Back from Alaska. Thoughts and Questions on First DSLR.

[Razeus]

This is why I don't recommend buying new gear before going on a vacation or other big event for newbies. You simply don't know your gear well enough or understand photography well enough to do that. But you found that out when you tried to use a 140mm for wildlife shots in Alaska, when more experienced people know you need at least a 300mm. Just going to the local zoo would tell you, you needed at least a 300mm.

Further, you can't just expect to buy a camera and come out with great photos if you never photographed before or have done it lightly in pastime. Simply spending money on gear is a big disservice.

Just buy looking at your photos, you didn't know how to expose or compose. Expose and compose are the first 2 rules of being a photographer. Rule #3 is to evaluate the light and adjust the first 2 rules.

Furthermore, you sound like you were too worried about your gear. You were too worried about getting photos. I have to wonder if you even enjoyed your trip or if the thought of trying to photographs was always in the back of your mind. When I went to Puerto Rico recently, I was with my wife so I just made photos as they came to me. I wanted her to enjoy the trip too and I wanted to enjoy it by not forcing myself to make great photos and forcing her to wait on me as I did my thing.

But it's understandable. You're new. You're already talking about selling your gear for a full frame and have the thought of switching systems lingering. You should know now, once you pick your system, it's VERY hard to switch, as well as costly. Good Nikon lenses are north of $1500 so you should consider wisely the investment you're making and continue to make.

I'll give you a quick guide because I've shot both systems across all types of photography and made the same mistakes you made:

If you're going to shoot landscapes, or product shots, or low light, stick to Nikon.

If you want to shoot sports or portraits, weddings or do video, stick to Canon.

Here's bonus tip #2 that will save you ALOT of money and heartache: All cameras do the same thing.
To make a picture you only need to set aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. The rest is up to you. This is Nikon/Canon's secret weapon - making you think the camera they offer is going to give you the pictures they show as samples by simply pointing pressing the shutter. It's marketing genius.

The problem is most users don't stick with it long enough to really understand how to see and use the camera accordingly. Hand me an iPhone, D5300, a Fuji X, a Sony RX100 MIII, a Leica, or full-frame D810, and I guarantee I'll get the same image from any camera except for the limitations of the camera itself due to dynamic range and/or sensor size.

 

[Meister]

If you're going to shoot landscapes, or product shots, or low light, stick to Nikon.

If you want to shoot sports or portraits, weddings or do video, stick to Canon.

both are good systems. The differences are incredibly marginal.

 

[JDDavis]

you have a point, but where are you going to get a good long lens without selling your organs?

The trick is to sell someone else's organs.

You can rent. That's probably more economical unless it's your profession (or obsession). There are several places outside of Yellowstone that rent big glass.

There's the Sigma 50-500. I've never tried it but it gets good reviews and I imagine in good light it works well ($1500).

Wildlife photography is definitely a dedication that comes with a price. Or you could learn to be very sneaky.

 

[Meister]

Wildlife photography is definitely a dedication that comes with a price. Or you could learn to be very sneaky.

Thats what I try. Cropping also helps to a certain degree.

 

[Razeus]

Back from Alaska. Thoughts and Questions on First DSLR.

both are good systems. The differences are incredibly marginal.

Canon has superior skin tones. The wheel dial on the back makes it more suitable for reviewing sports photos. IMO.

 

[needfx]

Or you could learn to be very sneaky.

you can't outsneak a tiger

 

[mtbdudex]

For an example of perfect Landscapes, check out this site.

http://www.erinbabnik.com/

Erin is one of the posters on here (sadly not as often as I'd like), but her pictures are some of the best I've seen. But what I like about her site is the story behind each photo. In other words she doesn't just turn up on a given day and click away. Behind each stunning photo there is research, early mornings and lots of trips to the same location to get things just right.

I went to the site and guessed at her w/o knowing it was her ...

Phrasikleia - classy lady she gave spot on C&C and her images so well done

 

[phrehdd]

Okay this is just an opinion for the OP -

1) get as much info with respect to photography on destination
2) your camera and lenses are fine and certainly a longer lens added to your arsenal would make your imaging more versatile.
3) consider polarized and split neutral density filters
4) tripod when possible
5) bracket shots when dynamic range is tough
6) shoot RAW
7) if you bracket, you can possibly consider HDR techniques later

We are far luckier these days with digital than with film given all the tools we can now use easily to "correct" some issues. It is as others expressed, getting to know what your camera can do, practicing and learning post processing. Having shot plenty of transparency (very unforgiving) in difficult environments, sacrifices were often made and today, I would not have to make those sacrifices. In snowy areas, there was no reason to shoot any auto or programmable. You metered on the snow, figured how many F-stops difference from the famous zone grey and took the photo or used a meter to read the light (not the target) or metered a grey card. These all gave great starting or reference points for figuring out exposure.

While I don't use a Nikon (anymore), I believe your set up could provide you with excellent images with some of the suggestions above and what others in this threat have provided for food for thought.

 

[JDDavis]

you can't outsneak a tiger

A good rule of thumb is the more likely it is that your subject could eat you the more lens you need.

 

[Dick Whitman]

This is why I don't recommend buying new gear before going on a vacation or other big event for newbies. You simply don't know your gear well enough or understand photography well enough to do that. But you found that out when you tried to use a 140mm for wildlife shots in Alaska, when more experienced people know you need at least a 300mm. Just going to the local zoo would tell you, you needed at least a 300mm.

Further, you can't just expect to buy a camera and come out with great photos if you never photographed before or have done it lightly in pastime. Simply spending money on gear is a big disservice.

Just buy looking at your photos, you didn't know how to expose or compose. Expose and compose are the first 2 rules of being a photographer. Rule #3 is to evaluate the light and adjust the first 2 rules.

Furthermore, you sound like you were too worried about your gear. You were too worried about getting photos. I have to wonder if you even enjoyed your trip or if the thought of trying to photographs was always in the back of your mind. When I went to Puerto Rico recently, I was with my wife so I just made photos as they came to me. I wanted her to enjoy the trip too and I wanted to enjoy it by not forcing myself to make great photos and forcing her to wait on me as I did my thing.

But it's understandable. You're new. You're already talking about selling your gear for a full frame and have the thought of switching systems lingering. You should know now, once you pick your system, it's VERY hard to switch, as well as costly. Good Nikon lenses are north of $1500 so you should consider wisely the investment you're making and continue to make.

I'll give you a quick guide because I've shot both systems across all types of photography and made the same mistakes you made:

If you're going to shoot landscapes, or product shots, or low light, stick to Nikon.

If you want to shoot sports or portraits, weddings or do video, stick to Canon.

Here's bonus tip #2 that will save you ALOT of money and heartache: All cameras do the same thing.
To make a picture you only need to set aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. The rest is up to you. This is Nikon/Canon's secret weapon - making you think the camera they offer is going to give you the pictures they show as samples by simply pointing pressing the shutter. It's marketing genius.

The problem is most users don't stick with it long enough to really understand how to see and use the camera accordingly. Hand me an iPhone, D5300, a Fuji X, a Sony RX100 MIII, a Leica, or full-frame D810, and I guarantee I'll get the same image from any camera except for the limitations of the camera itself due to dynamic range and/or sensor size.

Hey guys. First off, thanks for the feedback and sorry I've been slow to respond. I will try to reply to other posts closer to the weekend when I have more time.

Anyway, I realize the shots I included in the original post are not very well composed. These do not represent the scenes I best framed, but rather those images that I believe I most poorly exposed.

Having opted for a $400 wide angle lens over a telephoto option, I was not seriously focused on wildlife photography going into my trip. Sprawling landscapes, epic scenery, and mountains and glaciers interested me more. Knowing this, I have little regret over failing to capture better images of bears, moose, etc. These animals were generally very far in the distance and any serious attempt to photograph them would have required gear and planning specifically suited for that purpose. In the course of my time in Alaska, I simply observed that, yes, 140mm is no where near an adequate maximum range for achieving acceptable results in this respect.

I admit I was concerned about selecting a good camera, along with decent lenses, in the few weeks leading up to my departure. I did enjoy my trip, but I was always focused on my photography, fervently so, which admittedly took away from the experience somewhat. Looking back, I wish there were more moments where I could have sat quietly, absorbed the natural beauty, studied the lightning, appreciated the moment. I experienced one such instance, nestled in a large icy pocket on Matanuska glacier around dusk, as I paused to rest on the trek back up to the car. But for the few moments like this that I did experience, and for my time there, I am appreciative. It is strange though. Glacial water running beneath you, not a person in sight, everything still, and then suddenly there's the sound of a jet engine roaring, and you're back in a cubicle answering phones, staring at a computer screen. But such is life.

It's funny that Nikon seems to be the better camera geared towards landscapes and product photography because of all the major accounts I've encountered on Instagram that focus on those two subjects exclusively, namely in northwestern Canada, all are using Canon full frames. Canon notoriously seems to be the more popular camera among a certain creative outlet as well as among the general photography community. But the revelation that either model is inevitably capturing the same light, and therefore capable of producing the same image, is reassuring, especially in helping to curb any hint of buyer's remorse.

 

[deeddawg]

This is why I don't recommend buying new gear before going on a vacation or other big event for newbies.

Or really for anyone. Even though the learning curve of new gear is substantially shortened for old farts, it's still there. Buy new kit well enough in advance of a major vacation / event that you have time to truly learn its in's and out's.

 

[Apple fanboy]

A good rule of thumb is the more likely it is that your subject could eat you the more lens you need.

Good advice. Or shoot from a car/building.
I can get good shots of birds in my garden from inside. If I step outside they all disappear.

 

[themumu]

This is why I don't recommend buying new gear before going on a vacation or other big event for newbies. You simply don't know your gear well enough or understand photography well enough to do that.

Or really for anyone. Even though the learning curve of new gear is substantially shortened for old farts, it's still there. Buy new kit well enough in advance of a major vacation / event that you have time to truly learn its in's and out's.

Have to completely agree. A good compromise is to try a shorter, less involved "event" if you want to get new gear for an upcoming big one. Last year, I wanted to try and see if I can use a different camera system than I'm used to for a month long trip, but knowing it's bound to have some hiccups as I get used to it, I tried it out on a 5 day trip in the same spirit a couple months prior. Experience with your gear definitely pays off when it comes to taking shots you have a limited amount of time to take.

...
Anyway, I realize the shots I included in the original post are not very well composed. These do not represent the scenes I best framed, but rather those images that I believe I most poorly exposed.
...

Well, I do get a few badly exposed shots from even my painfully familiar and overall excellent cameras (Nikon D7000 and Fuji X100s). You check the result, make adjustments if necessary, and try again. Takes only a few seconds, assuming you know which adjustments are needed. I think the measure of a camera's IQ and a photographer's skill should be judged by their best work, not their worst

 

[ChrisA]

Good advice. Or shoot from a car/building.
I can get good shots of birds in my garden from inside. If I step outside they all disappear.

Many pros use the same kind of blinds that hunters use. It is really about the same thing.

 

[ChrisA]

....I think the measure of a camera's IQ and a photographer's skill should be judged by their best work, not their worst

That is exactly true. I always tell people who need to learn to shoot 100 frames and edit it down to maybe five and then judge those based on what ever their goal was.

The other thing is NEVER take a new-to-you camera on a trip. Shoot a LOT before you leave. Pretend like you are a tourist visiting your own home town. Do some serious work, not just playing with the camera.

One other thing that beginners NEVER "get" is that you don't need to go to some special place to take photos. If you walk right out your front door you are at what 99% of the world would call an "exotic" location. If you use a long or macro lens location does not mater at all.

 

[deeddawg]

One other thing that beginners NEVER "get" is that you don't need to go to some special place to take photos.

Agreed 100%. There is so much to be photographed by merely looking around.

In a way it's learning to see creatively, finding the photograph where you are. How two steps left or right can change the scene. Learning to stop and compose the image in your minds eye before you even touch the camera.

 

[Imhotep397]

This is more an issue of not so great composition, the images are sharp and clear and the color is great. You do realize that typically only 1 out 10 shots is going to be "Good to Great" maybe even less depending on what the environment is giving you right?


...and that's when you really know how to frame and stage your shots.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Grander expectations...sad reality.

Been there before. Understand.
And snow/ice/etc can be difficult to shoot. Bleak skies don’t help either.

I looked on your instagram page...I like the July 26th (was second photo from the end) photo. The mountains being cut by clouds and the diagonal going through the bottom third.

As for the images posted above. In general they aren’t interesting to me. Partly due to crop of the image. I don’t think they wide angle was best on the top two (or three posted). For me the first image lacks some focus, is it the mountains in the back, the snow in the middle, the semi-grassy gravel stuff up front? In the past (and probably still) I have seen something, shot it, and then later looked and the photo didn’t capture what I saw. I went to Skyline Drive /Blue Ridge Mountains recently and I’d see the impressive views and sometimes take a few photos and then times I’d stop, appreciate the view and not take a photo. Looking through the photos I took, not many are that interesting. In most the sky was overcast and drab and what I saw on screen wasn’t great. Others where I actually zoomed/cropped, to focus the view helped out. Plus, using RAW format I could adjust the photo to better get “what I remembered”.

In the beginning I’d use my DSLR like a Point and Shoot. Even after coming from a Film SLR where each shot was more important. With digital it is easy to shoot away and not be as selective. You are still learning and seeing some other shots on instagram, it shows you have an eye for composition.

Glad overall you like the camera. It takes some time to adjust and understand all you can do and sometimes trying new things or adjustments.


Hope that doesn't sound harsh.

Also, with JPEG shooting the image is baked in, the presets for saturation, contrast, sharpness are set when you take the photo. with RAW the image is basically SOOC and you "command" the processing of the image. (other than importing into a post-processor that will start the image development based on camera import.)

Thanks, and yeah the images I uploaded in the OP do not reflect my best shots, but rather are just a sampling of those that I felt were most poorly exposed. Coming from an iPhone, I am quickly learning that a DSLR cannot really be used as a point-and-shoot, like you said. This morning I woke up early and tried to shoot the sunrise, but again, not much luck. I will say though that while in Alaska I almost never removed the Sigma 10-20mm from my camera, as I preferred capturing those wide-angle landscapes. But I quickly learned that having multiple shots with the same composition essentially (land dominating the bottom half of an image, sky filling the upper half) is somewhat uninteresting when juxtaposed against one another in a set. Still, I'd like to experiment more with the Sigma.

I might be visiting the Eastern shore soon and I definitely plan to shoot more beforehand (lesson learned). Would you maybe recommend shooting in smaller image sizes, as I imagine these may be better suited for social media purposes (e.g. Instagram, Flickr, etc.). This seems to my primary purpose at the moment, capturing and sharing images across social media. I'm not sure if I need the large 24MB images that the D5300 is capable of though I understand it couldn't hurt if ever I decided that I needed the larger size for other purposes. Forgot to add that I am also shooting RAW and did so in Alaska.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Thanks, and yeah the images I uploaded in the OP do not reflect my best shots, but rather are just a sampling of those that I felt were most poorly exposed. Coming from an iPhone, I am quickly learning that a DSLR cannot really be used as a point-and-shoot, like you said. This morning I woke up early and tried to shoot the sunrise, but again, not much luck. I will say though that while in Alaska I almost never removed the Sigma 10-20mm from my camera, as I preferred capturing those wide-angle landscapes. But I quickly learned that having multiple shots with the same composition essentially (land dominating the bottom half of an image, sky filling the upper half) is somewhat uninteresting when juxtaposed against one another in a set. Still, I'd like to experiment more with the Sigma.

I might be visiting the Eastern shore soon and I definitely plan to shoot more beforehand (lesson learned). Would you maybe recommend shooting in smaller image sizes, as I imagine these may be better suited for social media purposes (e.g. Instagram, Flickr, etc.). This seems to my primary purpose at the moment, capturing and sharing images across social media. I'm not sure if I need the large 24MB images that the D5300 is capable of though I understand it couldn't hurt if ever I decided that I needed the larger size for other purposes. Forgot to add that I am also shooting RAW and did so in Alaska.

I would shoot full size for Flickr. I don't do Instagram so can't comment.

Try to avoid half being sky and half being land. Look up rule of thirds for a more interesting composition. In this instance, basically go for two thirds sky or two thirds land. This will vary by which is the most interesting, and what you are going for in the picture.

 

[BJMRamage]

I might be visiting the Eastern shore soon and I definitely plan to shoot more beforehand (lesson learned). Would you maybe recommend shooting in smaller image sizes, as I imagine these may be better suited for social media purposes (e.g. Instagram, Flickr, etc.). This seems to my primary purpose at the moment, capturing and sharing images across social media. I'm not sure if I need the large 24MB images that the D5300 is capable of though I understand it couldn't hurt if ever I decided that I needed the larger size for other purposes. Forgot to add that I am also shooting RAW and did so in Alaska.

I shoot largest size...always easier to downsize a large image. and memory cards are cheap. Imagine finally getting that awesome shot you want to actually print, only to see it is a smaller size and that 11x14 frame stays empty.

 

[ChrisA]

...Would you maybe recommend shooting in smaller image sizes, as I imagine these may be better suited for social media purposes (e.g. Instagram, Flickr, etc.). This seems to my primary purpose at the moment, capturing and sharing images across social media. I'm not sure if I need the large 24MB images that the D5300 is capable of though I understand it couldn't hurt if ever I decided that I needed the larger size for other purposes. Forgot to add that I am also shooting RAW and did so in Alaska.

RAW gives you some room to correct/adjust the image in post processing but it you "nail it" in the camera yo can shoot JPG. I use RAW for most work.

Dpn't worry about the files size and storage. You have to figure on deleting MOST of your shots. and then those you keep what is the cost? storage is now less than $100/TB that is 10 cents per GB. or about 1/3rd of a penny per RAW photo.

 

[deeddawg]

RAW gives you some room to correct/adjust the image in post processing but it you "nail it" in the camera yo can shoot JPG. I use RAW for most work.

Storage is cheap. I shoot Raw+JPG. If the file is fine as is, no need for raw processing unless I want to play with it. If I screwed it up, I have the raw file to possibly save my bacon.

Dpn't worry about the files size and storage. You have to figure on deleting MOST of your shots.

Agreed. One thing most people (IMHO) suck at is culling out the non-keepers. The other thing many people suck at is *not* pressing the shutter release until they've thought about the image and scene a little bit.

----------

I shoot largest size...always easier to downsize a large image. and memory cards are cheap.

Agreed. You might think you'd never do a larger print today, but what about when the cost is even lower in five years from now? Wouldn't you want to have the highest resolution your camera was capable of providing?

 

[Razeus]

RAW gives you some room to correct/adjust the image in post processing but it you "nail it" in the camera yo can shoot JPG. I use RAW for most work.

Dpn't worry about the files size and storage. You have to figure on deleting MOST of your shots. and then those you keep what is the cost? storage is now less than $100/TB that is 10 cents per GB. or about 1/3rd of a penny per RAW photo.

I'm not sure what drives you're buying but 4TB HDD's cost $140, or $35 a TB for a WD My Book.

Of course if you get a Thurderbolt G-Drive in 4TB capacity, you're looking at $85/TB.

 

[paolo-]

Just keep shooting and stop worrying so much about the gear. People were taking amazing landscape shots on digital cameras many years ago on much lesser cameras, it probably is the least of your worries.

Shoot shoot shoot, my first 1000 pictures were basically crap. And now, I'm happy if 5-10% of my shots are really good.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I'm not sure what drives you're buying but 4TB HDD's cost $140, or $35 a TB for a WD My Book.

Of course if you get a Thurderbolt G-Drive in 4TB capacity, you're looking at $85/TB.

What I did was to buy a USB docking station ("Plugable") from Amazon, and use SATA 3TB Seagate Barracuda hard drives that cost around $129.00 and a lot less than that when on sale. The drives without enclosure aren't very expensive.