Its time to enter the 21st Century - Move from 35mm to DSLR

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by michael_klapp|1, Nov 23, 2009.

  1. Hey Everyone,
    Well, its time for me to enter the 21st Century of Photography and get into a DSLR.
    Probably not going to happen for a while, but I'm trying to do as much research as
    I've been looking through forums and the web, but not finding exactly what I'm looking for.
    I went to school for photography, but its been a good 11 years since I picked up anything other
    than a point and shoot.
    That being said, I'm a Landscape/Cityscape kind of guy and I'm looking for something that will
    allow me to get the best possible images I can and keep it at a reasonable price level. Currently,
    I'm using and Cannon A2 and a AE-1. I'm heading out with some Fuji-Chrome to get back into
    practice and having the transparencies digitized.
    In addition to the camera, I need to get into some software too. Probably, before the camera, so
    I can play with my current images. But, I'm concerned about copy right issues with some of the
    software out there. (Using an older Mac with G4 processor).
    I know this is a lot to ask, hope you guys/gals can help me out.
  2. Budget. It all depends on your budget. There's tons of excellent choices, really, and since your current gear will be rendered irrelevant, and you'll need new lenses, any brand is possible, as well. Check the reviews here and at DP Review ( and select a few that meet your budget constraints and read up.
    If budget is no issue, take a look at the Canon 5D II. Killer cam.
    As far as software, I like Photoshop, if it's within your budget.
  3. I know its not the best response, but budget is up in the air right now. Its not a money is not object kind of thing, its a spend what needs to be spent to get what I need kind of thing.
    To be honest, I have know clue what I'm doing when it comes to DSLRs. I'm not sure if i need a Full Frame sensor or some thing with 4/3rds. I'm basically and idiot when it comes to the DSLR stuff. I'd like to stay in the Canon family, but its not a necessity, as stated above, my current equipment with be pretty much null and void with this move.
    I've been looking at stuff like the Lumix GF1 for the size and versatility, but not sure it will offer the pro-style quality I'm going for.
  4. Michael: the standard advice goes something like this: "It's hard to go wrong with any of the major brands/systems". I generally agree with that approach. With that said, if you're planning to expand/grow your involvement with DSLR photography I would suggest first looking at the various systems out there instead of specific cameras. I'd start looking at just Canon and Nikon, and perhaps add Pentax since they seem to have a price/performance edge at the expense of being not one of the "big two" (as well as using the smallest sensor). If you can decide on a system to look at in more detail, that cuts out a lot of the variables.
    Specifically given your " Landscape/Cityscape" inclination, I'd suggest looking at FX sensor cameras first. David's suggestion of a Canon 5D mkII is spot-on. Look at the Nikon equivalents, too. If those prices aren't too far out of reach that's what I'd suggest. With your 35mm SLR experience you should be able to select decent lenses.
    If for whatever reason you don't want to jump into the FX game right away, any of the modern 1.5 or 1.6 crop bodies would be fine. I'd suggest getting a one with 14-bit raw files for the most dynamic range. 10 Mpix+ resolution is fine. Check out the comments/reviews on the Canon 50D to get a feel for the trade-offs with super-high pixel densities. For deliberate shooting like you seem to favor, don't get caught up in the processor specs or the like. You'll probably end up shooting 100% RAW images at a slow pace, so (almost) nothing in the body matters other than the sensor, digitizer, and auto-focus.
    For software, Photoshop is the standard tool. The most recent versions might choke on your computer. Photoshop Elements (esp. at the $50 cost with coupons these days) is really hard to beat. Again, a PowerPC Mac may have problems with the latest versions.
  5. Thanks Geoff, This is the kind of info that I was looking for!
    I like the idea of the 5D, but the price of the 50D might be in line with what I want to do right now.
    Outside of the resolution and the ISO capabilities, and sensor size they seem pretty close. How much
    of an image difference would I see at say; 16x20 print? Can't seem to find a comparison.
    Also, might consider buying used to start, what should I look for? Lastly, any good reading materials you guys would recomend?
  6. One more thing to add. I've noticed that the DOF of a FF Sensor seems to be less than in the APS-C Sensors. That being said and since I'm doing mostly Landscape/Cityscape photos, it seems that the APS-C cameras might be better. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
  7. You can buy a good 2 year old lightly used DSLR (eg. Canon XT/XTI or Nikon D40/D60) in the $300-400 range with a kit lens. Some good places to look are KEH, Cameta and or E bag. There is a learning curve like most anything interesting so the sooner you get in the pool the sooner you will be swimming. Lots of new terms and new ways to do things. You will like it. Good luck!
  8. Michael,
    The depth of field is not issue for either FF or crop--you just have to get acquainted with the particular lens and its characteristics. People claim you get too much field depth with crop, but it's not true. With the right lens and aperture you can get great OOF areas. And since people have been using MF forever for landscape and can get appropriate depth of field with that, a FF should be no problem either. It's just familiarity and technique.
  9. The 50D is a fine camera, and many people (myself included) like the ergonomics of the xxD bodies. If you like that sensor/resolution, I'd also suggest looking at the 500D/Rebel T1i. I believe is has the same sensor as the 50D in a smaller (cheaper) body. You might be better off with the less-expensive body and better lenses.
    Used is a decent way to start. KEH is generally considered a very safe bet for used equipment (no personal experience I'm afraid - but I don't remember the last time I read a negative comment about them). A good clean 5D or 40D might be very cost-effective. Just watch out for gear that's had a hard life... (no surprise there).
    You are correct that DOF at a given aperture increases with smaller sensor size. However, diffraction effects also get worse. Scott's comments are spot on.
    Here's a link that may get you started on that topic:
  10. Michael,
    Since this is your first DSLR, don't get the 50D. You can get 90% of its capabilities in a Canon T1i, and if you decide you want to move to a FF camera, you're investment and subsequent loss at resale time is less. Don't underestimate the T1i, it's excellent and very, very capable.
  11. David,
    You bring up a very valid point, and one that I've defiantly been considering. My only concern with the T1i is that in a year I'll be selling in and getting a 50D or 5Dii.
    Ideally, I'd like something that I can grow into and use for 5 years or more.
    What do you guys think?
  12. Since you have Canon EF lenses I would stay with Canon for now. Since you are unsure on the 5D I would go for APS-C camera to learn. In my opinion anything from Xsi on up will work for landscapes and cityscapes. All have more than enough resolution for most people. Your skill will have more of an effect on the image quality than the camera model. The biggest difference between the Rebels and XXD cameras is how it feals in your hands and how the controls work. If a 50D is more to your liking then the Rebel then you might want to look at a used 40D (also a very good camera).
    In regards to depth of field, APS-C sensors have a narrower field of view because the sensor is smaller. As a result if you use a 100mm on a full frame, a 50 or 60mm will be used on a APS-C sensor. Shorter focal length lenses have greater depth of field. However if you put a 100mm lens on a APS-C camera and then stitched several photos together to get the same field of view as on full frame camera, the depth of field would be the same.
  13. One book that I found very helpful is Complete Digital Photography, by Ben Long, Charles River Media press. I have the 4th edition, there could be a new one by now. Comprehensive and well written, clear explanations.
  14. This is one of those happy situations in which almost any major brand of digital SLR will serve you well. You are, however, buying into a "system" as well as a camera, so you do want to look at what other accessories like lenses, etc., are offered in relation to your needs, as others have said. I moved from Nikon to Canon when I went digital, and have not regretted the switch, since most of my old Nikkor lenses work fine as manual lenses on my Canon EOS bodies. In your case, your Canon FD lenses, ironically, will not work on most modern digital SLRs, although they might on the 4/3 system bodies--someone will no doubt confirm or reject this. I would not let old manual lenses, however, play too large a role in what you get. It's simply nice to be able to use the old glass, especially if you have some classic lenses like a great old f/0.95 lens or some such. I repeat-- your current FD lenses from the AE-1 will not work for normal use on the current digital Canons without adapters with negative lenses on them (and some image-quality issues from that) .
    Your old G4 will still serve. I am still running one of the very first G4 computers, the 400MHz Yikes! as a back up machine and for some older SCSI scanners, etc. Photoshop CS runs fine on it under the latest update of Mac OS X 10.4. Photoshop 7 runs even better, and is still adequate for lots of functions. It, the G4, is surprisingly close to my G5 laptop and my Intel Mini in operation, both running Photoshop CS3, it just lacks a few bells and whistles. Stuff some more memory into it and get a fast Firewire HD and you'll be OK for a while, although you will have to use the camera-supplied software to deal with RAW files, likely.
  15. Thanks everyone! A lot of good info. Dave, I'll be on that book tomorrow.
    As for lenses, I'll be buying all new to start. Wasn't panning on using my old lenses. Think I might create an antique display for the wall. I also have an old A2 from way back, but never used it as much as my AE-1. I have a couple of lenses for that, but nothing that I really want to use moving forward. Both lenses for the A2 are pretty budget. Probably play around with them, but nothing too serious.
    The 40D is definately on my radar.
    Stephen and JDM, thanks for the input.
  16. From my perspective (as the old knight in the movie said), "you have chosen wisely."
    It's really fun, but be aware that there is a lot of "operating system" to learn with any modern digital camera, so carry your manual around religiously* for the first year.
    *and I don't mean just on Easter and Christmas.
  17. you say you're a "landscape" guy, and you want the best images possible for a reasoable price. slr's are for shooting sport, field cameras are for landscapes, and a field camera will cost you alot less than a digicam.
    however, if you insist on the slr, then sony would be worth a good look. add some carl zeiss glass, and you have yourself a beautiful kit.
    years, decades and centuries may have passed, but it's still about the light, not the camera. don't feel you have to just follow the crowd and go digital. really ask yourself why you want to go digital. for what you do, is it going to more convenient? and then ask yourself, "do i really need my hobby to be convenient". if you like the look of digital images the go that way, but if you like the look of film, then stick with it because nobody cares if you shoot digital or film...they only care what the print on the wall looks like. and digital and film look different.
  18. I still own a couple of 4x5 systems as well as a couple of MFs. While the hardware is cheap and accessible nowadays, the cost of the film, processing and quality scanning is not. Creating a portfolio with LF film, all things considered, will not be nearly as inexpensive in the long run as creating it with digital. As an example, using good glass and a 12 meg body, a six frame stitch at 16 bits raw (3x2), will give you approximately a 200 meg file. A 30" x 40" print from such a file can more than match the quality of LF/MF film files with far less hardware hassle. Obviously there will be some things that can be done more creatively with a LF camera and movements, and film has it's 'look' but there are lots of possibilities and, uitimately, cost savings with an entry level DSLR and good glass vs going LF or MF film.
  19. Hey Tom,
    I agree, I've shot field cameras and really do like them, but the price isn't that much cheaper.
    The ones that I've see start at 1700 and go up and that's with out glass. Not to mention carrying
    it and the equipment. Now, if some how I'm lucky enough to do well and hire and assistant or
    intern, we'll definatly add a field camera to the line up with dig and film backs.
  20. Well, I think I've made my decision, looks like I'll be picking up a used 40D body and some nice glass.
    Anyone have any tips on buying a used DSLR? I've heard that there are only a finite number
    of actuations.
  21. Hi Mike,
    I'm saying this on the assumption a high speed/fast auto focus body isn't what your after.
    if your priority is image quality, sharpens, and that optical "feel" that traditional landscapes have, you really would be best going full frame, I'm not saying cropped 1.5 and 1.6 bodies can't produce fantastic photos, but they do have some subtle differences.
    If your looking at used stuff I'd have a look at the the original 5d, which you can pick up at a good price, it'll give you enough resolution to print fairly large, and will give you some of the best per pixel sharpness of any camera.
    In regards to depth of field, I've had this debate of aps-c vs FF and there's arguments either way, but really in the end it's subjective, I'd recommend trying a FF and 1.5/6 camera out for yourself and see which you preffer. To be honest, in landscapes I don't think it'll be an issue on either body, although probably less so on FF as has been stated diffraction limits sharpness more quickly the smaller the sensor is, and stopping down past f/5.6 or f/8 on some of the high resolution cropped bodies will start to limit fine detail. Another nice plus that comes with FF is the viewfinders are generally a little bigger and nicer to look through so you can often get a better feel for composition that way. You may also want to consider live view as feature for landscape work.
    As for getting committed to a brand, what people say is true to a point, you can't go TOO wrong getting stuck into either canon or nikon, and probably in the near future sony, even if the system is small at the moment. I would personally say that canon is over all the most flexible system on a budget if you consider some of the mid range primes which are often very good value and of good optical quality. Nikon have great glass too, but it tends to require slightly deeper pockets in some cases.
    Finally as for software, I would argue that a current version of photoshop would bring your computer to a crawl, and even photoshop elements, would provide a challenge. If your not willing to pay the price for a photoshop license and don't like breaking their copy right, then you may want to look at the open source software alternative GIMP which is free for all to use. In any case, doing more "serious" editing on high rez images may require a computer upgrade sometime in the future.
    If I was in your position, looking to get into digital SLR's for landscape/city scape stuff I'd look at a second hand 5d maybe with one of the grid focusing screens (which you can buy and put in yourself) and any of the non L USM primes or if your interested in mid to high end zoom the 24-105 f/4L IS or the 17-40mm f/4, which ever matches your preferences/needs better.
    Sorry I got way way carried away
  22. When you consider a system think very carefully about getting a BODY that has image stabilization. That way you dont have to pay for IS in each and every lens you purchase. I really haven't worked out the actual costs but for you it might be a wortwhile exercise. I'm PO'd cuz Nikon doesn't IS its bodies so to get VR (Nikon's word - vibration reduction) I have to buy it w/ each lens. My old lenses have no VR capability on my D300.
    That having been said I'd pick the brains of other folks about each company's flash system too. Nikon's multiflash, programable, system is pretty remarkable, but others may be just as good. I don't know.
  23. When you consider a system think very carefully about getting a BODY that has image stabilization. That way you dont have to pay for IS in each and every lens you purchase. I really haven't worked out the actual costs but for you it might be a wortwhile exercise. I'm PO'd cuz Nikon doesn't IS its bodies so to get VR (Nikon's word - vibration reduction) I have to buy it w/ each lens. My old lenses have no VR capability on my D300.
    That having been said I'd pick the brains of other folks about each company's flash system too. Nikon's multiflash, programable, system is pretty remarkable, but others may be just as good. I don't know.
  24. Everybody is talking about cameras it seems as I quickly brouse ... for your editor I suggest either Paint Shop Pro, the programme I started with and prefer, or Photoshop. But the main point I suggest that any version from v.8 with PSP or v.7 with PS will serve you well and pretty well do everything you want. These programmes are tough to get into, but hang in there and it will start to make sense. IMO the editor is as important as the camera and an equal and complimentary part of digital photography, and rewarding.
  25. I use Lightroom for all my editting....exept the final sharpenning, which I use the Smart Sharpen in Photoshop CS3 (latest version is CS4). However, you could probably get a really good sharpenning plug in to work alone or from within Lightroom. I also shoot all my stuff in RAW.
    As far as sensor size.....not the megapixels, but the actual size of the sensor....there is a huge difference between crop cams (ie 1.6x) and full frame. And your 16x20 inch print size expectation is exactly where it starts to make a difference. Especially if you have to crop the image in the photo editor.....even just minimal composition type cropping. I'd go with the 5D or the 5DMKII if I were you. Also, your 'scape pics usually require wide angle lenses, I assume. To get a 28mm lens (regular 35mm film format) angle of coverage with a 1.6 crop cam, you need a 17mm lens for the same angle of coverage. If you need more wide angle lenses than telephoto....the 5D will pay for itself real soon, especially if you like the superwides like 24mm and 20mm. The full frame cams like the 5D keep the same coverage as 35mm film cams.
    For reference, I own the Canon 20D and the Canon 5D....and the difference in resolution at larger print sizes is definitely noticeable. I also had an extended use of the Canon 40D...and it was, in my opinion, only slightly, resolution wise, better than the 20D. The 40D came no where's even close to my 5D.....let alone what I've seen from the 5DMKII (altho I did not actually shoot with the 5DMKII.....just saw a competent friend's images).
    and again, for reference, I also shoot 35mm film, 6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7. Only the 5D matches or comes close to my medium format images. The 20D does not.
    As far as image stabilization.....if you are doing landscapes/cityscapes you are probably using a tripod any how. It is actually recommended to turn image stabilization OFF when on a tripod. So, I think maybe it won't matter in your case. Regardless, some people like IS in the cam, some like it in the lens. It's interesting to note that the top two manufacturers, Nikon and Canon, choose to put it in the lens. Whether that actually means anything is beyond my knowledge.....but......
    So, in the end I'd advise you to get the Canon 5D, Lightroom, and Photoshop CS4 (or at least a good sharpenning plug in for lightroom, or stand alone sharpenning program) and shoot ALL your landscape/cityscape in RAW. You won't be disappointed.
  26. I'd also think about budgeting some for a new computer. The funny thing about digital is that you'll sometimes spend more time editing than you do shooting, so a good computer really helps (think of it like your darkroom). I also have an older G4 (dual 800 with 4 gigs of ram) which runs CS3 OK, but is dog slow for work with larger images, or for panoramas, which is one of the fun things to do with digital. I got a new Mac Pro a couple years ago and was simply amazed at the improvement. Even the new iMacs will run circles around that old G4 and you'll want to max out the ram (third party, not from Apple). A good large monitor is also very nice (the new 27" iMac is gorgeous). A large external hard drive for back-ups is also important.
    As others have suggested Photoshop as the standard all others are measured against, and is what I use, but Elements does almost all of what a photographer wants.
  27. While the crop cameras do a great job, I'd suggest sticking to FF. The areas that crop sensors excell in don't seem to match your needs. If you are not sure about spending the money on a 5D MkII, see if you can find a first gen 5D. If you need top line weatherproofing, AF or a tank of a camera then look at the 1D line. Then invest in good glass.
    The FF issue may be less important than finding a good system, but since you have experience with Canon you may find the Canons more natural. While you will not be disapointed with a crop sensor body, I'd think you would get more out of a FF.
    I kind of agree that IS is not a big deal for what you say is your preferred subjects. IS works great for low light with subjects that are not moving, or very long telephoto. Otherwise it is more useful to get fast lenses IMO. IS in the body is not a selling point for me.
    I'd try lightroom and see if that covers all your needs, it may be all you need.
  28. Too much.....
    The basics:
    DSLR $2000
    New lenses $2000
    Photoshop etc $800
    Scanner/Printer $500
    Welcome to the expensive world of digital photography.
  29. As others have said, there are a lot of really good cameras to choose from but I think that your choice of the 40D is a superb one. It's a solid, well thought out camera with proven performance, and certainly one that you can grow into. Congratulations on a great choice and welcome to the wonderful world of digital photography. Don't get rid of that AE-1 though; film is still a great medium and sometimes provides a nice change from digital. Both can live happily in your camera bag, even in the 21st century.
  30. Regarding software.
    Lightroom his an intiutive interface (for the most part). You can sit down and get reasonable results with it right away. The bad news is that the upcoming LR3 won't run on older (non-Intel) Macs.
    Photoshop is extremely powerful and capable, but learning to use it is like learning to fly the space shuttle. Plan on speding a LOT of time with books and tutorials, talking classes, or hanging around with friendly PS experts in your area.
    I've never tried Apple's Aperture, but I've heard good things about it.
    To start with you can use Canon's Image Viewer and DPP (they come with the camera). They're extremely rudimental, however. Nikon's software suite is a bit better but nowhere near as powerful as Lr or Ps.
    Remember to budget for a couple of external disk drives. My old G4 crashed and died a few months ago. Luckily, I had started doing all of my photo work on Firewire drives (the G4 was out of space), so I didn't lose any images. You need an extra drive for off-site backups, too. Keep it at another location. (home versus studio, a friend or associate's place, etc.). How many images can you afford to lose forever?
    As someone mentioned, the new iMacs work beautifully for photo editing, cataloguing.
    Extra batteries and memory cards are critical for travel. If you change lenses frequently, plan to have the sensor cleaned periodically. Dirt gets in there no matter how careful you are.
    Good luck, and welcome to the 21st C.
  31. Hey Guys,
    Again, thanks for all the great info! Well, the choice seems to be back up in the air. I was up til the wee hours of the AM researching and window shopping. I'll definately be staying with the Canon family. Its a personal preference, and there's just noting out there that's impressive enough to make me switch. I think I'll start looking for a used 5D or maybe a used 5DmkII if one pops up. I'll most likely stick with the prime lenses, as if forces you to move around and try different things.
    Thomas, thanks for the info, didn't really think about the $ trade off when it came to the lenses. Might as well run with the 5D. I do work with a lot of wide angle stuff, did some research, and you're right the lenses to compensate for the 1.6x crop are pretty pricey (for the really good stuff).
    All that being said, I think I'll bite the bullet and get into the CS4 and the wife is running a new MacBook, so I might have to confiscate it for a while until I'm ready for a new computer.
    Thanks again everyone, keep the input coming!
  32. For used I'd go with B&H or I bought a used 20D from B&H in excellent condition and a used Tamron 17-50 from KEH which is a wonderful lens. It's hard to find wide angle primes that work on crop sensor Canons, and the Tamron does a decent job at 17mm (about 28mm equivalent).
    I recommend Lightroom over Photoshop for speed and convenience if you can only afford one.
  33. """Too much.....
    The basics:
    DSLR $2000
    New lenses $2000
    Photoshop etc $800
    Scanner/Printer $500
    Welcome to the expensive world of digital photography."""
    Not to sound alarming or anything but there are so many other ways to take photographs than the bandwagong DSLR route. Being in the 21st century gives us more options. ALt process, pin-hole, Medium format, ULF, digital NEG etc...
    May I add to this list of cost:
    A computer at minimum $1000, backup drives $300, memory cards $100,
    Reoccuring costs (not including camera of course): Computer, Ink, Paper, Software and almost everything else.
    I recently switched back to film due to low cost and simplicity. Film, processing (half of which I do on my own) and paper. Got myself a beautifull Leica R9 like new fully manual camera with an Apo macro Elmarit 100/F2for $2000. Mostly do fine art, I'm not tied up to speed, deadlines, "latest technology" like most people. I like simplicity and challenge.
  34. Hey Iwao,
    You make some really great points, however, the convenience of using the computer v. the dark room (I love the dark room btw, just no room for it or the equipment and chemicals) is a pretty big plus for me. I still and still will shoot 35mm transparencies, but want the versatility of doing what I want when I want.
    Don't worry AE-1 is still gonna be in the game!
  35. I really don't think that a "full frame" (aka 35mm sensor) camera is necessary. I have a 20D, an XTi, and a 5D and I don't see as much difference up to 13x19" as some others above apparently do. In my case, it was my old legacy PC-Nikkor 35mm lens that prompted the move to the 5D, just before Canon finally solved the problem of perspective control on the APS-C bodies with the new TS-E 17mm (which I could not afford right now anyhow). The larger sensor is nice, of course. If you go that direction, see if you can find it with its "kit" lens, the EF 24-105mm IS L lens which is very nice indeed.
    The best intersection of value and performance right now is a 40D.
    I've had good luck on eBay, but you do have to watch your step. It's a giant flea market, but most people to my astonishment seem to be honest and fair.
    Only two bad eggs in over 450 purchases of old cameras, lenses, and gear; and one of them came through with a refund six months later.
  36. Micheal, I would invest in another I Mac 1200.00. Photoshop Elements 80.00 And If a Dslr is not important to you a GF1 would be great around 1000.0. Total cost around 2300.00. I have a older Mac but bought the newer old because you cannot upgrade to newer software and I found that to be a problem. I love my LX3 but I believe that should not be your only camera. Good luck.
  37. Ha Ha Ha! Just pulling out all the X-mas decorations today and in looking for some surge protectors for the lights I happened across an old Mac CD Case. What did I find . . . . . . Photoshop 7.0 and Elements 2.0. Yeah, they're pretty old, but free is never bad. Just installed them both.
    Any thoughts for me on how to use these? Anyone still using these fossils?
  38. I am an old film guy who has finally been dragged kicking and screaming into digital. My family bought me the entry level Nikon D3000 (street price $499 with kit lens) and I have been very happy. Wish I did it a lot sooner. I still carry film camera as backup (Bessa R2 with 35mm lens and Fujichrome.) I think you should just jump in, maybe give Canon serious consideration since that is what you got. If you are serious about landscape, you might need to look for higher pixel count.
    Just jump in, the water's fine!
  39. There is an update to 7.01 available for Photoshop 7 along with some other patches, even still from Adobe (go to link and scroll waay down to version 7, bless Adobe for still keeping this up). Your machine should also run with the latest updates for OS X 10.4 ( at Apple support and there are some recent general security updates that are probably good to have, you can use the update function on the OS to get the updates too).
    As for instructions, you are in the territory of old computer books. Usually there is nothing so useless as an old computer book, but on Amazon or elsewhere look for used (or new) Photoshop 7 how-to-do books. I've not got any of my old ones available, but stuff from Wiley (the Bible series) and from Pogue Press (O'Reilly) are usually pretty good.

Share This Page