|
|
|
|
|
|
Photography: Progression of a Hobby
author: Martin "mpot" Pot
date: 12 June 2006
This article details the development of photography as one of my hobbies.
icy winter in Orangeville
Ontario, Canada, January 1998
Vivitar 470PZ 35mm
First Photos
My first photos were taken with a 110mm film camera while aged 9.
While I can't even remember the manufacturer or model of the camera,
I do remember the enjoyment of looking through a pack of just-developed photos.
At age 16, I bought a Canon Sureshot Joy Date 35mm film camera before
an overseas trip.
Over the years that I had it, I took many photos with it, including plenty of
badly framed photos, as I often didn't think about composition when taking the photo.
After the Sureshot Joy was stolen, insurance paid for a replacement camera,
a Vivitar Series 1 470PZ 35mm film camera with 38-70mm optical zoom.
The optical zoom was great, but I found the camera wasn't particularly good
when taking photos in artificial light indoors, particularly when using the zoom.
The flash didn't have sufficient throw to make much of a difference.
Despite these limitations, I found the Vivitar worked well in natural light,
and I took a lot of photos with it.
Going Digital
I had wanted a digital camera for some time, particularly as I was starting
to publish more guides and tutorials on my website, and needed photos of
my work for this.
preparing a long tail boat
Phuket, Thailand, May 2003
Kodak DX3500, 1/256 sec, f/4.44, ISO100
Taking photos for this purpose with a 35mm camera was impractical,
primarily due to the inability to immediately review the photo, the lag time with the photo
development, and the need to subsequently scan the photos to get a digital
image for publication on the web.
However, the digital cameras with the features I wanted were priced out of my budget.
After some research and shopping around, I ended up buying a Kodak DX3500.
The 2.2 megapixels were sufficient at the time, but the lack of zoom and
relatively poor performance of the built-in flash made me want more functionality.
The Kodak only had minimal controls, with the ability to turn the flash on
and off, and select macro or normal shooting mode, and not much more than that.
My first digital camera freed me from the constraints of film cameras,
with the LCD screen on the camera providing instant feedback of the photos being taken,
and the expense of taking photos being reduced to virtually nothing.
With the running costs of a digital camera so much lower than a film camera,
I found I was taking a lot more photos, particularly of my children.
Even if many of the photos were deleted when being reviewed later,
the larger number of photos typically resulted in better quality photos,
and allowed me to experiment more with composition and lighting.
Anyone who has tried to take photos of multiple children will now how difficult it is
to capture a moment where all the children are looking in the right direction,
all have their hands and feet in a suitable posture, and all have the right facial expression.
A digital camera allowed me to easily take multiple photos, thus increasing the
chances of getting a good photo of the children, rather than a photo where
one child was looking sideways, or had a hand upto their face, or some other
undesirable posture.
More Manual Control
Watchful gopher
Banff, Alberta, Canada, June 2005
Olympus C-770 @63mm,
1/200 sec, f/3.7, ISO100
After taking many photos with the Kodak over several years, I started looking for a digital
camera with more manual control, optical zoom, and a hot shoe for an external flash.
There weren't many cameras on the market with those features, and
I settled on an Olympus C-770 UltraZoom, with 4 megapixels,
10x optical zoom, and a hot shoe for an external flash.
An Olympus FL-36 flash completed the package.
The Olympus was a big improvement over the Kodak, and I spent a lot of time
reading up on photographic techniques, including composition, lighting, etc,
and trying to put it into practice.
I experimented a lot with the creative modes on the Olympus, particularly
aperture priority and shutter priority, and
took a lot of photos with the Olympus, including plenty of photos on several
overseas trips.
I also started spending more time in the
photography forum at the
overclockers.com.au forums,
and learnt a lot about photography techniques.
I found the Olympus auto-focus to be pretty poor in low light. Although it
does have manual focus, it's rather fiddly, and it is difficult to focus accurately.
While the FL-36 flash has a focus-assist light, the C-770 camera isn't capable of driving it.
At full zoom, the Olympus often struggled to take decent photos,
and holding the small camera steady wasn't always easy.
However, the more time I spent with the Olympus, and the more reading I did,
the more I wanted additional functionality and more control.
Moving to a DSLR
After about 12 months with the Olympus, I decided to upgrade to a digital SLR.
Initially, I looked at Olympus' DLSR offerings, specifically the
relatively new E-330, as I would then be able to re-use the
Olympus FL-36 flash and several Olympus xD memory cards that I had.
However, further research indicated Canon's DSLR offerings offered
better value for money, and the range of lenses available for a Canon DSLR
is far greater (and typically cheaper) than the relatively small range of 4/3 lenses
available for the Olympus DSLR.
lonely autumn leaf
Matilda Bay, Western Australia, May 2006
Canon EOS 350D, 17-85mm @76mm,
1/125 sec, f/5.6, ISO400
After considerable research,
I decided to get the Canon EOS 350D, which is the base model DSLR available from Canon.
Rather than get the (cheap and nasty) 18-55mm kit lens which is normally bundled with the 350D,
I settled on the more expensive 17-85mm IS USM lens.
Initial DSLR Impressions
I've been enjoying using the 350D so far, and have found it comfortable in the hands,
with the controls well placed and easy to use. All the frequently-used settings
are typically accessible via a single button click.
In comparision, some of the settings on the Olympus were buried several levels
deep in the menus.
The manual zoom on the Canon 17-85mm lens is much easier to use than the
zoom on the Vivitar and the Olympus, allowing finer control, and
much faster operation.
The auto-focus is much better than the Olympus in low light, and the
350D can use the built-in flash for focus auto-assist.
One of the features of the 17-85mm lens is full-time manual focus,
allowing manual focussing without having to switch the lens into manual mode.
The 350D also has many more options than the Olympus, allowing much more manual
control. While the Olympus could manage a slow shutter speed of 1 second,
the 350D can use a shutter speed of upto 30 seconds (or more in bulb mode),
and it has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 seconds.
Eternal Flame and
State War Memorial
Kings Park, Western Australia
May 2006
Canon EOS 350D, 17-85mm @85mm,
1/400 sec, f/5.6, ISO100
The ability to change lenses also provides a lot more flexibility than the
fixed lens of a point-and-shot camera.
The 17-85mm lens is a great walk-around lens, and I've also bought a
50mm f/1.8 lens, which is renowned for its suitability for portraits,
and other situations requiring a small depth-of-focus.
The image stability of the 17-85mm lens is also a nice feature, allowing
hand-held photos upto three f-stops slower than without image stability.
While the additional pixel count of the 350D (8MP vs the Olympus' 4MP) is
certainly worthwhile, the pixel count of a digital camera is less important
than many people will have you believe, with the quality of the lens
and sensor being more important.
The 350D also supports RAW mode, but I haven't yet switched to RAW mode, and
am still shooting in JPG mode while I get the hang of the 350D and
work on my technique.
Other nice features of the 350D include USB 2 support (much faster than the USB 1.1 speeds
that the Olympus supported), faster burst shooting (3 frames per second for upto 12 fames),
My wife doesn't like the complication of too many manual controls, and initially
wasn't too keen to use the 350D, having always used the Olympus in full auto mode.
However, the 350D also has a full auto mode, and she has been able to take some
great photos with the 350D, despite treating it like a point-and-shoot camera
(ie, turn on, set to auto mode, aim, adjust zoom, click).
In fact, she has been taking better photos with the 350D than she did with the Olympus,
primarily because she often failed to hold the Olympus still while pressing the shutter button,
resulting in blurry photos.
The 350D, being a significantly bigger and heavier camera, is easier to hold stationary
with two hands while pressing the shutter button.
As a result, the percentage of keepers (ie, photos worth keeping) she takes with the 350D
is considerably higher than it was with photos she took with the Olympus camera.
daughter with camera
Minawarra Park, Western Australia
May 2006
Canon EOS 350D, 17-85mm @81mm
1/60 sec, f/5.6, ISO100
Kids and Cameras
I still intend to keep the Olympus C-770, for the flexibility and portability
it offers when I need to travel light, and when I cannot take the Canon 350D.
I've also been encouraging my two oldest children (7 year old son and 6 year old daughter)
use the Olympus, as I believe photography is a great hobby to get involved in.
While it's still early days, they've taken some suprisingly good photos, along with
countless badly composed and/or out of focus photos.
The kids are really enjoying taking photos, so I'll continue to encourage them
them to use the camera, and develop their photography skills.
The Downsides of DSLR
Despite all the positives about moving to a DSLR, there are also some downsides
which must be considered.
Firstly, a DSLR and lens is considerably larger than a point-and-shoot camera, and
hence is less portable, ie, you can't stuff it in your pocket or backpack when
going out.
Taking accessories into account (additional lenses, filters, external flash, tripod),
the weight and space requirements increase even more.
A DSLR does not provide a live preview on its LCD, but requires the
viewfinder to be used.
This is because a DSLR, by its nature, provides a true optical view finder, with
a mirror redirecting the lens' view to the viewfinder, while blocking the light
from reaching the camera's sensor.
In contrast, a point-and-shoot camera allows you to use the LCD to preview the view
through the camera lens.
This can be useful when attempting to take photos in awkward situations, when it's difficult
to get an eye to the viewfinder.
(The only exception is the relatively new Olympus E-330 DSLR, which is the first
live-preview DSLR, and uses a second sensor to provide a preview on the camera's LCD.)
The true optical view finder of a DSLR provides a much more accurate representation of
the view through the lens, rather than the LCD on a point-and-shot camera, or
the viewfinder on a point-and-shoot camera, which is typically also driven by an LCD.
Something else to consider when moving to a DSLR is the cost.
A DSLR camera is more expensive than a point-and-shoot digital camera.
Add to that some lens filters, a decent camera bag, external flash, a tripod,
and the cost quickly increases.
Another downside to owning a DSLR is something I call "lens envy".
No matter how many lenses you have, there's always one or more lenses
that you purchase to add to your camera bag...
Addendum (September 2006)
Having owned a DSLR for several months, I decided I would revisit this article, and
add some closing comments about my thoughts on a DSLR versus a point-and-shoot camera.
On my Canon 350D, once the camera is focussed (and the focus speed of both the
17-85mm lens and the 50mm f/1.8 lens is extremely fast),
fully depressing the shutter button will cause the camera to instantly take a photo,
with no delay.
A point-and-shoot camera typically takes a few seconds or more to focus,
and then often takes several more seconds after fully depressing the shutter button
before it will take a photo.
As a result, it's easy to miss a photo opportunity with a point-and-shoot camera,
and you need to anticipate the delay in order to catch the right moment.
While going through some of the photos I had taken in the last few years with my Olympus C-770,
it struck me just how bad the higher ISO performance of a point-and-shoot camera is.
Photos taken in the evening at ISO200 or ISO400 are very grainy, while photos taken
with the Canon 350D in similar conditions are largely noise-free.
In retrospect, I'm very glad I made the move to a DSLR....but I'm now eyeing off
the Canon 70-200mm f/4L lens...
last updated 30 Mar 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
