Help for a true beginner.

[iris_indigo]

<p>Hello All!<br>

I have never had a camera of any kind but now I have decided to take up photography as a hobby. I want to make it a serious hobby and I am willing to devote time as well as money toward this hobby. I went to a camera store last weekend and talked to the salesperson there. She said that I should get an eselar (I don't know how to spell it). I wonder what does it mean? Talking to the salesperson confused me more as she used term like fast lens and slow lenses. I don't understand how a lens can be fast or slow. I am researching online as well as visiting my local library for information. I would greatly appreciate any help I can get from the photo.net community.<br>

Thank you all.<br>

IRIS</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>That would be an SLR they're talking about, and no I don't think an SLR is automatically the right thing to buy for an absolute beginner.</p>

<p>You might want to do some reading before buying anything and try and get a grip on the basic stuff so you have an idea what you're buying when you do spend money. This site has a great Learning section, and your local library will have heaps of books for beginners, and for the most part even books written in the film days will be mostly applicable. </p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>I think she said DSLR...(Digital Single Lens Reflex). With a film camera we just call it SLR.</p>

<p>A fast lens is simply a lens that has larger max aperture. Like f2.8 and or bigger....</p>

<p>Still confused? Its time to get you a book and learn the basics of photography.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera</a></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera</a></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture</a></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_(photography">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_(photography</a>)</p>

<p><a href="../learn/basic-photography-tips/">http://www.photo.net/learn/basic-photography-tips/</a></p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Like Chris, I'd guess that what you heard as "eselar" was really "D.S.L.R.", or Digital Single Lens Reflex...a camera with interchangeable lenses where you look into the finder window from the back of the camera and actually see through the lens, so "what you see is what you get". Also, I agree with him that some reading is in order...go to your library and get some books on basic photography; it doesn't matter if they are about film photography, the terminology and basic principals haven't changed; for example, a "fast lens" is simply one that opens to a larger aperature, therefor allowing more light to reach the film (or digital sensor) than with a slower lens. What is a little confusing is that small aperature numbers, such as f/2.8 are actually larger openings, and therefor "faster", than larger aperature numbers such as f4.5.</p>

<p>Read a little, look at the offerings at your camera stores and big-box stores, and come back here for clarification on things that confuse you! :-) Many of the community colleges offer photography courses that are worth looking into, especially after you have the basic knowlege from the library books.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Hi Iris,<br>

She said "eselar", that means SLR, an acronym for Single Lens Reflex. It is a type of camera that you can research a lot more online or goto the tab "Equipment" and choose "Digital SLR" to read about it. These cameras can use different lenses and some of the lenses are slow, some are fast. You can research on that too, but I suggest you skip that for now, read about SLR and DSLR cameras first</p>

 

[jason_hall5]

<p>When I decided that I wanted to start in photography (with no idea where it would go), I bought a basic SLR camera, (Canon Rebel 2000) and a book. I nearly read the book cover to cover and read the camera manual while playing with the switches and such before ever putting in the first roll of film.</p>

<p>Had I had the internet like I do now, I would likely had never gotten the book. I agree with the above, that an older book based on film photography will be just as applicable. After I got my first Digital SLR I still used a set of books from the 70s to learn more and more and increase my understanding.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>Hi Iris. The first thing to say is 'your camera does not matter, but some cameras make picture taking easier than others'. The best place to start is with the <a href="../learn/making-photographs/">http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/</a> guide here on photo.net which should help to defuse a lot of the jargon.</p>

<p>The problem you will face is that you can ask ten different people what to do and get ten different (and probably conflicting opinions). Furthermore, you will find it takes time to get a feel for what types of things you enjoy photographing most. It took me about 30 years before I discovered I really enjoyed architecture. Hopefully your learning curve will be shorter than mine.</p>

<p>On the camera front, the best one is the one you are most likely to have with you most often. I have a semi-professional DSLR (digital single lens reflex) camera, but that gets the least use due to its weight and my dodgy back. My Panasonic G1 micro four thirds camera gets much more use because it's lighter.</p>

<p>I tend to take the view that understanding important things like light and composition are more important to producing good images than understanding exactly how the controls work. Having said that, mastering your camera's controls helps you to make the most of light and composition elements. I'm tempted, therefore, to suggest that you invest in a quality compact camera that you are likely to take everywhere but which is capable of delivering high quality images. Then, when you discover its limitations (if any) think about getting a DSLR. To that end I would look at something like the Panasonic LX5. You could also consider a lightly used DSLR such as the Nikon D50 with the kit 18-55mm lens. It would be inexpensive and be capable of delivering very good image quality. If buying new, something like the Nikon D3100 with kit lens would also work well. </p>

<p>The final thing to consider is what you will do with your images once you have captured them. If you plan to print to only 7 x 5 inches, pretty much any camera will deliver sufficient quality. If you plan to print your best images to say 10 x 15 inches, you will begin to see the differences from different cameras. But at the end of the day, it will be your creativity which makes good or not so good images.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>The only thing you should buy now is a good basic photography book. There are many good ones. Any good bookstore should have several to choose from. I like any of several by John Hedgecoe and Bryan Peterson's new guide book (I forget the title, but it has the word Guide in it) is very good. First read the section on types of cameras. Then learn about shutter speed, aperture, and iso and how they affect the photo. Then you are ready to get a camera.</p>

<p>If you want to get into photography as a serious hobby, a DSLR is the best way to go. Decide how much you want to spend. Go to Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony, and Olympus' websites to see what they offer. Check the prices with B&H and Adorama. Then go to a store where you can handle the models that interest you. Choose the one that has the features you want, feels good in your hands, and has controls that you like. All of these companies make good cameras so whichever you get will be good.</p>

<p>Don't take the salesperson's word for anything without verifying it on your own or with us. Some salespeople are honest and knowledgeable. Some just want to make a sale.</p>

[scott_page2]

<p>Iris, good advise above. I will add that more basic cameras often are better to learn on. When I first learned photography, I was instructed to get a simple all-manual 35mm film camera with a simple match needle exposure meter (no auto settings of any kind), and a simple 50mm single focal length lens.</p>

<p>The advice was great in the 1970's and it is still good advice today although the only way to get a camera that simple these days is to buy something old and used from some place like KEH. In fact at the local university here, that is still the way beginning photo is taught. The students are instructed to borrow or buy an old 35mm film camera and turn off any auto settings. Even though I've been shooting for more than 40 years and have a pro level DSLR, my favorite cameras are my medium and large format all-manual, no-meter film cameras. </p>

<p>So, I recommend you start simple, perhaps buying used, and work on the basics before spending too much money. In a year or two, you will then have a better idea of what kind of photography you want to pursue and that will dictate what equipment direction to spend money on. If you are going digital (unfortunately, who isn't these days). A used Canon 40D or a Canon Rebel with a fast 50 mm lens would be a good place to begin. Why not a zoom? Well, the fairly inexpensive fixed focal length lenses are generally much sharper than the under $1,000 zooms and will teach you a very important skill - that is, move your feet to compose the shoot. Additionally, many cheap kit zooms are variable aperture, that is, the exposure can change on you when you zoom. That is really going to mess up someone trying to learn. Remember to turn off all the auto settings and shoot in manual modes. You won't progress very fast if you let the camera do the thinking for you. Yes, you will make many more mistakes that the auto settings would, but that's how you learn. </p>

<p>Also, start right by getting the sturdiest mid-weight tripod that you can afford and a cable release. If you have the dough and are sure that you will stay with this hobby, a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod with a Really Right Stuff ball head will be light but sturdy and will last you for many decades (but understand that it will cost more than the camera). Heavier non-carbon tripods are much cheaper and can be purchased used at KEH and other places. Using a tripod when shooting non-moving subjects will force you to slow down, greatly improving your work. Don't buy a cheap one as they are not sturdy and will transmit vibrations during the exposure.</p>

[iris_indigo]

<p>Thanks everyone for the help. I am reading the Wikipedia articles about SLR and lens as recommended by Jason. I checked the link recommended by Simmon but it appears to be an introduction of a good book but I couldn't figure out how to either read the entire book online or to purchase it. I am also researching all the makes and models of currently available DSLR's. The prices are ranging from around $500 to almost $10,000. I wondering why there are such a wide variation in prices among the different models?</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Cameras are like cars, some just cost more because of how they are made and what it takes to make them the way they are.</p>

<p>Just keep in mind that the COST of the camera does not make the pictures better. A great photographer can take great shots with some low end equipment. Until you KNOW why something is that expensive and WHY you need it, don't spend the money.</p>

<p> </p>

[jason_hall5]

<blockquote>

<p> I wondering why there are such a wide variation in prices among the different models?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because they range from things like plastic construction and 3 or so frames per second and fairly simple Auto focus systems to full metal construction, 9 frames per second, fully weather sealed, dual memory card slots, very advanced auto focus, and on and on and on....</p>

<p>Its like a low price economy car vs a high end luxury. Both will get you were you need to go just fine. One may just get you there faster. :o)</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[jim_doty]

<p>Iris,</p>

<p>DSLR</p>

<p>The good news is that almost any recent SLR of any well known brand will give you very good quality photos. The difference in price has a lot to do with extra bells and whistles and a more robust build. But once you click the shutter, the picture quality is going to be very good (provided your technique is good), no matter the cost of the camera. As a beginner, don't spend a lot of money on a camera. There are lots of very fine models in the $500 - $1500 range. the money you save on the camera body can go toward some lenses.</p>

<p>FAST AND SLOW LENSES</p>

<p>Lenses have variable aperture blades that can be set to different f-stops to let in more or less light (and also to control depth of field). Every lens has a maximum (or widest) aperture). The wider the maximum aperture of a lens, the "faster" the lens. The reason for that is that maximum apertures let in more light which allows for faster shutter speeds in any given situation.</p>

<p>For example, a fast 50mm lens at its maximum aperture of f/2 can let in two stops more light than a zoom lens at a maximum aperture of f/4, and three stops more light than a slow zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f/5.6. In a given low light situation, the camera with an f/2 lens could use a shutter speed of 1/60 second, and in the same light the f/4 lens would need a 1/15 second shutter speed, and the f/5.6 lens would require a 1/8 second shutter speed. 1/60 second is a good hand holdable shutter speed and 1/8 second isn't.</p>

<p>What this all adds up to is that you will need at least one fast lens if you like to take hand held pictures in low light without flash. If your first lens is a zoom lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 or f/5/6, you might want to get a fast 50mm lens. Most 50mm f/1.8 lenses are very reasonably priced.</p>

<p>Happy Shopping!</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[simon_hickie1]

<p>H Iris. When you follow the link in my post, look at the list of 'chapters' at the top & follow the links in turn. Simon</p>

[mansoen]

<p>Keep at it, you started the first steps at least !!:))</p>

[jon_robert]

<p>I've got 30 plus years of photograpy behind me that contributes to this advice.</p>

<p>Scenario 1:<br /> Buy a camera or several that you will out grow and then upgrade. Any of the non DSLR cameras. i.e. point and shoot, prosumer, any type name that is not called DSLR. This does not mean you should not buy one. It simply means that for all practical purposes it is a disposable limited life item. Assuming you continue to be a photography minded person that takes many photos per year it is not the best long term item to get.<br /> Scenario 2:<br /> Buy a camera and brand that you will fundamentally have the rest of your life. This requires buying a DSLR. Nikon and Canon dominate the DSLR market to the tune of over 80% Buying one of them guarantees that you will remain firmly placed in Scenario 2<br /> Scenario 3:<br /> You lose interest fast and your camera is similar to exercise equipment sitting around unused. Then what you bought don't matter. If you continue to be a photography minded person that takes many photos per year scenario 3 obviously does not apply.</p>

<p>My advise is to buy a used Nikon or Canon DSLR and get the best deal you can. You can get one with a lens or two for $300-$600.00 Nikon is probably the best system to start with and stay with. <br /> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm</p>

[lachaine]

<p>It's like taking up any other hobby. There's a tendency to focus on the equipment rather than the actual activity, and to worry too much about what equipment to start out with. Just assume that whatever you start out with is not going to be what you want once you have gained a little experience. Expect to waste it to some extent. It's probably best to avoid starting with too much camera and "wasting" too much of it.</p>

<p>Since you say you've never had a camera before, just get one that isn't too expensive, and start taking pictures with it. Don't worry about what the internet environment says about "image quality", ISO, fast this or that, "low light" and all the other technicalities of photography that amateurs like to discuss. Focus more on the act of finding good subjects, on the lighting and on effective compositions. For this, it doesn't matter at all what camera you have, and a simpler camera may even be better. You might even want to start out with a camera from the compact "point and shoot" category, preferably one which has at least a Program autoexposure mode (P mode) which is shiftable (allowing you to change the camera's selected combination of shutter speed and lens aperture). Full manual exposure controls would be even better (generally affordable compact cameras with full manual controls are made by Canon). It won't take long before you know enough about photography that you will want to use this capability.</p>

<p>If you do go with a digital SLR type of camera, just keep in mind that whatever you buy now will be superseded by a model with better everything in a year, maybe less. It's been like this in photography since I bought my first "serious camera" in 1975. A year of experience actually taking pictures and paying attention to the results and settings that were used will go a long way to helping you decide what you actually do need and want a year from now.</p>

<p>By the way, if you get a decent compact point & shoot camera now, you can still make use of it later on when you get an SLR type of camera. This is because even the most compact SLR on the market is nowhere near small enough to be carried around on you all the time. There's something to be said for having a camera with you rather than one you left at home because you didn't feel like being encumbered with it that day.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>the " bottom line" is having a printed picture.<br>

there are the digital ROUTE, where most cameras are fully automatic.<br>

and the Film ROUTE which many of us still like.<br>

Depending on how you approach it and what you eventually want of what you want fpor the immediate future<br>

you can go several ways. OF course the salesperson wants to sell you a SLR or aa DSLR<br>

thay are the most expensive. Let me suggest a slower but workable way to to tLrt me start with<br>

a film camera, You do not say but what you said or heard is correct<br>

then you are looking at a film camera. I oqn and use film slr' s all but two are match-pointer manual focus<br>

meaning I move something to make a pointer line up and then focus the lens.<br>

it works well. I have two older auto exposure manual focus<br>

cameras from the 1970's . all these cameras are LONG out of production.</p>

<p>There are newer P&S film cameras that are auto everything<br>

focus exposure flash. They work pretty much the same as the new small digital cameras.<br>

IF yoiu want to start out thinking in tems of composing the image, and not having to worry abut technical issuies, these cameras a ( film point and shoot) will do as a beginning. it will be useful later as something you can stuff in a pocket or purse and<br>

have with you ALL the time., The bad thing is Nobody makes these cameras now?<br>

they have all "moved on" to digital P&S cameras. BUT buying a USED Film P&S on the big auction site means a $80.00 camera cab be bought for $10.00<br>

read the description carefully. but a well known brand like: Conon Pentax Olympus or Minolta.<br>

They will eb "plasitky" have slower lenses and NO manual settings.<br>

Color print film and easy processing is widely available.<br>

Later, The better metal compact 35mm cameras, for some reason seem to be sold as rare!<br>

and the price is higher much higher. The little P&S can be kept of passed on to someone else.<br>

You may decide to get a SLR. But film slr's are selling for pennies on the dollar.<br>

Avoid aps( advantix) cameras as it is a "dying thing" ( anyone want a working aps camera?)</p>

[newmanuk]

welcome tp photo net iris. i hope you are not overwhelmed by all the responses so far. much good advice to consider. on the top banner of photonet main page. the blue tab learning. drop down to online textbook.another practical workshop.beginners forum is here to help, you only have to ask and we will try to help.regards.. upload some photos from the camera you buy miken

[joshuasigar]

<p>I would recommend that you get your first DSLR already. Point-and-shoot didn't get me addicted to photography; a DSLR did.</p>

<p>And you don't want to do too much reading without a camera; the information won't stick when you've never held one. Get one, learn how to use it, and how to take good photographs at the same time. You may purchase the wrong first camera, but you'll know exactly what to get second time around.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Someone mentioned Ken Rockwell, and you should be aware that he draws very mixed reactions from competent photographers. As you're in the market for an eselar, you might start by reading the reviews on dpreview.com. They're very comprehensive, and will open your eyes to how much there is to learn.<br>

It's quite possible that you'd be happy with a compact camera with a long zoom and no interchangeable lenses, rather than an eselar. It's the sort of thing you can carry around conveniently and have available when you see <em>the</em> picture. Image quality won't be the same, but at eleven megapixels or so it can be very good.<br>

You should also consider image editing software, which can be something like Photoshop Elements for about $100 to Photoshop CS5 which is more like $500. If you get involved in image editing, or postprocessing, you want to look for a camera that yields RAW files as well as the more common JPEG files.</p>

[calculuspanda]

<p>With the sheer number of cameras floating about, how about simply asking a friend to borrow one for a while? They'll be able to explain how to use it, which may or may not include all the technical jargon that you're interested in learning about. Though once you have it in your hands, you can attach some meaning to the stuff you read and get a better feel for things. It's a good opportunity to explore your interests and figure out what works best for that.</p>

[stemked]

<p>I will only add to this excellent advice; look at lots of images and, once your start to understand the basics of photography, try and figure HOW they took their image. What lens? What f-stop? What light? Did they need a polarizer/reflecter/diffuser/etc? Why did they place that element in a given spot rather than move that element somewhere else?</p>

<p>That's the way to start making truly good image</p>

[jon_robert]

<p>BEWARE OF THE Rockwell DISSMISSER"s (there are quite a few on the photography forums. I think they don't like his direct matter of fact style)<br>

You can read Rockwell and be confident he knows what he is talking about(personal preferences excepted) unlike confidence in the disser's:<br>

Quote follows:<br>

"Someone mentioned Ken Rockwell, and you should be aware that he draws very mixed reactions from competent photographers.<br>

As you're in the market for an eselar,<br>

you might start by reading the reviews on dpreview.com. They're very comprehensive, and will open your eyes to how much there is to learn.<br /> It's quite possible that you'd be happy with a compact camera with a long zoom and no interchangeable lenses,<br>

rather than an eselar."<br>

End quote</p>

<p>What exactly is the twice mentioned eselar? I'll stick with Rockwell's advice.</p>