 and similar series, not too complicated, no movie modes etc, I find it a real pleasure to use with plenty of dedicated, clearly labelled controls, bright pentaprism viewfinder, and a reasonably large and colourful LCD screen.

As said above, digital photography isn't different from using film: exposing, composing is all the same. I think the main point is that most compact digital cameras (point & shoot cameras) aren't really made for full manual control. So trying to shoot it like it is a fully manual film cameras isn't really working. So, frankly you would not need a dedicated course of digital, or generic photo courses since they usually assume cameras with more/easier manual control.

Above somebody already suggested to just put the camera in its automatic mode, and that really is the best solution for a camera like this. Aperture control isn't very important since the sensor is too small (much smaller than 35mm film), so it always has plenty depth of field. You may want to keep the ISO low to avoid noise in the image, and that's about it. Don't make these cameras more complex than they need to be, because they're not designed for that.

I can't wait for chunky bridge-cameras to go away completely. They're bulkier than DX DSLRs as the glass lump at the front is stuck on permanently.

They have the imaging capabilities alright but the UI is a designer's dream and a user's nightmare. I'm a firm believer in more buttons and less menu diving.

I might go for the D3100 onwards for a starter DSLR and they can be had with kit lens for absolute peanuts.

"I can't wait for chunky bridge-cameras to go away completely. They're bulkier than DX DSLRs as the glass lump at the front is stuck on permanently."

- I think the 'glass lump' is their USP Mike. The zoom range has reached ridiculous levels. Something like a 24-1000 mm equivalent on some models. So while the camera is always bulky it's also a lot less weighty than a bagful of lenses for any camera with a larger sensor.

I have a P100 that has a 600mm equivalent lens, and it's very portable indeed for something with that reach. However, the trend is to remove niceties like RAW shooting and a hotshoe, or even a proper aperture control, but for snapshooting in reasonable light, bridge cameras cover a lot of ground. Most compact digitals do these days. And it's not like anyone forces you to choose a bridge design over anything else.

True!

It's the no RAW, no hotshoe and lack of dedicated buttons that really makes them unfriendly. It seems deliberate crippling, for no obvious reason.

But, as you say if you NEED 2000mm (EQ) NOW, the P900 you've got with you counts for a lot:D

True!

 

It's the no RAW, no hotshoe and lack of dedicated buttons that really makes them unfriendly. It seems deliberate crippling, for no obvious reason.

 

But, as you say if you NEED 2000mm (EQ) NOW, the P900 you've got with you counts for a lot:D

That is why I still use my old Coolpix 5000. It has hot shoe and shoot RAW. The controls are there but it's difficult to use. About the only thing that bothers me about this camera is that when I shoot RAW (which is almost always) I have to wait 30 seconds between shots.

True!

 

It's the no RAW, no hotshoe and lack of dedicated buttons that really makes them unfriendly. It seems deliberate crippling, for no obvious reason.

I feel obliged to point out that the P5700 that this thread is about has raw, a hot shoe, fairly proper aperture control (for its sensor size), and about as many external control points as a D3x00. There's a difference between a bridge camera and a super zoom - but also a difference between 2002 and 2018 (especially in wait time - my original RX100 was launched in 2012, and it's not especially slow).

Something like the RX10 series have big zooms but retain raw, hot shoes, and lots of control points - and a high price tag. They're not exactly tiny, but then they have an intermediate sized sensor. The RX100 range is much smaller (with a shorter zoom range) while still having decent controls and raw, though you have to choose between a viewfinder and a hot shoe. Canon and Panasonic both make decent alternatives.

I can't vouch for what Nikon are doing with their market entrant, though...

I feel obliged to point out that the P5700 that this thread is about has raw, a hot shoe, fairly proper aperture control (for its sensor size), and about as many external control points as a D3x00. There's a difference between a bridge camera and a super zoom - but also a difference between 2002 and 2018 (especially in wait time - my original RX100 was launched in 2012, and it's not especially slow).

 

Something like the RX10 series have big zooms but retain raw, hot shoes, and lots of control points - and a high price tag. They're not exactly tiny, but then they have an intermediate sized sensor. The RX100 range is much smaller (with a shorter zoom range) while still having decent controls and raw, though you have to choose between a viewfinder and a hot shoe. Canon and Panasonic both make decent alternatives.

 

I can't vouch for what Nikon are doing with their market entrant, though...

The 5700 was introduced at about $1000. More than a D3400 kit.

The 5700 was introduced at about $1000. More than a D3400 kit.

Well, yes. But less than a D100. (My Eos 300D from 2004 cost me about £1000.) My refurbished RX100 cost me about £250, I think.

You can certainly get an old but capable dSLR for low money these days. The downside is you'll quite possibly find the tiny screen, impenetrable menus, responsiveness and card compatibility to be frustrating. I'd tend to say you may as well get a D3200 as a relatively modern camera/sensor (admittedly without the second dial of a D70) that you won't immediately feel the need to upgrade, for not a lot - but it'll show up the limitations of that 18-200, so you're probably looking at an 18-55 and 55-200 pair rather than a convenience zoom. But IIRC dpreview actually gave their entry level prize to Canon this year, and it's been a while since I was current on their range.

That's assuming someone wanting to get into photography with more than a lowest-end point and shoot, and cares about controls and flexibility over convenience. Somewhere I have a Panasonic point and shoot that cost about £30 a few years back, deliberately so I wouldn't mind losing it (which I have, although I think it's in the house...) - it takes okay pictures, though it's very frustrating to use and not as flexible as the P5700. If you just want snaps, you can get something new from Sony (at least) that's half decent for double that, ignoring all the likely rubbish from ultra budget brands. Getting started in digital photography doesn't cost much more than a few rolls of film these days. And that's ignoring the "use your phone" option.