[ichiban]

I just sold my D40 and got the T1i. Was looking to get into more automotive photography and expand into other fields. Any good recommendations for a noob on how to get started? Any advice is much appreciated.

TIA

[lyndon_h]

Dark is right. Just take lots of pictures and read. You'll figure out your style over time.

[rodi]

yeah, going from something as intuitive and well-designed as a Nikon camera to a Canon camera, i can understand your woes. you may definitely need to read the manual for this one. sorry.

[ichiban]

^ haha. I'm just trying to compare, and how can I if only Nikons are in my stable. Well see how far I get into it, and if I like Nikon better down the road, I can always go with a Nikon full frame.

[lyndon_h]

Not this silly Nikon vs Canon shit again...

[anthony @ eas]

Just shoot. A lot. A lot a lot, actually. Try anything and everything. See what works and what doesn't. Just have fun.

Then spend all of your free time learning all the ins, outs and cheats in Photoshop. I'm actually becoming more and more convinced that there are no such things as good photographers, only good Photoshoppers.

Oh, and the D40 is a GREAT camera. No one actually needs anything better than it. The T1i shoots 1080p video though, so that's pretty sick. Just have fun and post your stuff.

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by anthony @ eas

Just shoot. A lot. A lot a lot, actually. Try anything and everything. See what works and what doesn't. Just have fun.

Then spend all of your free time learning all the ins, outs and cheats in Photoshop. I'm actually becoming more and more convinced that there are no such things as good photographers, only good Photoshoppers.

Oh, and the D40 is a GREAT camera. No one actually needs anything better than it. The T1i shoots 1080p video though, so that's pretty sick. Just have fun and post your stuff.

Let me start out by saying nothing against you personally. I'm only quoting you so I have something to base it on.

Anyhow, if a person spends a lot of time in photoshop in order to make their pictures better (and i mean most if not all of their pix) then they need to reevaluate. I understand that pros (weddings, sports, etc) do spend sometime working on their pictures but that's because they're getting paid mad money for it. Besides, they usually only spend time doing touch up and such. If one finds him/herself PSing every picture then perhaps they need to give up photography in general.

To me photography is about enjoyment as well as "education". I usually spend time getting a good/better shot and if it doesn't come out right I take the time to think about what I could have done to make it better so I can take better pix next time. I know a lot of people that basically take snapshots, go home and crop and PS the crap out of their photos and think that they are good photographers. IMO it defeats the purpose of photography.

As for the "no one needs more than a D40" statement, that may no longer be true. Perhaps it was true years ago when most people didn't want to print bigger than 4x6's but with the low costs of large prints nowadays people need more resolution. A lot of people do a lot of cropping too so more MP is better for them (generally speaking). I think that the statement above stemmed from Ken Rockwell and we all know his website are all subjective stuff. If no one needs more than a D40, why then does he have other, much more expensive cameras? Also, if no one needs anything better than a D40 then howcome Nikon keeps making replacements/better models?

[jpsum]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Let me start out by saying nothing against you personally. I'm only quoting you so I have something to base it on.

Anyhow, if a person spends a lot of time in photoshop in order to make their pictures better (and i mean most if not all of their pix) then they need to reevaluate. I understand that pros (weddings, sports, etc) do spend sometime working on their pictures but that's because they're getting paid mad money for it. Besides, they usually only spend time doing touch up and such. If one finds him/herself PSing every picture then perhaps they need to give up photography in general.

To me photography is about enjoyment as well as "education". I usually spend time getting a good/better shot and if it doesn't come out right I take the time to think about what I could have done to make it better so I can take better pix next time. I know a lot of people that basically take snapshots, go home and crop and PS the crap out of their photos and think that they are good photographers. IMO it defeats the purpose of photography.

As for the "no one needs more than a D40" statement, that may no longer be true. Perhaps it was true years ago when most people didn't want to print bigger than 4x6's but with the low costs of large prints nowadays people need more resolution. A lot of people do a lot of cropping too so more MP is better for them (generally speaking). I think that the statement above stemmed from Ken Rockwell and we all know his website are all subjective stuff. If no one needs more than a D40, why then does he have other, much more expensive cameras? Also, if no one needs anything better than a D40 then howcome Nikon keeps making replacements/better models?

+1

The D40 is for novice shooters. If you are going to set every attributes manually - i.e., ISO, F-Stop, shutter speed, etc., then the D40 just won't do. For one, D40 does not have a dedicated button for every setting. You pretty much have to go thru the menus to get there. It's time consuming and in some cases, you will miss the opportunity to shoot what you wanted to shoot. This is just one reason why some will NEED something better than a D40. I won't even touch on the topic of quality of the photos when comparing a D40 vs a... let's say....a D300. Also, if nobody NEEDS a camera better than a D40, then the professional photographers must be NUTS because they are always sporting a Nikon D3 or a Canon equivalent.

[anthony @ eas]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

Let me start out by saying nothing against you personally. I'm only quoting you so I have something to base it on.

Anyhow, if a person spends a lot of time in photoshop in order to make their pictures better (and i mean most if not all of their pix) then they need to reevaluate. I understand that pros (weddings, sports, etc) do spend sometime working on their pictures but that's because they're getting paid mad money for it. Besides, they usually only spend time doing touch up and such. If one finds him/herself PSing every picture then perhaps they need to give up photography in general.

To me photography is about enjoyment as well as "education". I usually spend time getting a good/better shot and if it doesn't come out right I take the time to think about what I could have done to make it better so I can take better pix next time. I know a lot of people that basically take snapshots, go home and crop and PS the crap out of their photos and think that they are good photographers. IMO it defeats the purpose of photography.

As for the "no one needs more than a D40" statement, that may no longer be true. Perhaps it was true years ago when most people didn't want to print bigger than 4x6's but with the low costs of large prints nowadays people need more resolution. A lot of people do a lot of cropping too so more MP is better for them (generally speaking). I think that the statement above stemmed from Ken Rockwell and we all know his website are all subjective stuff. If no one needs more than a D40, why then does he have other, much more expensive cameras? Also, if no one needs anything better than a D40 then howcome Nikon keeps making replacements/better models?

I agree with everything you said. My statement was admittedly an overly broad generalization. Learning the camera settings is certainly invaluable to getting great shots and is more satisfying than doing massive edits in PS. Perfecting the camera is usually down to trial and error, so if you take a not-so-great shot that could use some editing to make it look great, PS can cover you. Even if you take great raw photos using nothing but the camera, it usually never hurts to tweak color, contrast, etc.

As for the D40 it may lack many features that more expensive cameras have, but a good photographer can take great images with it. And yes, I know it can't be used by a pro because of the speed, menus, resolution, lens compatibility and functionality (that's why the D3 and other expensive cameras are made), but I think it is pretty underestimated. I strongly prefer the D90 that I use over the D40, but the D40 is a good-for-the-money camera that I, and probably most others, wouldn't be unsatisfied with. So, in conclusion I renounce my overly generalized statement.

And yes, Ken Rockwell is VERY subjective.