Brown-Eyed Girl (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} septentrio) wrote in joraina, |
I have a Canon EOS Digital Rebel. It's nice, but the lens is what matters most for me. It makes the biggest difference and is why I got an SLR. Megapixels only matter if you want to print large versions of your photos.
You don't really need to know how to use an SLR if it has an automatic setting, which makes it function just like a point and shoot, but with way more control over focusing. (Although they usually have auto-focus, too, that you can toggle on and off.) You can learn to use the manual camera controls, though, so you can grow into the camera.
I don't know if you ever tried using a film SLR, but it really sucks if you don't know what you're doing. What's lame is if you set the aperture and f-stop wrong, you'll let in too much or too little light for anything to show up at all (you'll get all black or all white instead of a photo), and you don't know that until you go to get it developed.
But with digital, you can see what you get immediately, so if you have a lot of patience and time, you can actually teach yourself what works and what doesn't with the manual controls. If it's too dark right then, you can let it in a little more light until it shows up, or vice versa, and just experiment with it.
It's really not that hard to get a basic picture out of an SLR. I'm not sure I can explain it well, but basically by messing with the f-stop and aperture setting buttons (which will vary depending on your camera), you let in the right amount of light to get a picture to show up.
It's not that hard if you have a new SLR because they all have the an exposure meter built in. You just look through the lens and usually press down half-way (not all the way) on the shutter button and it'll show the exposure meter at the bottom or to the side of your viewing area in the lens.
Essentially, the exposure meter looks like a timeline or a number line, with negative and positive numbers and a 0 in the middle. We'll say negative will let in more less light, and positive will let in more light. So the correct amount of light needed for a picture to show up will be marked on the timeline somewhere, probably to the left or right of 0, the center mark. 0 would represent perfect lighting conditions, which you probably won't be in, so you have to fake it by letting in more light or less light, depending on what you're focused on. Does that make sense? If it doesn't I'll figure out a better way to explain it.
(Basically just imagine a sort conveyor belt running from your left to your right. Above the conveyor belt is a red mark right in the center, the "sweet spot." And to the right is a mark on your conveyor belt. So you have to crank the conveyor belt on the left to bring the mark over so it's perfectly under the sweet spot.)
I think I'm way over-explaining this, haha. Sorry. :)
Personally, though I have a really nice SLR, I want a point and shoot. The photos don't compare, but the last year or so, the camera has been so cumbersome at places like Disneyland and Comic Con that I haven't even brought it, or if I do bring it, I keep it in my backpack all day. I haven't taken a single photo at Comic Con in like two years, and it's just because I'm way too lazy to carry around that huge camera when I'm walking through 100,000 sweaty nerds. The SLR is awesome for things like presentations, where I'm just sitting down for a long time in dark lighting conditions (especially if I had a tripod). But for times when it's like, "Oh holy crap, [such and such celebrity] is right there!", point and shoot wins every time, for me. I'm just not quick enough at manually focusing (let alone setting the exposure) to get a good photo in those situations.
Also, a point and shoot can fit in your pocket and usually comes in colors. ;)
Seriously though, if you have the money, for the sort of thing you want to do, you probably want an SLR. But if you don't have the money right now, you can get VERY good photos with a point and shoot, and it's much cheaper and convenient to get one. It all depends on what you need it for.
You don't really need to know how to use an SLR if it has an automatic setting, which makes it function just like a point and shoot, but with way more control over focusing. (Although they usually have auto-focus, too, that you can toggle on and off.) You can learn to use the manual camera controls, though, so you can grow into the camera.
I don't know if you ever tried using a film SLR, but it really sucks if you don't know what you're doing. What's lame is if you set the aperture and f-stop wrong, you'll let in too much or too little light for anything to show up at all (you'll get all black or all white instead of a photo), and you don't know that until you go to get it developed.
But with digital, you can see what you get immediately, so if you have a lot of patience and time, you can actually teach yourself what works and what doesn't with the manual controls. If it's too dark right then, you can let it in a little more light until it shows up, or vice versa, and just experiment with it.
It's really not that hard to get a basic picture out of an SLR. I'm not sure I can explain it well, but basically by messing with the f-stop and aperture setting buttons (which will vary depending on your camera), you let in the right amount of light to get a picture to show up.
It's not that hard if you have a new SLR because they all have the an exposure meter built in. You just look through the lens and usually press down half-way (not all the way) on the shutter button and it'll show the exposure meter at the bottom or to the side of your viewing area in the lens.
Essentially, the exposure meter looks like a timeline or a number line, with negative and positive numbers and a 0 in the middle. We'll say negative will let in more less light, and positive will let in more light. So the correct amount of light needed for a picture to show up will be marked on the timeline somewhere, probably to the left or right of 0, the center mark. 0 would represent perfect lighting conditions, which you probably won't be in, so you have to fake it by letting in more light or less light, depending on what you're focused on. Does that make sense? If it doesn't I'll figure out a better way to explain it.
(Basically just imagine a sort conveyor belt running from your left to your right. Above the conveyor belt is a red mark right in the center, the "sweet spot." And to the right is a mark on your conveyor belt. So you have to crank the conveyor belt on the left to bring the mark over so it's perfectly under the sweet spot.)
I think I'm way over-explaining this, haha. Sorry. :)
Personally, though I have a really nice SLR, I want a point and shoot. The photos don't compare, but the last year or so, the camera has been so cumbersome at places like Disneyland and Comic Con that I haven't even brought it, or if I do bring it, I keep it in my backpack all day. I haven't taken a single photo at Comic Con in like two years, and it's just because I'm way too lazy to carry around that huge camera when I'm walking through 100,000 sweaty nerds. The SLR is awesome for things like presentations, where I'm just sitting down for a long time in dark lighting conditions (especially if I had a tripod). But for times when it's like, "Oh holy crap, [such and such celebrity] is right there!", point and shoot wins every time, for me. I'm just not quick enough at manually focusing (let alone setting the exposure) to get a good photo in those situations.
Also, a point and shoot can fit in your pocket and usually comes in colors. ;)
Seriously though, if you have the money, for the sort of thing you want to do, you probably want an SLR. But if you don't have the money right now, you can get VERY good photos with a point and shoot, and it's much cheaper and convenient to get one. It all depends on what you need it for.
