Is DSLR a good learning tool?

[taffer]

>Is DSLR a good learning tool?

If somebody is really willing to learn, it's just as good as any other 🙂

 

[darkkavenger]

I've started photography with a cheap digital camera, fell in love with an old 6x6 TLR, and here I am, I learned everything by trial and error, and I think some of my photos are acceptable nowadays. 🙂

 

[Fred]

Yup a DSLS is a great learning tool, but so was my film SLR..... only it was a lot slower to see the results.

 

[fgianni]

However, for certain creative effects, I bolt on a circa-1942 Kodak Aero Ektar 178mm f2.5 with a cobbled-up M42 adapter and produce DOF effects like nothing you've ever seen before. When I really want to pig it up, I go to the same lens on a Bessaflex TM body with Fuji Velvia film.

Can you post some pictures taken with that beast?
How did you manage to stick an M42 mount to it? I am asking because there is one on e-bay UK and I might try to have some fun with it and my 20D, I have an M42 adapter for my canon, but I still need to adapt the lens to M42.

Thanks

 

[canonetc]

I agree with what Bill said: if the learner goes fully manual, then DSLR can help them learn.
At some point, they should go to a film camera and apply what they've "learned". DLSR's do save on film expense, but "getting good" depends on deliberateness as opposed to the occasional lucky shot after 1000 images. Did you actually get what you composed and exposed for?

In one way, DSLR's are like Jeff Goldblum's teleporter in "The Fly": digital gives an interpretation of reality....it looks like steak, but does it TASTE like steak? Is the image RAW or well done? The mind behind the camera makes these decisions. Sure, the same argument can apply to film as an interpretation of reality....but with film, the shooter can be required to have LEARNED in order for the steak to be savored....with tabasco.... 🙂

chris
canonetc

 

[nickchew]

Glad to see the opinions here.
I'm inclined to think that DSLR is a good learning tool for me because I feel that I would really be able to experiment and view the pictures immediately.

That aside, I does not make one a good photographer. Simply because a good photographer is more than merely a camera technician.

Nick

 

[JoeFriday]

I started my serious photographic debut with a DSLR a few years ago, so I think my opinion might be somewhat useful for once!

the answer to the question of whether it's a good learning tool is yes.. and no

the digital part is great due to the immediacy of it.. as long as you actually pay attention to the settings and go full manual whenever possible

the SLR part.. well, that's debatable whether it's the best way to start, and I'm pretty sure I don't need to explain that to anyone here

but as for the argument that it's cheaper because you're not burning film.. no, I found it to be more expensive.. and you will lose most of your investment when the equipment depreciates (and it drops to half its original value within a year).. the only way that a DSLR is cheaper is that you can shoot thousands of photos and not incur any expense after the equipment purchase.. but that tends to lead to playing around with multiple variables, which makes improving in any one area less likely.. ie, composition versus metering versus DOF

I nearly gave up on photography after playing with my Nikon D70 for a year.. it was too big to carry around all the time and I found that having to guestimate what would actually be in the photo versus in the viewfinder was a major annoyance

so I set aside the DSLR and found myself here.. I've learned a lot more about aperture versus shutter, metering and DOF once I started having to pay for each roll of film to get developed

 

[DougK]

A DSLR can be an excellent learning tool IF you have the discipline and desire to turn off the automatic features and get rid of the zoom lens in favor of a wide-angle, normal, and telephoto lens. In fact, I chose this approach when I decided to get serious about the whole photography thing.

I couldn't get rid of the zoom on my Dimage 7i (not a DSLR but close enough; DSLRs were not consumer items at that time) but I could and did choose to just use one focal length at a time, just shutter-priority mode, just aperture-priority mode, and so on. This allowed me to take tons of shots and really see the effects of what I was doing, to focus on learning one new technical idea at a time, and to skip note-taking and the long wait for developing. I still shot lots of crap, but at least I had the chance to learn why it was crap without worrying about pouring money down the drain on film and processing.

The Dimage has sadly kicked the bucket since then but I easily got my money's worth from it in the learning value it provided. Ironically, I'm now spending more money on film and developing than I ever did before so that problem never really went away, I just delayed it a bit.

 

[pvdhaar]

I get the feeling that many here think that you can only learn by putting the DSLR in manual mode and working as if it were a completely mechanical brick. That's because as gearheads we're inclined to think photography is about apertures, shutter speeds and spot metering.

I think it's not.. and the fact that so many of you have such high regard for something as uncontrollable as an Olympus Stylus Epic/MjuII proves that point..

Photography is about seeing, about composition and people skills.. The great thing with all this automation of a DSLR is that you can get into photography starting from a passion, without worrying about the technical side (whether it's coating glass plates or selecting an ISO value or whatever). Wanna do people shots? Turn the dial to the portrait icon! See an impressive landscape? Turn the dial to the mountain icon! Concentrate on what's in the viewfinder first.. use the LCD as a visual evaluation aid.. and just enjoy taking pictures..

 

[sf]

well

well

Digital photography certainly benefits those who know and beware its duality. Having instantaneous feedback from each photographic decision is very useful. Being able to gain an understanding about how different ISOs, apertures, white balances, etc., work in different situations, at that speed (instantly), is incredibly valuable. I mean, one can experiment with every aspect of a shot from composition, to lighting, exposure, technical setup, etc., and gain an instant sense of what those factors do - how everything works together. The delayed feedback from traditional cameras is troublesome because beginning photographers have trouble looking at a negative or slide and remembering what went right or what went wrong. Digital EXIF data is a godsend for some users. Bottom line : digital allows the lesson to be learned in real time, rather than spread out over days and dollars spent on processing. That cost factor will chase learning photographers away from experimentation. And I can't even begin to tell you how many times I produced a great shot and could not remember exactly how I did it as far as exposure, film, etc. is concerned when I was younger. Kind of like learning to drive in the Ferrari. Not likely to push things too far, not likely to let it go and experiment at all. With digital, there are no lines that can't be crossed.

However, digital has a very dark side that only artists will recognize and respond to. It forgives sloppiness totally. It does not force learning at all, it only aids those who pursue it. If you learn to ride a bike with training wheels, and never remove the training wheels, have you really learned to ride? For those who use digital because it forgives mistakes and not because it accelerates learning and opens frontiers of experimentation, digital is a tomb. The tar pits for growth of knowledge and artistic finesse. Kind of like the parent that never punishes the child for bad behavior.

 

[RObert Budding]

Be very careful in evaluating DSLR exposures - use the histogram. That will tell you if you nailed the exposure or not. You can view the shot on the lcd to check the composition of the shot, but that's about all. It's very small, and not calibrated, so you still need to go home (or use a laptop) to make critical evaluations.

Robert

 

[pvdhaar]

If you learn to ride a bike with training wheels, and never remove the training wheels, have you really learned to ride?

No I guess not, but it doesn't stop you from getting to interesting places and meeting all kinds of nice people. Better still, this may just be a supreme conversation starter..

 

[nomade]

I kinda agree, it saves plenty of time, yet some has to learn it the harder way...Money wise, a DSLR could be somewhat expensive, more expensive than any # of rolls u'd buy and waste learning...Mostly it's heavy(maybe many of u wouldn't feel the difference but i'm a girl who can't handle that load for a long time)...And then when u decide on using film, u'll have to learn some stuff again..

 

[nickchew]

I don't think cost would figure into the debate of DSLR vs Film as a technical learning tool.
Simply because the price of used film cameras are driven down by the digital cameras. For the price of a decent Nikon/canon DSLR system and a 1 or 2 gig CF card, you'll be able to afford very good Olympus OM series cameras or manual nikon FG/FE/FM with a good array of lenses and still afford the film and the processing.
I think the only plus side of having a DSLR is the immediacy factor.

As for a providing a talking point?
I'm sure there will be more conversations to be had around an OM-2 than an EOS 5D...it is just sooo much sexier... 😀

Nick

 

[fgianni]

I kinda agree, it saves plenty of time, yet some has to learn it the harder way...Money wise, a DSLR could be somewhat expensive, more expensive than any # of rolls u'd buy and waste learning...Mostly it's heavy(maybe many of u wouldn't feel the difference but i'm a girl who can't handle that load for a long time)...And then when u decide on using film, u'll have to learn some stuff again..

Now you can get a low end (but still quite good) DSLR for less than £500, you will recover that with probably less than 200 films. I am not sure nowadays digital is much more expensive than film. And is definitely more convenient.
That said the coming weekend I'll put down the RD-1 for a while and have fun with my just serviced M4-P.

So in the end I think that film and digital can happily coexist, at least for us amateurs, pros will probably stop using film pretty soon.

 

[peterc]

Does the DSLR revolution impact positively on LEARNING photography or not?

This is a question with a yes and no answer.
I'd say yes for those who take the time to learn what an aperture and a shutter speed are. It does allow instant feedback when exploring what changes in DOF or focus point will do to an image.
However, the dSLR can be used as a point and shoot and the "photographer" will learn nothing other than that the camera can make really big files. I have come across owners of dSLRs who didn't know what an aperture or shutter speed was ... they set the camera on autofocus and program exposure when they got it and all they do is aim and push the button. I guess they've learned auto cameras work pretty well, but that's about it.

Peter

 

[VinceC]

I agree that there are two sides to this topic. The DSLR provides the instant feedback and dramatically speeds up the trial-and-error process. On the other hand, many serious photographers have started out with complicated, automated equipment then stepped back to a simpler camera in order to better understand the photography process. Not a lot of people born after, say, 1955, would have used a rangefinder as their first camera -- they arrive at this older simpler type of photography after having used SLRs of one kind or another.

A drawback of digital is that today's photographers aren't being taught to "previsualize" their image. With film, you have to have a certain amount of skill and experience in order to be confident that you've correctly "nailed" your exposure and composition and depth of field. Digital encourages bracketing and hyper-bracketing. As a self-taught photographer using film in photojournalism situations, my philosophy was "never bracket" because you could miss a "decisive moment." Instead, practice, practice, practice until there are no surprises on the negative and so that you are always ready to shoot with confidence when the decisive moment suddenly appears in front of you.

The previous analogy with word processors is a fair one. We're seeing a significant shift in the technology of cameras, and this evolution can't be reversed. But still, as someone who makes a living as a writer, I'm quite glad that I learned to write in the pre-computer age. With a pen or typewriter, you have to give your subject some thought and planning before you start committing words to paper. It requires a certain amount of discipline. A few years ago I was working alongside a much younger writer, and he told me he'd learned that the secret of good writing was constant revision -- something very easy to do in the computer age. I, being an old fogey, had learned a slightly different philosophy, that the ingredient for good writing was to previsualize the elements of the piece before you started writing it. Yes, the computer makes it easier if you know what you're doing. And I sure love automatic spell-check. But I've still been known to take a pen to paper when I really want to give a subject some serious thought.

 

[Kin Lau]

I kinda agree, it saves plenty of time, yet some has to learn it the harder way...Money wise, a DSLR could be somewhat expensive, more expensive than any # of rolls u'd buy and waste learning...Mostly it's heavy(maybe many of u wouldn't feel the difference but i'm a girl who can't handle that load for a long time)...And then when u decide on using film, u'll have to learn some stuff again..

A digital rebel (the newer or older one, 300D or 350D) is lighter than most of my FSU rangefinders, the smaller 350D is smaller than any full sized RF such as my Minolta 7s or Konica S2.

1 years worth of shooting slides could easily pay for a 300D or 350D if you're a roll a week shooter.

OTOH, an FSU RF or Canonet 28, bulk-rolling b&w, DIY processing & printing, is about as cheap as it's going to get. If you're careful, you can even do this under $100- a year at 1 roll/week.

 

[ruben]

It seems to me that it doesn't matter much what equipment you use to learn to photograph.

I very much agree with this obvious statement, which we tend to forget. Photography is first of all about seeing, not gadgets.

That being said, the former question of this thread remains relevant in practical life. I was confronted personnaly with it when I had to buy a new camera to my daughter (14), which, much because of fashion trends, refused to use any of my twenty analog cameras. I myself doesn't own any digital camera, not for principle but for a bitter resentment about price. When I compare the price of a new digital with the price of an used analog camera, I cannot , I just cannot buy the digital.

But in the case of my daughter, after a long thinking, I took a two hundred and fifty dollars from my wallet and bought her a piece of digital plastic. Why ? Because digital is the new language of Photography, whereas we like it or not. Had I gave her, bought, an analog camera for the same money, producing ten or a hundred times better pics, I would be in the long term leading my daughter to nowhere in the future.

We have to reckognize that we, the "oldtimers". speak a certain language of Photography too, the analog one, and we do not speak any more THE language.
Photography has always been at the edge of technological advance, not conservatism.

On the other hand, we, the non-pros "oldtimers", keep in our favour a major historical advantage: The knowledge by experience that the main aspect of Photography is not the never satisfying end-result, nor the instrument, but to have fun.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

But I've still been known to take a pen to paper when I really want to give a subject some serious thought.

I heard of a constipated mathematician who sat down and worked it out with a pencil.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks