This is the biggest secret of great photography. Not that I keep it secret myself. Sometimes people tell me “you take such great photographs!” and my reply is always “you should see all the other ones!”
A Welcome Swallow in flight… grass, sky, water, sky, water, sky, tree, water, grass, sky, water. That’s about 10 seconds’ worth.
An airliner taking off… runway/grass, trees, sky, different part of sky. Oh, and you don’t know where it will lift off (might be lightly or heavily loaded) nor how steep it will climb. Even worse at air displays.
MOST of my photography is trying to find and capture a moment. Measuring beforehand? That comes down to “sunny or not” and “bright sky or not” and giving my camera some chance of succeeding with that. It still often does not. But that’s OK, because see above… hide the failures.
Maybe it’s because I see through/with my camera as a photojournalist more so than an artist, and maybe it holds me back, but reading this, and many earlier comments, doesn’t match what goes on in my brain when I want to capture an image. I don’t follow the “rule of thirds”, nor do I even consider the while taking a photo, and as something I learned long ago, I want my photo to be “within” the area being captured, so I have some “wiggle room” later on in processing. If what I’m shooting is “static”, if possible I will walk around to get different views (and usually take a photo for each, so I can re-evaluate things later.
I’m usually both looking at the “subject”, and simultaneously at everything around the subject, because sometimes I find something coming into the frame that might enhance the image…
Most of the time, my photos aren’t “static”, and by considering things coming into, or out of, my frame, I can get a better image, with maybe a little more “life” to it.
Happened today, as I was busy thinking of just what I was doing in capturing the image. As @Joanna Joanna told me to long ago, my Nikon is a lot “dumber” than the way Nikon expects people to use it. All the camera functions to improve the image have been de-activated. It is still in “manual” mode, and my auto-ISO was turned off. I was all set to capture a far-off image of a fellow relaxing on his sailboat, when I noticed out of the corner of my eye that a speedboat was going to go by him, so I zoomed out and waited until everything was where I wanted it to be.
Did it work? Sure. But I messed up anyway as a fraction of a second before I clicked the shutter, the two guys were waving at each other, but had looked away when the boats got to where I expected them to be for the best shot. Note to myself - next time use “burst” mode, and shoot earlier, continuing to shoot. My photo was fine, but could have been better had I thought about this.
The title of this thread is “Growing as a photographer”. What I’ve re-learned (I used to do it long ago) was timing and capture a burst mode of the image, so I can select the “best” image later.
I usually don’t consciously think about all the ways to capture an image, and pick the best. Something in my sub-conscious just “sends me” to the view that I like. Even then, I need to consider what is in the picture, and what could be in the picture if I made adjustments - but all this seems to happen on its own, without my deliberately considering all the options.
For better or worse, I am always thinking of my five “W’s” that might go with the picture (who, what, when, where, and why). I’m not currently working as a photojournalist, but that kind of stuff is built into my brain.
Something else I wanted to post here - I doubt if any of us is “perfect”, although some of us are better than others. I used to wonder how many regular images have I captured, to get one single image I am satisfied with. I guess that’s like a “batting average”. I used to capture several hundred images, from which to select my 25 best images to send to a magazine, that would likely use half of them for the printed article. This is what I’ve done for what feels like a lifetime. If I were using a large film camera, with every shot costing big $$$$, I couldn’t afford to do that. Maybe more experienced photographers are better at knowing what to shoot, and also what NOT to shoot.
I enjoyed this forum more when I posted some of my images. One of these days, I’ll start up a new thread, and suggest that people responding also post some of their images. I would/will suggest that anyone wanting to reply to that thread post one of their own images, which might illustrate what they are trying to say.
These comments remind me of why I dislike the concept of mirrorless cameras. No, I’ve never actually tried a modern one (a 2003 compact doesn’t count, and it was terrible). But what I (fear I) will miss is the direct link to my subject. Most of the time I am not looking at the frame of the capture when shooting, other than to ensure the thing I am looking at is not obstructed by the limits of the camera. This is, I am sure, one of the reasons I routinely have slightly-out-of-level shots that require levelling in post.
I once heard someone say the difference between SLR photography and mirrorless photography is that the latter makes you compose your image in camera. That can be a good and bad thing. Good if you are trying to get the right angle, the right composition, the right lighting, at capture time. Bad if you don’t have time to think about those because you are trying to capture a fleeting moment.
I know (expect) I’ll get dumped on for writing the following, but I absolutely agree with you. With my current cameras, I am looking AT the subject I’m photographing. With the mirrorless cameras I’ve tried, I feel like I’m looking at a TV screen.
I sure agree with you, that since I’m concentrating on the person, or scene, I’ve ALSO got to remember to make sure that I’m not accidentally cropping part of the image I want - same with my Nikon or my Leica, but usually this is easy to control if I have the time. For a “grab shot”, I sometimes mess up.
I guess if I’m carefully composing a shot, this is unlikely to happen, but most of the time things are moving around and in my desire to keep the person or thing centered reasonably well, I risk cutting off something important - which is why I often shoot “more” than I need in my frame, so if I make a mistake I can fix it.
For me, looking at someone with my eyes, or through a lens, or even with a mirror, it is LIVE. For me, that is lost completely when I’ve looked through a mirrorless viewfinder. Again, to me, this “connection” to the subject is priceless. It adds to my list of reasons for not buying a “mirrorless” camera.
(I’m remembering my experiences with a 4x5 film camera and seeing a reversed, upside down image. But back then, time wasn’t a consideration, and along with the cost of film, even long ago, I couldn’t afford to make mistakes.)
When I’m in a hurry, I always try to leave some “wiggle room” for cropping.
I’m also 79, going on 80, and it takes me longer than it used to, to get everything set right, and I still make mistakes, especially if the subject is moving around…
You pointed it out: Viewfinder
Whilst DSLR vs Mirrorless in regards to Viewfinder may have applied (and depending on the model probably still does), things have changed and this should no longer be a criteria to decide.
I’m happy with the smaller body of my mirrorless. Even with a cage that has a grip, it’s still smaller than a lot of DSLRs.
In general I go by the pros and cons of current technology (I find that the time span for “current” is very short now - few months can mean outdated). It does mean a lot of reading though.
Mirror means:
Small amount of light is guided to the exposure meatering and contrast AF and all other is guided to your eye piece. (sony’s system is aligned framing)
Some have not aligned optical view and are like your eyes both see just a slightly different angle the object.
Mirrorles has come to be better because EVF resolution is good enough/better then optical. You have in screen info and pip enlarged focus point by manual focus.
Free nightvision. ( when live view is active.)
Actual preview of the becoming capture in dof and exposure lightnes.
Drawnback it’s less “fast” so BIF could be a Pain in the A… Image processing speed vs optical look through.( So many uses a optical scope or red dot on there camera so they don’t have to look through the EVF.)
Mirror is becomming obsolete as technique. That mechanical vibration slapping piece of metal/glass? On wires can hold you back. In shutterspeed range, shutter noise/sound/loudness and movement/vibration of the camera due the mirrorshock.
Mechanical lifetime is lower, body must be bigger/deeper.
And more batterypower needed.
But those are a easy swap.
My camera has sleepmodes, when i plade my eye on the EVf or lift my camera from vertical to horizontal it wakes up.
New camera technology is like trying a new food for the first time.
You may not like it at first due to an existing prejudice against such food (with good foundation or not)
Your taste buds may not be in a position for you to enjoy the flavour (for example, many of us enjoy very sweet food/drink much more when we are younger)
You may not like the food because of how it has been cooked
It took me close to 30 years before I liked Brussel sprouts! It turns out despite being forced (by my parents) to trying them regularly as a child, it was actually the way my mother cooked them that I didn’t like! I tried them again and again as an adult until one day they were served in a way that I really liked (my sister-in-law’s recipe).
Large format, rangefinders, SLR, DSLR - these were all the new tech of their day and would have had people not liking them.
Mirrorless has its faults (the slow wake up time is probably my main grumble), but my goodness it has its positives too. I’m using my Z6ii camera in ways I never used my DSLR, SLR and rangefinder before that.
This discussion reminds me of “Nikon vs. Canon” from years ago.
Everyone has their own preferences, and can say why they prefer one system over another, depending on what kind of photography they are doing.
Me? I’m happy with my newer cameras, and still happy with my older cameras. It all depends on what I’m photographing. I love that with my Fuji X100f I can switch the viewfinder to either “optical” or “digital”. To me, it all comes down to “preference” and “convenience”, and were I to buy Nikon’s new Zf, other than for the lack of a back-focus button, I could probably live with it - but it would end up taking space in my equipment drawers, while I was out shooting with my D780, Df, or one of my Leica M cameras.
I bought one of those red dot sights, planning on using it for photographing birds, but haven’t had a chance to do so yet.
I agree - everything has advantages, and disadvantages. To me, EVF is like watching a TV, and Optical is like looking with my eyes.
I’m not sure it matters - it’s just personal preference. Just like food.
That is the heart of this discussion, to me. I’m not sure if “link” is the right word, but it’s the connection between my brain and what is happening in real life. Nothing is more important to me than that. I understand, and agree, completely with what you wrote.
“Mainstream” DSLRs, maybe. I see people holding the “de facto” Canon 5D models and I wonder if they do extra muscle training in order to carry those things. My Pentax KP is quite diminutive in comparison.
You say that. I had a similar discussion in another forum and was given an example that met my criteria — high enough resolution that I could not tell it was a screen, fast enough that I could not tell that it wasn’t live.
An example was given which probably met my requirements. It was the price of a decent car! Also, while I can relatively easily work out if the resolution is enough, given the right measurements of the system, working out what would be fast enough is much harder without just trying it. It doesn’t matter how fast your electronics are — the human brain can perceive very small delays in sound and vision. That has to be near enough to zero that you do not notice.
That cuts both ways. In some cases it may save a shot, in others it may ruin your perception making you lose the shot. Also… shooting at night seems the obvious time for this to be a benefit, but it would ruin your night vision, meaning you would have to look through the camera to see what was happening. That’s restrictive.
And there we have you already making my point for me. If it’s a pain in the A then it’s not fast enough.
Not an issue for me. The vast majority of the time my camera is moving with my body as a tripod. Mirror slap is almost immaterial.
I’ve never had a shutter fail. I just gave away my father’s 40 year old SLR cameras he used for 20+ years and they were 100% functional.
And as with Nikon vs. Canon, the real story is “the right tool for the job” which, in my case, is neither of those brands.
Everything has a “good” side, and a “not so good” side. That’s life, as I see it.
After using Nikon’s D70 and D90 I bought a D2 camera - which felt like it was filled with lead, and was as big as two of the smaller Nikons combined. I didn’t really like the electronics, but didn’t realize that until I bought a D3 - better everything. I considered buying the latest of that series, the D6, but couldn’t afford to do so.
Being so big and heavy, life started out feeling like they had a built-in gyroscope. They didn’t wiggle or wobble or anything of the sort - it was easier to shoot at low shutter speeds. All that mass seemed to make it into a bigger camera. But over the years, either it got heavier, or I got weaker, and I decided I wanted a camera that would be more comfortable for me. Went to B&H in NYC, and the Nikon people showed me the D800 (still big and heavy, but not as much so as the D6 that I couldn’t afford, the D750 that felt like the ultimate camera for me, and the Df which I fell in love with, but the D750 was small and light and well suited to the kind of photography I was being paid to do. (Years later I bought the Df anyway, just to own one of them while I still could get one).
Yeah, I agree with your comment about extra muscle training for those huge DSLR cameras, but Nikon’s “best” camera now, the Z9, is as big and bulky as the D2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 mirror cameras. I took out my D3 a month or so ago to shoot indoors with no flash, and not much light, and the weight of the beast made it easier to get a sharp image.
How much should a camera weigh? I dunno. For a DSLR that’s not even relevant for me, as the latest D6 isn’t as good as my D780, and I don’t see myself buying a Z9 for many reasons.
I guess I’m stuck here, as a heavier camera has so much inertia maybe it’s easier to hold steady, but I’m not sure if I want to lug around so much weight any more. I stupidly (?) bought a new battery for my D3, but technically speaking, it is very old technology and that might be limiting me too much, no matter how much I enjoy using it.
I’m glad that Nikon left the back-button off the new Zf, as otherwise I might be far too tempted to buy one. But for now, when I want something light to carry around, my Df checks all the right boxes.
So true…
…but for me, going from a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 to an ancient 35mm rangefinder was great!
…and going from my rangefinder to an SLR was amazing!
…and going from film to digital was the most amazing of all!!!
Maybe I’m just too old - I see no reason to replace DSLR with mirrorless. Some things are better, but other things are worser.
Just look at some of the photography tutorials on youtube. They hold a huge body with super tele like it’s a point and shoot. tbh, I did start exercising more after getting back into photography.
Same thing like grandfather’s tools. Most things were built to last. Now there’s a bigger possible range for a start-up budget. But at the same time we have a large quality range.
The only reason I would consider replacing my (functioning) camera, is if I needed a new one for some other reason (for example a higher pixel count on a large enough sensor to produce larger prints or if some technical advancement I’ve been waiting for has become available).
Also I don’t think it’ll take much longer for all of the major manufacturers to switch to mirrorless. afaik both Canon and Nikon for example no longer make new DSLRs - all new models are mirrorless.
For me the transition came because my DSLR body was starting to develop consistency issues - regular mis-focussing being the main one. Trying to track the cause of the issue down and fix it was hard. And then Covid arrived and my work stopped flat for 6 months, I took a few images of my family in that time and that was it… When work did start again for me, the UK government had announced a support loan package for small businesses that allowed me to get a very cheap loan for new equipment. I was able to sell my existing (Nikon F-mount) gear and replace it like for like with Nikon Z-mount cameras and lenses.
Although the majority of the new camera’s operation was like my old one, the menu system had grown and there was a learning curve with its extra functionality.
Two things I have really appreciated with mirrorless:
Being able to alter the viewfinder image size. I now need to wear glasses all the time, and I can make the viewfinder image smaller which means I can see the entire frame much more easily with my glasses on.
I shoot portraits using fill flash outdoors a lot. Being able to use the ‘live view’ viewfinder whilst shooting fill flash is wonderful - it makes getting the balance between flash and ambient light a lot more simple and quicker, especially when the sun is coming and going behind louds.
You are describing my own “predicament” (sort of) that started years ago. One of the things I (grudgingly) learned from @Joanna was to turn off everything Nikon provided to “improve” my photos. Function by function, they all got turned off, and all this happened as Joanna seemed to insist that I use only (M)anual mode. No more “P”. No more “S” or “A”. Just M.
Things/functions/settings that used to make sense to me long ago, when I had to know how to set them manually, became an annoyance for a while, but slowly it all came back to me, and I now appreciate my new (very old) way of doing things before the computer invasion of photography.
That menu system you refer to - to me, it’s a nightmare. If I shoot the way I learned from Joanna, so many of those choices are now irrelevant. Besides, I would rather optimize the image in PhotoLab, not let the camera try to do it for me.
My question - do I want to take my photos, or leave it to my camera? Answer: ME. I want to know how to optimize things using the standard camera controls that once upon a time were things I learned, understood and used as needed.
I have always been able to view the whole image in my DSLR, as my eyes are focused on “infinity”. Since you are not looking at the subject, but rather at the built-in TV, is that the reason you have this issue? I never even thought about this before… please say more.
But along those lines, with or without my glasses, I found it getting more and more difficult to view the menus on my rear screen - which you probably view through your viewfinder? I couldn’t focus on them. My solution was to get a pair of “progressive” glasses that allow me to clearly see the rear screen menu when I look through the lower part of my glasses (which has a close-up prescription).
When you look through the viewfinder of your mirrorless camera, are your eyes focused on “infinity”, or on the “tv screen” that has the image? How about when you look at the menu settings - do they look just like the image of your subject did?
Regarding the words I emphasized in bold font - is this because with your glasses on, your eyes are too far away from the viewfinder to see all of it???
I’m not sure if I’m explaining my question well enough. I need to look into a mirrorless camera to see for myself.
Hi @mikemyers , without my glasses on, looking through either a DSLR or mirrorless viewfinder is blurry unless I adjust the diopter adjustment dial. But then I need to put my glasses back on to be able to see the rear screen. My eyes no longer focus to infinity or close up without glasses.
With glasses on I cannot see the entirety of the image in a DSLR - you are right, my eye is too far away from the viewfinder to see all of the image. My mirrorless has the option to make the image shown in the EVF smaller, which allows me to see the entire frame I’m shooting. Note: this is not a standard feature on all mirrorless cameras. So far the only cameras I’m aware of that offer this feature are the Nikon Z9, 8, 7ii and 6ii.
I too use manual mode for the camera and flash 99% of the time, but I have the menu and buttons customised heavily so that everything I use (eg I alter the focus mode, liveview (on/off), white balance, file numbering, and card format a lot) is quick and easy for me to access. To set the camera how I wished to have it required an initial understanding of the menu system. I now need to access the main menu very, very little.
I am definitely an advocate of don’t update a camera unless you need too, stick with what you’re happy with. For me the Covid loan came at a fortuitous time, and it turned out that the new cameras offered a number of functions (outside all the hype of eye-af etc) that I really find beneficial
Edit: yes, you can navigate the menu system and review images (playback) using the evf of a mirrorless camera. I find the playback very useful in lighting conditions (ie bright sunlight) that make the rear screen hard to view. However I still prefer using the rear screen to navigate the menu for some reason - a personal preference, nothing else.
Long ago, when I bought my Df, it came with a “magnifying viewfinder” on the rear of the camera. As I have found out since then, the viewfinder (just as on many other older Nikons) screwed out, and I was able to replace it with a standard viewfinder optic from my D2x. With the magnifying viewfinder, I couldn’t see the whole image. Replacing it with the standard viewfinder fixed this.
If you can’t see the whole image through the viewfinder while wearing glasses, maybe you can check which optics are. on the rear of your camera. This video will show what I’m trying to describe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C06A8gBK7U0
If you’re lucky, you might find you have this issue because your camera has the wrong viewfinder attached, and you can replace it (as I did) with a standard screw-in viewfinder, so now I can see the whole viewfinder image while wearing my glasses.
Which Nikon do you have? With the standard viewfinder from Nikon, you should have no problems if you wear glasses. If you do have issues, maybe call Nikon tech support, and ask them. Something doesn’t sound right.
(The magnifying viewfinder was supposed to help people, as they saw a magnified image of the viewfinder view. I found it too frustrating.)
I think my explanation can’t have been clear. The camera and viewfinder are definitely working correctly. What I’m trying to describe is Nikon’s solution to the problem we are both describing regarding seeing the entire viewfinder image when wearing glasses. It’s just that with their mirrorless cameras they have been able to build the solution into the camera with firmware, and the solution (imo) works really well - no need for attaching alternative viewfinder parts.
I think I do understand you, and I think that is a very poor “fix”; to see the whole image in the viewfinder, you need to make it smaller?
I did a search, and found this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4377141
Apparently none of these other people is aware of your solution, or maybe the cameras they bought don’t have the adjustment you found?
The way they came from Nikon, I have never yet owned a Nikon that didn’t allow me to see the whole image regardless of whether or not I was wearing glasses.
I might call Nikon Tech Support to ask about this. I’m glad you found a way to get around the issue, but having to see a smaller view doesn’t sound like a good solution to me. I would want to see the image as large as possible, with or without glasses.
I apologize - I obviously didn’t understand what you wrote, as. I couldn’t imagine Nikon would want eyeglass wearers to make the viewfinder image smaller.
What is the name of the menu selection you use to achieve this? I’d like to look it up online.
