1. Alright boys (and girls), I just got a 35mm Canon Rebel G11 (G2?) It is my first SLR and I have a few questions. Going online I havn't found many useful sites that arent about digital photography, am I doing something wrong? Also, after purchasing this camera I am wondering if I should have gone with something different... Maybe a 300D and go Digital. I really never was a fan of digital photography until I started looking at photos on here and realizing the difference from a point and shoot Digital to a DSLR. I find my self in a definate bind... do I now buy a 300D (mind you I am a beginner), or do I stick with the G11 (G2)? You can do SOOO much more it seems with the DSLR, but then again I havnt had much training with either... Am I behind the curve sticking with a 35mm seeing as everyone and their mother shoots a DSLR?

    Thanx in advance, and sorry for the endless questions. I will scan some of my pictures I have taken and you can critique them for me here in a day or so

  2. vwpilot

    vwpilot New Member

    Jan 9, 2005
    Likes Received:
    A good website for anything photo is www.photo.net. You will find both digital and film info there.

    As far as film or digital only you can decide. Digital will require a much higher initial investiment, but you can then shoot till your hearts content with no processing costs at all and you can get instant feedback without waiting for film to come back from the developer.

    Of course, film will be much less to start and if you dont shoot huge amounts, you can still be less money than going digital.

    Its up to you.
  3. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Mar 8, 2003
    Likes Received:
    If you're just getting into it, lenses are a most important investment than the body. Bodies, especially digital, will lose their value very quickly. Digital requires not only the more expensive body, but all lots of memory and software etc.

    What is your intended output? Just prints to enjoy or are they going on the comp to a website or anything like that?

    Film can be very expensive after a while, especially if you starting having them put on cd each time. A good scanner would help offset that after a while

    A digital gives you the same options as film, but in a more convinent package. If you had daylight film in with an iso of 100 (real slow) and wanted to take pictures at night or in real low light, you'd be toast without a good tripod and hoping your're subjects would stand still. With digital you can adjust for that instantly. You get instant feedback on composition and exposure etc. Its easier to see on the computer and play with tha having to scan them in.

    Just depends on how often you're going to use it, and for what.

    If you're playing with differnt settings, and aren't devloping the film right away, take a notebook so you record what you did and see the result later.

    Theres more lattitude with digital for mistakes, which is sort of helpful, but also an unfotunate crutch for many. film forces you to get it right in camera more so than digital, which in turn can make you a better photographer in the end
  4. I would ask my Photography teacher these questions, but he is a pot smokeing hippi (no really he is... :squint: ) who is Supposed to be an English teacher so he dosn't know ANYTHING about photography. So with that said, I appologize for the LONG ass questions I am going to be asking (and for the spelling...)

    Thank you for the website, I will check it out in just a sec :bigthumb: I shoot alot to be honest with you. I prolly shoot 1-2 rolls a day... (that may or may not be alot actually...) I have a point and shoot digital and I miss having the instant feedback for sure, but for me there is something about prints that mean more to me than having a "fake" image of it on the computer.


    Thanx for the response it is VERY helpful.

    The lens I have on my G11 (G2) is a Sigma 28-80 lens that I got for it when I purchased my camera. So far I dont really have many complaints except for range and action type shots... I am currently looking into 2 new lenses a 70-300 lens and a 100mm macro lens... If you could give me some input on them that would be GREAT!

    I am very into takeing nature shots, and on ocassions (pending I can find someone photogenic :hs: ) I like to do portraits. Landscape, Flora, and Fauna mainly though.

    One question I had that takes me back to the lenses was I have a project coming up that is going to require that I get a shot of a lightning storm...:ugh2: sounds cool huh? yea well... I am very aware my 28-80 lens ISNT going to cut it... what lens would you recomend for this and how can I capture a shot like that at night?

    I eventually want to take pictures that I can submit into competitions and stuff. We have a local fair that has a HUGE photography section that gives away around $20,000 in prizes throughout Amature, Novice and Expert. (Amature here I come!:wiggle: )

    I am not TOO worried about money since I will be going to College to do photoraphy (Seattle Arts Institute) and my mom wants to get me the correct equipment I will need. So, What kind of Scanner would you reccomend?

    I noticed you mentiond the ISO of film, The quy working at walmart said 400 for everything with my camera (I kinda gave him this look :squint:) Me not being a pro however I couldn't explain to him exactly why I was giving him that look, I just know they do different things. Could you possibly give me a rundown on The Speed of films and how they corolate to what I would be takeing pics of?

    I noticed you said a "good" tripod, aren't they all the same really... You used one tripod you used them all right? :ugh2:

    So really, I am doing myself more of a service learning on a film before a Digi? atleast that is what it is sounding like.

    Sorry for the lengthy questions, I am just stoked about getting help after trying to figure everything out on my own.

    Thank you again
  5. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Mar 8, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Are you going to school for photography specifically? Like a BA? If so, there are better schools to go to. I'm down at Brooks, which is the top or atleast one of the top schools to go to. RIT, pasadenia school of fine arts etc.

    If you're really going to start investing and working with this, I might suggest slide (aka chrome or positive) film. Color negative really isn't used for anything but consumer point and shoot anymore. With the slide film, you'll then scan everything in the computer anyway. So you'd look for a dedicated film scanner. The Minolta Dualscan iv is a decent one for tht money, but they sky is the limit for those things, with an Epson topping the chart at $20k. They'll do boht slides and negatives.

    For the lens, it just depends on how much you want in the frame. A fast wide angle is common, like a 20mm F/1.8 or 35 F/1.4 but you could get away with a 24-70 F/2.8. If you knew where it was and wanted more of the bolt, a 50mm F/1.8 could be intresting. I'd do more research to see what others are using and the results they got.

    Tripods are very different, in terms of strength, weight (both how much they weigh and how much they'll hold), set up time, length (how high they will extend too), whether they'll allow the camera to be pointed straight downward (for macro work), what type of head the have (ball, pan/tilt, geared), how they connect with the camera etc. B&H probably has 500 tripod to choose from. and as many heads to go with it.

    as for what ISO to use, it depends on what you want with the picture.

    ISO's determine the sensitivity to light. The lower the number, the less sensative it is to light. The advantage of less sensitive film is it has less grain to it.
    ISO 50 Velvia is a staple in the landscape world, it has the richest colors and fine grain. Skin tones are kinda weird though
    ISO 100 Provia is a good all around film, and my personal choice for most applications. Its still got the very saturated colors (see www.pbase.com/viperx27/santa_barbara) but maintains skin tones.
    ISO 100 Astia is the best for skin tones. Also note that manufactuers lie about the true sensitivity of the film, and are almost always less than stated. So my ISO100 Provia is usally ISO 80 or 64) Astia is almost always 100, a nice surprise that requires no compensation.

    For lower light or indoor situations, ISO 400 may be appropiate, you'll see some grain, but not horrible. If you like the fine art style photography, ISO 800 or 1600 may suit you for Black and white images.

    the number go in thirds, starting with 3, 4, 5 so the double each time afterward

    3, 6, 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc
    4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000,
    5, 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500

    everytime the number doubles, thats twice the amount of light. So going from 100-800 is 3 stops of light. That could mean going from 1/4 of a second shutter speed to 1/30, which would be easier to control camera shake with. Thats where digital has an advantage, on the fly ISO changes.

    slide film has to be proccessed with E-6, which only special labs do these days. I'm sure Ivey next to glazer's (if you're in seattle) will do it for you. Images on slide film look better under exposed rather than over exposed. If it is over exposed, all detail is lost. There is also less lattitude, so nailing the exposure is imperative. Your camera should have an auto-exposure bracketing sequence, where it will take 3 images, one normal, one under and one over exposed, to a degree you set, anywhere from 1/2 to 2 stops over or under exposed. Thats another bitch, your camera, as well as the Elan series form Canon (well everything under the EOS 1 line or Eos 3) work in 1/2 instead of 1/3 stop increments. That just means its more difficult to manually expose a picture. If you shoot in any mode other than manual it won't really make a difference.
    Your camera should have the ability to rate the iso of the film manually, so if you used provia, which the camera will rate at 100 you could rate it at 80 manually.

    Aperatures and shutter speeds work in the same manor as ISO's.

    1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, 64
    These are the whole F-Stops, there are thirs stops in between them all. The smaller the number the more light it lets in. This will also mean less DOF at the max aperature. So a lens like a 135mm F/2 is a really nice lens compared to a 100-400mm F/4-5.6. In low light, you would be limited to the max aperature, so that means the shutter has to be open longer.

    Shutter speeds are
    1 second, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/5, 1/30, 1/60, 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000 etc
    Again there are third stops in between all the numbers.

    For your lighting pics there are two options. They make a device that auto fires teh camera when lighting is present. Or if you want to do it yourself, you'll want a low iso film (allows longer exposures and has less grain), and a long exposure. If there is a IR remote available get it, its like $20 if its compatible. If you're out inthe middle of no where with limited to no lights, you can put the shutter speed on bulb and just leave it open till you decide to close it, otherwise you're limited to a max of 30 seconds. Keep in mind that any lighting source will be nuked of any detail if its exposed for that long.

    Another note on film, it is balanced for the type of lighting. So there is daylight film (most of whats available and all consumer film) and tungsten film (to be used in studio or under hot lights or house lights. If you use daylight film indoors without a flash or lots of windlw light, whites will become orange/yellow. If you use tungsten film outdoors, everything will be a cool blue. they make filters to compensate for this, or to put over your lighting source, but having the correct film is ideal. A flash is a very cool lighting temperature, so if you used a flash with tungsten film it'd be properly exposed-blue depending on flash to subject distance. Using th wrong film can be beneficial to the picture, tungsten film outside would give it a cool feel or daylight film indoors could warm a subject, but its very hard to get that right on.

    Thats a lot of info to digest, and I'm sure it won't make sense till your'e doing it, which is the big thing, just do it, practice everything you can and don't be affraid to make mistakes, you only learn from them
  6. :eek4: that is alot of info to digest... I dont exactly know what to say at the moment, I am just kinda takeing it all in. I understand it though (too an extent), so that is good. I will be going to school specifically for photography yes. The only reason why I chose Seattle was cause I am from PortTownsend (hour away)... so yea, I am currently in Oklahoma till may for business, Well my parents are on business.

    Thank you for helping me out man, I will go out 2mrw and incorporate some of this pending the weather is all good.

Share This Page