Beginner looking for a camera

[phule]

<em>With an autoexposure body, it is all too easy to let the camera make the decisions</em>

<p>

And what happens if you're not done learning but you need to take some pictures? My dad is learning but he doesn't have a lot of time to spend on it. So he uses the camera in full manual mode when he is learning and he uses it in full automatic mode when he doesn't want to spend 10 minutes "figuring everything out." 9 times out of 10 his snapshots come out fine. Are his snapshots ment to be works of art, of course not. Is he still learning and yet at the same time able to use his investment? Yes, he is.

<p>

[douglas_green1]

BS'er Yes, Please explain how spinning a couple of knobs on top of the camera manages to manually focus it. I eagerly await your reply.

 

Certainly, if you can manually focus ANY current 35mm SLR while simply spinning some knobs on the top, I will be impressed. Otherwise, I will need to stand by my initial assessment that you are stupid.

[phule]

Douglas,

 

How do you explain the thousands of pro and amateur photographers that are using their fully equipped, brand new, modern SLR cameras in fully manual modes every single day without any impedance to their work? Do they exist or are they just figments of our imagination?

 

Your argument is both silly and absurd and your name calling further degrades your credibility.

[douglas_green1]

Well, First off, those pros pretty much all learned with manual cameras, which is what I recommend. And 2nd, I did not beginning the name calling. BS'er did. I simply responded in kind.

 

I never said that pros shouldn't use automatic cameras. I simply said that beginners shouldn't learn on them. Once you are knowledgeable enough to understand what the automation can and can't do, it is perfectly reasonable to rely on it, with the ability of using your own knowledge to over-ride them.

[phule]

<em>First off, those pros pretty much all learned with manual cameras</em>

<p>

That's complete and total bunk. You have no idea how people have learned. There is absolutly no reason a begginer can not learn on a fully automatic camera in fully manual modes. Your theory doesn't hold any water.

[douglas_green1]

You are entitled to your opinion, even when it's not correct. I am quite certain that the vast majority of presently working professional photographers first learned the basics of photography on a manual focusing camera. If you wish to call that bunk, I'd love to see your evidence.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

<I>BS'er Yes, Please explain how spinning a couple of knobs on top of the camera manages to manually focus it</I><br /><br />Douglas, let me take a wild, wild guess: By "BS'er" you mean 'Bull Shitter". Am I right? Other deep thinkers on Photonet have made this clever insinuation, so unfortunately I cannot reward you originality points, but, nice try...<br /><br />I'm afraid I can't explain what you apparently failed to grasp, may I suggest you read your manual, since I have no experience with that terrible, horrible POS nikon (by your own account) you unfortunately bought, and continue to use, for G_d knows what reason?<br /><br />With my system, the <I>lens</I> is focused by twisting a ring on the <I>lens</I>, and the camera is set to "P" (program; full auto"), "A" (aperture-priority), "S" (shutter-priority) or "M" (full manual) mode, and the shutter speed and/or aperture, using the dials on top of the camera.<br /><br />That must be a total mind-bender for your you, Douglas but, for most of us, it's like the abc's.<br /><br />My offer of some basic instruction, which you apparently are in dire need of, still stands.

[douglas_green1]

BS'er is simply short for your handle of Back Shooter. Anything else you might infer is a product of your own imagination. And, I merely pointed out that I said that the AF cameras I used were not optimized for MANUALLY FOCUSING, and I saw no reason to train myself to use these cameras in a non-ergonomic manner for something which they were not optimized to do. It was YOU who responded that they worked "simply by spinning a couple of wheels on the top". I called you on it, as that is in fact, NOT how ANY 35mm SLR that I'm aware of focuses. If you can't correctly criticize what I ACTUALLY said, please do not criticize what you misunderstood me to say. It merely calls out the lack of intellectual integrity in your argument.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Douglas, no wonder you don't get how to use a modern SLR. Best toss it in the dumpster, or (better still) give it to some crazy modern kid, who will probably have it all figured out in a flash. Now that would be embarrassing, eh?

[phule]

Douglas,

 

It is you that is still wrong. How you can possibly claim that no one can learn anything from a camera that has fully manual aperture and shutter speed settings like every other camera, just because it /also/ has autofocus and other "modern" settings is beyond me. The whole basis of your argument that ergonomics some how prevents people from learning is such a poor grasp of reality, it's amazing.

 

It's sad really. You've chosen, with absolutely no logic behind it, to romanticize some early aspect of your life as THE ONE AND ONLY WAY to learn how to take pictures. It's absurd. It's pathetic. It is useless. Next you're going to say that beginners can't learn anything about film without mining the silver themselves.

 

Or maybe, at the very least, you'll wail about how you had to walk up hill both ways in 20 feet of snow every day to go to school.

 

I'm not blind to the fact that you chose to pick the word "pro" out of my comment and not the word "amateur." It was a nice little side-step but says more about your weak argument than anything. There are hundreds of fantastic photographers today and hundreds more on their way that have had no problems learning with such a piece of "crap" as todays modern SLRs, and they're doing it in full manual modes.

 

I sat in a B&W Photography 101 course with just such people. 10 modern SLRs in the hands of complete novices and yet, amazingly, every single one of the students at the end of the course knew everything they needed to know about shutter, aperture, and how to operate their cameras just like you did and your oh so wonderful manual camera. They knew exactly what you knew then and they could do everything you could when you were that novice.

 

Some day soon you're going to be blown away by a photograph from a photographer whose very first camera was one of these "modern marvels" you rail against. This photographer will have an equal grasp of the fundamentals as you do, and will know how to apply them. And when you find out that this photographer has produce something without following the one and only Golden Path as laid down by your ego, Douglas I hope you remember your absurd assertions here.

[ecarter]

<i>My dad is learning but he doesn't have a lot of time to spend on it. So he uses the camera in full manual mode when he is learning and he uses it in full automatic mode when he doesn't want to spend 10 minutes "figuring everything out."</i>

<p>If that's what works for him, that's fine. I'm just here to give my opinions - everyone's mileage will vary. Personally, I find that once a person is used to a manual camera, the decisions can be made very fast - maybe an extra second or two - and tend to be better than what autoexposure gives me. Now, those seconds CAN be crucial, and that's where auto comes in. If most of the time what he wants is snapshots, that's fine too. He is getting what he wants out of the camera either way, and that's fine too.

 

<p>My opinion on learning photography remains that a good manual camera is the best way to go, unless there is some other reason not to use one. I've used an N90S in manual mode and of course, my own OM cameras. I do find the OM cameras easier to work with in this mode, because they were designed with that in mind - the N90S goes both ways, of course, and does so adequately - but not QUITE as well. With that, and (my personal) laziness when I was just starting, it is too easy to slip into the habit of nearly ALWAYS using auto mode - even if the results aren't as good. A more experienced amateur or professional - or perhaps someone with more self control than me *GRIN* - is more likely to know when to shift over to manual or when to use auto modes because either way, they KNOW what their camera is doing. I believe a beginner is better served learning manual.

 

<p>I know it isn't quite the same, but it is like learning how to drive. If you learn how to drive an automatic, you can drive sure enough. But god help you if you need to use a stick-shift. On the other hand, you LEARN on a manual transmission, you can drive either way. Just seems to be a better way to do things.

 

<p><i>You have no idea how people have learned. There is absolutly no reason a begginer can not learn on a fully automatic camera in fully manual modes. Your theory doesn't hold any water.</i>

 

<p>I know, this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I'd address it in any case. I'm sure a lot of people, even greatly lauded professionals, have learned on automatic cameras. But MANY of the books I've read about many professionals (including many written BY those pros) tell exactly how they learned, and how they recommend beginners learn. And many, if not most, did learn on manual cameras.

 

<p>I guess I'm not as extreme in the "it must be manual" mode as a lot of people, but I still think it is the best way to learn.

[ecarter]

Oh, and BTW Cam - welcome to the passionate and occasionally contentious photography community. :-D

 

Good luck to you, whatever you choose.

[douglas_green1]

Ron, congratulations, you too have wildly misinterpreted what I said. I believe, and continue to believe, likle most instructors that teach photography, that using a manual focus camera is the BEST way to learn photography. BY NO MEANS is it the ONLY way, nor did I ever say it was the only way. Just the easiest, best way.

 

As far as shooting with manual or automatic cameras once one knows what they are doing, that's purely a matter of personal preference, and I prefer to use the older manual cameras because I prefer the ergonomics for the way I care to shoot. None of that is an absurd position. The position YOU have chosen to ridicule, which is not mine, is far less defensible.

[charles_stobbs2]

I think the best camera for you would be a roll film camera that allows you to take only a few exposures and then get the results back quickly before you forget what you were trying to do. It should manual focus, no rangefinder, no automatic exposure. Learn to compose the picture before you bring the camera up to your eye.

I don't know of any new cameras like this for less than $300 so look for a good used camera or see if your family has an old camera tucked away that you could borrow. Goiod luck.

[ecarter]

This thread is getting amusing, but it has gotten me thinking, and Charles' comment also had me thinking of the advantages of digital, of all things. Two advantages - you don't need film, so you don't worry about running out or development costs or have to concern yourself if you want to change EI in the middle of a roll, and instant feedback/gratification. Soon (if not now) there will be a new group of photographers who won't learn on film at all. I wonder what they'll think of when they see arguments like this.

 

I suppose the way we look at learning is the way we ourselves learned, and that is probably the biggest single influence on our answers. There probably is no "correct" way and results have to speak for themselves, but out of curiosity I'd be interested in knowing just what people started on when they were learning - all manual or an auto wonderbody...

[douglas_green1]

Eric, Interestingly enough, I think that a digital camera would be a great learning tool, if there were a reasonably priced one that allowed manual control over F-stops and focus, exactly because of the immediacy of the feedback.

[antonio_carusone]

Cam,

 

I suggest you get a Canon AE-1 Program with a 50mm lens. Its a great camera to

learn on since you have to do everything yourself. And its built like a tank.

[sandler]

Oh my! I make a few little suggestions and go away for a couple of days, and look what it turns into. I evidently triggered some nerves belonging to Back Shooter. (Next time please at least spell my name right.)

 

Anyway, Cam, as you see everyone has their own opinion. Certainly you can learn on any camera. And, I agree that for sports there is an advantage to having a top-quality modern autofocus system. However, my reasoning for not starting out with an autoeverything camera is I think there's a chance that you may fall into the trap of only using it in autoeverything mode. Of course not everyone falls into this trap (several folks on this thread have made it clear they do not, and perhaps you wouldn't either), but in my experience many folks do. That isn't to say that you wouldn't make some very nice photos like this, but I read your question to mean that you really wanted to learn the details about photography.

 

I stand by my statement that most autoeverything cameras don't have great ergonomics when used in manual mode. Especially not the autoeverything cameras you're likely to be able to afford. Yes, you can overcome this, but I have yet to see a modern autoeverything SLR that's as easy to use in all-manual mode as an SLR that was made to be used all-manual. I fell for these claims myself: When my Nikon manual focus stuff got stolen, I went for a Canon EOS system thinking I'd have the best of both worlds: auto when I wanted simplicity and manual when I wanted control. It just wasn't true...no comparison. Maybe if I'd bought a more expensive body or maybe if I hadn't been used to using good manual focus equipment then the difficulty focusing with the dim viewfinder and the slowness of using the camera in manual mode wouldn't have bothered me. But it did.

 

For $300 you ought to be able to get a nice manual camera like the FM2 or whatever. But, either way, if you decide a year from now that you'd prefer a different camera then you shouldn't lose too much money as long as you buy used.

 

Have fun with whatever you decide!

[sandler]

BTW, Douglas, as far as Zinc-Air batteries go for the OMs, etc...I'd heard that they don't last very long once you start using them. Have you found this to be untrue? Mercury/zinc-air powered cameras certainly have been bargains recently! Might be interesting to experiment with...

 

My thought here was that since there are plenty of other good choices, someone starting out might not want to bother with frequent(?) battery changes.

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Aaron (North Carolina),

 

You've harped a great deal on the 'superior ergonomics' of dedicated manual focus systems, but your online portfolio here does not suggest that sharpness is a great concern of yours, despite having some of the most expensive 35mm gear on the planet... ?

[douglas_green1]

Aaron, in my experience, the Zinc-air batteries only last 1-2 months. But I buy them for around 65 cents each ($11 for a pack of 18 at Costco). So I don't consider that to be a major disadvantage.

[sandler]

Back Shooter,

 

Why do you have to be so rude? What did I ever do to you?

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Aaron,

 

You did not answer my question. You seem to be obsessed with the issue of focusing. This implies that sharpness is a major concern to you, but this (alleged) concern is not reflected in your own picture uploads. Where's the beef?

 

You've made several statements about the supposed inferiority of hybrid, auto/manual focus lenses. But this opinion isn't borne out by my direct experience, and so I have refuted it. I don't doubt that there may be poorly designed hybrid systems, but you should not go around tarring all hybrids with the same brush, because that is a disservice to those who don't know any better and post queries for helpful advice here. In that instance, the rudeness is all yours, and you owe Cam an apology.

[sandler]

Back Shooter, my friend, I guess I owe you an apology for misinterpreting your comment about my uploads as coming from rudeness rather than pure curiosity. To be honest, I assumed that the question mark that appeared after the end of your 9/12 5:04p post was either a typo or a rhetorical device. Now that you have corrected me, I am humbled (and a little puzzled) by your professed interest in my photographic philosophy. Well, I'm not sure everyone else on photo.net shares your curiosity about me, so perhaps the in-depth answer is best saved for a conversation over a beer or two the next time you're in the Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill area. First round's on me.

<p>

In case you don't get here often...to tide you over: I'm not sure I'd say I'm "obsessed" with focusing, but I do find it useful, as, I would suspect, do you. I think, in the hands of a capable photographer, all cameras can produce excellent results, depending on the subject, photographic goals, etc. However, to me, the ergonomics of using the camera (including, but not limited to, focusing) are also important. In my photography, as in most things in my life, it's not entirely about the destination (final product) but also how much I enjoy the process of getting there. YMMV.

<p>

I don't believe I mentioned sharpness in any of my posts, but since you asked, I think it depends on the photo: some photos absolutely require sharpness to work, while for other photos it isn't crucial.

<p>

As far as the photos I put in my folder, some I like very much, others not as much. Of the ones in my folder, my current favorite is <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1504985">this one</a>, in large part because it's very different from what I've shot before. I won't defend the quality of this or any other of those ~50kb uploads...a combination of time, money, circumstances, and priorities, means that those uploads don't entirely do justice to the negatives and prints. I agree they aren't the shape I'd want if I were showing them in a portfolio to try to make a living, but I now have the luxury of taking pictures strictly for my pleasure...and it's wonderful! I sit in front of the computer most of the day, and I'd rather my hobby not put me there any longer than necessary.

<p>

Well, this is a lot longer than I'd intended, but now that I've done my best to answer your question, perhaps you could answer one of mine: I looked through your posts on this thread, but I haven't found any place you've recommended any particular hybrid model. As it has been a little while since I've checked them out, I'd be grateful if you could name me a model (keeping in mind the importance I place on usability in all-manual) so I could check it out a little the next time I'm in a camera store. And if it were in the sub-$300 range that Cam specified, I'm sure he'd be interested, too, since that was, after all, his original question. Certainly my bank account would be grateful if I found a system cheaper then what I use now! And I promise to try to approach it with an open mind, as unbiased by my past experiences as I can manage!

[brainbubba_motornapkins]

Oh Aaron, I don't think you could even bring yourself to touch <A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005NYq">it

</A>... it's made with <I>plastic</I>, the horror, the horror.