Dec 13, 2005, 22:08
Wow,
thank you guys for your precious advice, links, and warm welcome!
the lenses are definitely a whole new world I'll have to get into, so any advice is definitely welcome.
As for the digital vs. film, I found exactly like Adrian said, that the instant results and endless shots facilitated a relatively steep learning curve. Also, I had been working with Photoshop even before I started getting into photography and I enjoy working with my pictures. And I find that the relative ease (and the costless-ness) allow me to make the best of my pictures even if they weren't perfect shots to start with. So that's why I thought to go for a dSLR, even though I believe conventional film can give you still nicer results - at the price of a higher level of expertise and commitment than I have right now.
The areas I have so far enjoyed most are definitely outdoor things. I found taking close-ups of small plants or the like really exciting and the results rewarding. Generally I have a harder time getting decent shots of moving subjects (animal or human) than things that I can take my time with. I put a few pictures up in an album on shuttertalk ("mixed", wulinka77).
One of the major disadvantages of my current camera I found was the limited aperture range, so that I could often not get as shallow depth of field as I would have liked. actually, that by itself would almost make me consider going into conventional film. Or do you think full-frame sensors are a solution, and is it worth waiting for them to get technically sophisticated, and cheaper?
thank you guys for your precious advice, links, and warm welcome!
the lenses are definitely a whole new world I'll have to get into, so any advice is definitely welcome.
As for the digital vs. film, I found exactly like Adrian said, that the instant results and endless shots facilitated a relatively steep learning curve. Also, I had been working with Photoshop even before I started getting into photography and I enjoy working with my pictures. And I find that the relative ease (and the costless-ness) allow me to make the best of my pictures even if they weren't perfect shots to start with. So that's why I thought to go for a dSLR, even though I believe conventional film can give you still nicer results - at the price of a higher level of expertise and commitment than I have right now.
The areas I have so far enjoyed most are definitely outdoor things. I found taking close-ups of small plants or the like really exciting and the results rewarding. Generally I have a harder time getting decent shots of moving subjects (animal or human) than things that I can take my time with. I put a few pictures up in an album on shuttertalk ("mixed", wulinka77).
One of the major disadvantages of my current camera I found was the limited aperture range, so that I could often not get as shallow depth of field as I would have liked. actually, that by itself would almost make me consider going into conventional film. Or do you think full-frame sensors are a solution, and is it worth waiting for them to get technically sophisticated, and cheaper?