# I wanna learn how to take good pics...



## exmercedesowner (Mar 3, 2006)

A good suggestion...I like your analogy about the teenager too, although that was a while ago for me...back in the days before digital cameras.


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Nov 18, 2005)

Books, classes and websites are all places to start. But the best way to get better is to go out and do it. The more you shoot the more you'll learn and the better you'll become. 

Canon v. Nikon.... Canon may enjoy a slight technological lead at the moment, but there is absolutely no discernible difference between them at every price point. Anyone that tells you there is; a) doesn't know any better. b) is trying to sell you something. 

Good luck.


----------



## exmercedesowner (Mar 3, 2006)

It's really the skill and eye of the photographer. I can take pretty crappy pictures with a Nikon, and I'm sure I could do the same with a Canon too. You're right, I should spend more time just taking photos and learning hands on.


----------



## BMWright (Jul 3, 2006)

ThatOneGuy said:


> Canon v. Nikon.... Canon may enjoy a slight technological lead at the moment, but there is absolutely no discernible difference between them at *every price point.* Anyone that tells you there is; a)doesn't know any better. b) is trying to sell you something.


Wait now I'm confused. Let me recap.

Canon 1Ds Mark II, 16.7 mp = $6,900.00

Nikon = Nothing to match

______

Canon 1D Mark II N, 8.2 mp, 8.5 fps = $3,600.00

Nikon = Nothin to match

______

Canon 5D 12.8 mp = $2,900

Nikon D2Xs 12.4 mp = $4,700

Nikon D2X 12.4 mp = $4,300

Looks ok to me?


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

exmercedesowner said:


> I agree the digital cameras are very intimidating. I recently got a digital body (Nikon D50) and I don't have a clue how to use it to full capacity. I hate reading manuals and know that I really do have to spend a lot more time with the camera to figure out how to truely use it. Taking pictures was a lot simpler with a basic SLR.


According to EdCT, you should go back to a point-and-shoot camera. :rofl: But, seriously, what I did was to take the picture of the same subject using all 11 modes with the D70s, and compare the color and lighting of the images. Now, I have a baseline understanding of what the camera software does in those modes. You can do the same with the D50.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

BMWright said:


> Wait now I'm confused. Let me recap.
> 
> Canon 1Ds Mark II, 16.7 mp = $6,900.00
> 
> ...


5D is closer to D200 (pro sensor in a "standard" body)
1D closer to D2Xs (pro sensor, pro body)

:dunno: don't go by mp rating, as the sensors are different sizes and require different counts to get the same result in grain and other factors. Both manf. are very similar....just choose one you like for the function and grip and go from there.


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> ..... They don't make to many "cheap" lenses like Canon does. .....This is not a Canon vs. Nikon thread, so that's enough about that.


No, this isn't a Canon vs. Nikon thread........ :rofl:

By the way, at the World Cup notice all the cheap white lenses the press are using.....


----------



## ThatOneGuy (Nov 18, 2005)

ugh. You can always tell the amateurs from the pros by their obsession with gear. A professional with a Pentax K1000 and 50mm lens will always out perform an amateur with a D1s and rack of L lenses. 

It's not the gear. Go out a take pictures, it's the only way to get better.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

beauport said:


> No, this isn't a Canon vs. Nikon thread........ :rofl:
> 
> By the way, at the World Cup notice all the cheap white lenses the press are using.....


"Cheap" was a bad choice of words. Inexpensive consumer lenses (like the $500 70-300 IS)


----------



## Penforhire (Dec 17, 2005)

BMWright, you need to look a little more closely at actual image comparisons before claiming the D2X doesn't measure up to the 16 MP choice. It sure looks close to me. The edge in creamy high ISO may go to the Canon but, uh, show me the wide-angle quality that compares the D2X -- hint, it ain't there (one of the drawbacks to a larger sensor that still has "well" depth is loss of incoming wide-angle light because of the oblique angle).


----------



## beauport (Jul 2, 2002)

I hope the OP is getting a lot out of all the "help" being provided with his photography request..........

hockeynut - here is a very good read on the stuff one needs to understand the foundation of photography - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071435050/qid=1152313082/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0319788-8366451?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

slushie vs stick
coupe vs sedan
leather vs ette


----------



## 325ic a beer (Oct 21, 2005)

*Hmmm...*



Dave 330i said:


> slushie vs stick
> coupe vs sedan
> leather vs ette


 Exactly what I was thinking......


----------



## Spectre (Aug 1, 2002)

Nikon actually offers some pretty good classes. They are not specific to Nikon gear, although you will have the opportunity to paw some very expensive kit should you take one of the classes. More information can be found here, although the school is "closed" for the summer. It's held around the country and is quite an easy way to learn the lingo, techniques, and technology of photography. :thumbup:

Oh, yeah. Stick, sedan, leather.


----------



## chicagolab (Feb 20, 2006)

my advice is to read about the history of art photography and see as many pictures as you can of the best art photographers over the years, this helps you see different styles and if you read about the the major photographers you will see why the images are more than just images. Some photographers to look at Daguerre, Emerson,Stieglitz, White, Strand, Weston, Adams, Riis, Siskind, Richards, Salgado, Sander, Henri, Many Ray, Cartier-Bresson, Frank, Winogrand, Friedlander,Avedon, Penn, Ritts, Nixon, Liebowitz, Wolin, Sturges, Mapplethorpe, Serrano, Callahan, Crane. When you see many great images it helps you know what to look for when you shot and how to compose. Of the above names i am sure some you will not like and others will astound you. 

IMO first... see what you like, how to compose, & learn about the medium....then master the technical things.

BTW I have taken just as captivating images with a pinhole camera and $10 plastic camera (holga) than I have with my Hassellblad or Contax cameras.


----------



## hockeynut (Apr 14, 2002)

beauport said:


> I hope the OP is getting a lot out of all the "help" being provided with his photography request..........
> 
> hockeynut - here is a very good read on the stuff one needs to understand the foundation of photography - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071435050/qid=1152313082/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-0319788-8366451?s=books&v=glance&n=283155


Thanks...just placed my order!

edit: cancelled my order and picked up a copy at Barnes & Noble. No patience I guess


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

Spectre said:


> Nikon actually offers some pretty good classes. They are not specific to Nikon gear, although you will have the opportunity to paw some very expensive kit should you take one of the classes. More information can be found here, although the school is "closed" for the summer. It's held around the country and is quite an easy way to learn the lingo, techniques, and technology of photography. :thumbup:
> 
> Oh, yeah. Stick, sedan, leather.


and we agree. Nikon.


----------



## Rob V (Apr 4, 2005)

ThatOneGuy said:


> ugh. You can always tell the amateurs from the pros by their obsession with gear. A professional with a Pentax K1000 and 50mm lens will always out perform an amateur with a D1s and rack of L lenses.
> 
> It's not the gear. Go out a take pictures, it's the only way to get better.


:rofl: Are you serious with that? Always!? What if a "Pro" decided to go digital for workflow purposes and decided the D1s was the camera for him/her. Is he/she now worse off than before? A worse photographer? C'mon man, you can't be saying blanket statements like that. I agree on principal that someone who knows what they are doing can take great pictures with anything in their hands but a good tool makes your job easier doesn't it? I kow TONS of amateurs that can shoot circles around pros's but they choose to keep it as a hobby. Some of these folks got some extra cash laying around so they go for the higher-end stuff. Isn't that why we drive Bimmers?

Anyway! ThatOneGuy does bring up a good point. Go out and shoot! Shoot, Shoot, Shoot! Practice is the best method for improving.

If you're interested, there is a GREAT website called www.dpchallenge.com. Just about everything I learned I learned from this site because you're competing against other people. Most are average but some are simply amazing and you are forced to get better if you want to play the game. This site will turn your hobby into an addiction! Have fun and feel free to hit me up for advice.:thumbup:


----------



## bdougr (Mar 8, 2005)

since no-body really tried to answer your question
First you need to find out what you want to take better photos of
once you know then look at that type of photo and try to duplicate it

#1) tripods - made for a purpose
#2) composition - always look at the whole picture.
#3) practice - go out with friends or someone who shoots well and have fun
#4) technique first - equipment later


----------



## hockeynut (Apr 14, 2002)

bdougr said:


> since no-body really tried to answer your question
> First you need to find out what you want to take better photos of
> once you know then look at that type of photo and try to duplicate it
> 
> ...


Wow! you obviously know what you're talking about - fantastic pictures!

Yes, that's my approach. I have my trusty Canon SD500, plus a tripod and a monopod. I am reading thru the book referenced above so I understand the concepts and terminology. Now its a matter of doing a lot of pointing, shooting, and experimenting!


----------

