considering upgrading to an SLR - need some camera gurus help

[Tac]

Sorry if I went over your head there. 

no worries, i'm learning

OK back to basics.  There are 3 major factors that go into creating a good photograph, Composition, Lighting and Exposure

Your right on composition, it is the most artistic part of photography, it is basically how you chose to show whatever the subject of the photo is.  There are a lot of guidelines for good composition you can learn more about if you want.  Things like the Rule of Thirds, framing, perspective, leading lines, S-curves, negative space.  Your right that the viewpoint from where you take the picture is part of composition, so is what lens you use, telephoto or wide angle.

I'll look up rule of thirds, framing, perspective, leading lines, s-curves and negative space.

Lighting is simply what lights up the scene, sunlight, moonlight or artificial light like flashes and lightbulbs, or a combination of both.  In landscape photography there is a whole lot of just sitting and waiting for the natural light to be right.

yep i had a basic working idea of this already

Exposure is your camera setting, or how you get the image have composed onto your film or sensor.  With digital photography there are 3 components of exposure.  Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO

check!

Aperture, this is the part of the lens that controls how much light hits the sensor.  The smaller the number the bigger the opening, for example f32 is basically a pinhole, while f1.4 is humongous.  Aperture also controls the "depth of field" or how much of the scene in front of and behind the focus point is also in focus.  The smaller the aperture the greater the depth of field.

  I had no idea aperture also influenced the focus . This is the stuff one doesnt find in all those techno-gibberish guides. thanks!

The shutter is the part of the camera that controls how long the light hits the sensor.  Shutter speed is usually measured in fractions of seconds like 1/60 or 1/500.  The faster the shutter speed the less chance you have of any movement (from you or the subject) creating blurs in your image. (but sometimes blur is good, like your image above)  So if you don't want blur you want the fastest shutter speed you can get with the lighting available, and the aperture you have set.  Most blur will come from your hands shaking the camera, not the subject moving, which is why photographers use tripods in low light situations.

Yep I knew the basics of this one .

ISO or sensitivity is how sensitive the digital sensor is to light.  You can crank up the ISO to 6400 and shoot hand held in very low light situations.  The problem is that when you crank up the sensors sensitivity to light, it also becomes more sensitive to all the electronic currents running the camera.  The higher the ISO setting the more electronic noise will be picked up, this noise translates to a kind of weird looking texture in your photos.

hmm so thats the graininess seen in some pics... noise. Is there any way to know which ISO to use depending on light or this be trial and error?

As for the difference in photos taken with a point and shoot and an SLR you mentioned..... They are both 6mp, and assuming they both have decent lenses, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them in prints up to 8x12.  In larger prints the SLR would start to look better, because even though they are both 6mp the sensor in the SLR is gonna be about twice the size of that in a P&S.  I won't try and explain it, but bigger sensors (even with the same # of pixel) equal better photos in large prints...

no need, it makes lots of sense. In laymans terms both cameras can be 6mp but the slr with the bigger sensor will have taken in more light and compressed it into the image.

If the DSLR does take better pics when doing large prints then thats one big selling point for me (its also why I was going for 10mpix) as I took some really good pics in that trip to japan and when I went to enlarge them to large poster size I did notice a very small amount of square-shaped distortions (like when you zoom too much in pic editing software) in them.. though noticable only if you put your nose to the picture not from 5ft away. Any larger than the 6ft poster would show horrible pixelation. BUT the 10mp pics could be enlarged much more and not show any pixelation.

Also was looking at the dslr because when it came to focusing and zooming I do it a lot faster with a regular hand-on-lens-twist motion than waiting for the camera to focus on the wrong spot >< . I hate that!

[GFShill]

Yeah, about ISO. Shooting with my Pentax K10d I learned that image clarity has more to do with what your lens can handle than what your ISO is set up for. It doesn't matter how high you set the ISO if the lens can only stop-down just so far.  High ISO = great speed but high noise.

I went to an airshow and set the ISO for a ridiculously fast speed (1200 or something) because I thought it would remove some of the blur of the props. Got tons of noise (which you'll see in some of the pics above). After experimenting, I learned I would've been better off going with ISO 600 (or even 400 when the clouds were gone) max, a mid-range aperture setting, and letting the shutter control the action.

ISO is "the old days" of film types. The lower the number, the slower the speed. The faster the speed, the more grain in the image.  ISO 200 would give really clear images with low noise, but took a long time to get enough light. The compensation was to go with a wider aperture and/or slower shutter speed. The trade-off is that the wider aperture will give you a shorter depth of field, meaning images closer and farther away from your "gun convergence" will be blurry, but the middle will be crystal clear. A narrower aperture will give you greater depth of field of focus.  The trade-off to slower shutter is that more blur is introduced from your hand shaking, or the camera vibrating when it is activated. By this I mean, you view your image through the lens, and when you take a picture, the mirror used for your viewfinder flips up and the movement vibrates the camera.  Or, you could go with a really "fast film", like a ISO 1200 speed, the trade-off being that the image would be grainy. To take advantage of such a high sensitivity, you had to have a really fast shutter, or a really small aperture, or a combo of both. The narrower the f-stop, the deeper the field of focus. The faster the shutter, the more stop-action you got.  The trick was finding the right combination that got you what you wanted and still got enough light to the camera.

The great thing about digital is that you can experiment all you want with f-stop, ISO, and shutter speed without burning through rolls of film.  If you don't like the pic, just press the garbage can button and get on with your life.

When I shoot outdoors, I use a polarizing filter to cut down on glare. I noticed other photogs in this thread did the same thing. The trade-off is you lose about an f-stop, or a shutter speed, or an ISO (more or less), and with each piece of glass you add to the lens, you lose a little clarity. But, you should have at least 1 filter on your camera, to protect the lens from FOD, like dirt, bugs, greasy fingers...

Whatever camera you get, I highly suggest the extra battery pack. It makes the camera bigger and heavier, but the battery life you get makes it so worth it if you're going to be out a lot. Plus, you get style points that chicks really dig.  

[saggs]

Yeah, about ISO. Shooting with my Pentax K10d I learned that image clarity has more to do with what your lens can handle than what your ISO is set up for. I went to an airshow and set the ISO for a ridiculously fast speed (1200 or something) because I thought it would remove some of the blur of the props. Got tons of noise (which you'll see in some of the pics above). After experimenting, I learned I would've been better off going with ISO 600 (or even 400 when the clouds were gone) max, a faster aperture setting, and letting the shutter control the action.

Yup, when shooting wildlife or sports, I shoot in Aperture priority, with auto ISO floating between 200-800 90% of the time. (unless on a tripod/monopod when I keep the ISO at 200)  For landscapes or night shots I always use a tripod and manual settings. (especially when I use my trusty old Pentax 6x7 and Velvia 50, nothing automatic on that beast)  I rarely use shutter priority.   

RANT ON:
  Why my A700 even has those silly "scene modes" is beyond me.  I can't imagine anyone buying that level of camera ever shooting JPGs, let alone using those stupid scene modes, they just waste space on my mode dial.  I'm glad Sony did away with them on my A900.
RANT OFF

[GFShill]

I'm inspired now to take my camera out on a photo safari! 

[Sandman]

I had no idea aperture also influenced the focus . This is the stuff one doesnt find in all those techno-gibberish guides. thanks!

This will show you how ISO, aperture, and shutter interact:
http://www.kamerasimulator.se/eng/?page_id=2

Consider this when you're shooting. If you have trouble seeing something, you often squint your eyes. This is reducing the aperture and increasing the depth of field. It's something you do instinctively. Big f/stop number means small aperture. Small aperture means larger depth of field.

[Sandman]

RANT ON:
  Why my A700 even has those silly "scene modes" is beyond me.  I can't imagine anyone buying that level of camera ever shooting JPGs, let alone using those stupid scene modes, they just waste space on my mode dial.  I'm glad Sony did away with them on my A900.
RANT OFF

Isn't the A700 an $800 camera body? Having all of those silly scene modes is consistent with what Nikon and Canon produce in the $800-1000 price range.

[Sandman]

Oh... and Tac, buy Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. It's $15 well spent.

[Sandman]

Yup, when shooting wildlife or sports, I shoot in Aperture priority, with auto ISO floating between 200-800 90% of the time. (unless on a tripod/monopod when I keep the ISO at 200)  

Can't agree here. If I'm shooting action stuff, it's either full manual or shutter priority. I use aperture priority for making depth of field the priority component, especially when doing portraits, or landscapes.

[saggs]

Can't agree here. If I'm shooting action stuff, it's either full manual or shutter priority. I use aperture priority for making depth of field the priority component, especially when doing portraits, or landscapes.

Either way works I think, different photographers do things differently depending on their style, just like we use different brands, whatever works for you is the right way.   I like to control the DOF on all my shots, and as long as the shutter speed is fast enough, (if I'm close enough I always use fill flash and that helps to) I don't care what it is.

I use aperture priority because it let's me use the "sweet spot" of my lenses.  For example one of my most common used lenses is my Minolta 80-200mm 2.8.  I know that this lens is sharpest between f4 and f8.  Most of the time for wildlife I like a shallow depth of field so I'll shoot @ f4 with pre TTL fill flash.  I can almost always get fast enough shutter speeds handheld in daylight that way.  I just keep and eye on the shutter speed, if it drops to low I'll go wide open to f2.8.  If it's to bright to shoot @ f4 I'll slap on a ND4 filter.  If I want more DOF I'll stop down to f8.

Isn't the A700 an $800 camera body?$850 @ B&H right now Having all of those silly scene modes is consistent with what Nikon and Canon produce in the $800-1000 price range.

Was $1400 2yrs ago when I got it, ordered it as soon as it was announced.  I'm jealous of how much the price has dropped, for $850 I think it is a heck of a deal.  Rumors are it has been discontinued and a replacement is due very soon.

I waited 8 months to get the A900 hoping for a big price drop, only dropped $200.  Then right after I get it they announce the A850, which has everything I wanted for $700 less then the A900.  It seems I am always buying at the wrong time.

PS. I just downloaded the Lightroom 3 beta today, the noise reduction seems to be a lot better than 2.5 (at least on my files) Don't know if you use lightroom, but if you do I'd try it.

[GFShill]

So what processing software seems to be the best on the market right now?  I'm using the in-camera Pentax software and then re-touch certain pics with Adobe; probably not optimal but it's what I have on hand.

[saggs]

So what processing software seems to be the best on the market right now?  I'm using the in-camera Pentax software and then re-touch certain pics with Adobe; probably not optimal but it's what I have on hand.

I use Adobe Lightroom and love it.  Lets me import, keyword, catalog, do post processing, and export/upload to the web all it one program.  The best part is that all the adjustments are parametric (non-destructive).  So you have endless history, and no matter how badly you've mangled an image you can always get back to the original RAW.

Before Lightroom I used Photoshop CS2, which sucked for workflow.  I had to use DNG converter to convert the Sony RAW to DNG, then  I had to use Bridge to catalog and keyword, then ACR to do the RAW conversion, then Photoshop for post processing.  Plus Photoshop only keeps a very short history, so if you screw something up, it's toast, so I had to keep a SEPARATE folder with all the original RAW files.  It was a pain in the butt to say the least.

Lightroom is much more photographer friendly, and easier to use too. I still keep CS2 around for things like stitching and HDR though, which Lighroom does not do, but for most processing and adjustment Lightroom kicks butt.

You can download the Lightroom trial and use it for 30 days, then you have to pay.  I think it retails for $299, but if your a student (or know a student willing to pick it up for you  ) you can get it for $99.  I also downloaded some Lightroom Tutorials from Luminous Landscape, which were very helpful in learning to use it.

[ramzey]

get beta 3
its better, faster and will work longer then trial
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/