What do I have to spend to replace my Canon A95?

[Syborg1211]

Eyes are all about direction of light. It looks like it's the middle of the day with the sun directly above so the eyelids/eyebrows are blocking light from the eyes. Nothing you can tweak in camera to fix this. You could use a reflector or flash to get some light in the eyes.

 

[CuriousMike]

The D3300 is a ripping choice.

For memory cards, I highly recommend the PNY Elites ... stupidly cheap, and 90% of the performance of the 95MB/Sec Sandisks.
http://www.amazon.com/PNY-Elite-Per...8&qid=1427653914&sr=8-6&keywords=16gb+sd+card

For setup -
AF-C
Spot-Focus
You might use auto-ISO --- in good daylight, it'll keep the ISO low.

If you're shooting moving dogs, set yourself to AF-C (auto focus continuous - you hold the shutter button down half way, and you put your focus point on the dogs eye and keep it half-pressed... when the dog is where you want, completely depress the shutter and take the photo.)

Obviously, you want to be in Burst Mode so when you hit the shutter, that fucker bangs off 5fps for a second or two.

I find Single-Point auto-focus (I typically just use the center AF point ) works well, but it's on you to keep the focus point on the dogs eye.

My name is CuriousMike and I take a lot of dog photos.

 

[CuriousMike]

If you're getting "poor photos", it's likely one of two things.
1. Your focus is missing. You're probably in 'auto focus - let the camera figure out what to focus on.' Get out of that habit now. Put it in spot-focus, and learn to move your focus point around using the directional pad. Or just leave it on the center point for now. The point is (hah), if you put that focus point on the subject you want in focus, it will be in focus....
... unless...
2. Your shutter speed is too slow. If you're in auto-mode, and you're indoors, your camera will let you happily take a 1 second exposure handheld... because it thinks you sorta know what you're doing. If you don't know how to read the shutter speed, learn it. When that shutter speed says 1" or 1/10 or 1/8 or something less than 1/100, you know you might have a blurry photo. Learn how to adjust ISO to compensate (or setup auto-iso)

 

[CuriousMike]

As a side note, if you get more serious about this, getting a good photo editor will become a lot of fun.
I sorta over-did the example here, but pulling the shadows up can bring some detail into the eye.

 

[phucheneh]

I've got some of the basics down. It's all a bit foggy, as it has been a long time since I've messed with manual settings...but at least I've got a bit of a base to build on. As basic as it seems now, when I bought my A95, it was very much the 'enthusiast' choice.

The A95 and its predecessors (started with A60, I think?) were kinda the go-to cameras for people who wanted some control, but couldn't afford to drop a grand on the early consumer-level DSLR's (D300/350/400). Full aperture and shutter control on a consumer digital camera was kind of a big thing at the time, I seem to remember. The original point of this post was basically that I was seeking a newer equivalent- but I just had no idea that such competent DSLR's had moved down into consumer territory (which I'm guessing kinda killed the market for the 'enthusiast point and shoot' or whatever you wanna call it).

Anyway, yeah, I've been using the default AF mode. I will try changing it to spot focus. What about manual focusing? Is it pretty much a useless endeavor given the competency of modern AF?

On the dog photos, I think I was at like 1/1000 shutter priority 'cause dogs are gonna dog, and I wanted the wide-open aperture. Obviously it was prolly a bit much...I do remember the general 1/focal length rule of thumb, but obviously I probably still want to bump it up a bit (1/100 or 1/250, I guess?) for something like dog pics. It'd be nice if there was a way have the settings written into each photo (...there's not, right?) so I could get a good idea of where my shutter/aperture/ISO were in a given picture and hopefully learn from my mistakes.

 

[phucheneh]

Oh, wow. So there WAS detail in the eyes- that was the thing; I get what someone said above about it simply being a lighting issue, more than camera settings...but I figured if I could see his eyes when I took the shot, I should be able to see them in the picture.

And whaddaya know, that detail was actually there and I just couldn't see it. I'm trying to resist editing stuff until I feel like I've gotten a good handle on controlling the camera...I can get a little anal and end up going overboard. But yes, I do have Photoshop installed. I've been using it for a long time- I'm actually WAY more competent with Photoshop than I am with a camera.

 

[CuriousMike]

Anyway, yeah, I've been using the default AF mode. I will try changing it to spot focus. What about manual focusing? Is it pretty much a useless endeavor given the competency of modern AF?

On the dog photos, I think I was at like 1/1000 shutter priority 'cause dogs are gonna dog, and I wanted the wide-open aperture. Obviously it was prolly a bit much...I do remember the general 1/focal length rule of thumb, but obviously I probably still want to bump it up a bit (1/100 or 1/250, I guess?) for something like dog pics. It'd be nice if there was a way have the settings written into each photo (...there's not, right?) so I could get a good idea of where my shutter/aperture/ISO were in a given picture and hopefully learn from my mistakes.

MF is fine on static objects... I tend to rely on AF in most circumstances.
You are correct regarding 1/focallength for your shutter speed - again, with static objects.

For moving dogs, I use 1/800->1/1600 depending.

All the settings are in your photos via EXIF data - look for your browser to find an EXIF viewing extension. Then, when you see photos online, you can view their data.

Your camera came with ViewNX2 or similar - it will also show you EXIF data.

 

[CuriousMike]

i.e.,

 

[CuriousMike]

I'm trying to resist editing stuff until I feel like I've gotten a good handle on controlling the camera...

That's not a bad approach.
Learn the focus modes and the drive modes of the camera. Learn to to set ISO ( and auto-ISO and it's settings. )

However:
I'd suggest you start shooting in RAW+Fine. That'll eat away at your memory card much faster, but you'll have more detail preserved.

Don't throw away photos that you think might be good but seem under/overexposed - those can all be repaired ( to some degree ) with post-processing.

 

[CuriousMike]

Your JPG's are already "processed" by the camera and have 8bits per channel of detail.

The RAW files are unprocessed, and have 12 or 14 bits of unmodified channels of detail.

When working with the files, you have more information in the photo for the RAW.

But this presumes that you'll want to work on them - and maybe you don't now, but you might in the near future.

(i.e., there is likely 10% more detail in your dogs eye and the color gradiations of his black fur than the jpg shows. The jpg looks damn good - the raw file could give you 10% "more". )

 

[phucheneh]

Apparently I am just not capable of working with RAW files. Photoshop CS3 won't open them (it's like CS5+ that can work with them), so I have to use their converter to go to 'digital negatives,' which Photoshop still sucks with. After it choked repeatedly, I actually had to reinstall it just to get it to quit crashing with normal jpegs.

So I think I'm sticking with 'fine' jpegs for now.

I went to the lake and took a few shots. I learned that in very bright sunlight, you MUST take full manual control, or shots will come out way unfixably underexposed:

Worse:

However, I got some decent stuff, too:

 

[turtile]

Download Nikon's converter free:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Imaging-Software/Capture-NX-D.html

Also, you can get Lightroom (easier to edit photos than Photoshop) + Photoshop 2014+ for $10 a month.

You'll have to change your exposure settings too. If you have single point exposure on the sun, the photo will underexposed.

Manual focus is still better than AF in many cases but the manual focus rings suck on most AF lenses. Pick up a Carl Zeiss and you'll love it...

 

[CuriousMike]

1. Apparently I am just not capable of working with RAW files. Photoshop CS3 won't open them
2. I learned that in very bright sunlight, you MUST take full manual control,

For #1, that's true. ACR is continuously updated to support newer camera models RAW format.

For #2, the other simpler choice ( but not always correct ) is to simply use your exposure-compensation button and dial the exposure down a bit.
Or, choose a different metering mode. You're probably using MATRIX metering - you could try center-weighted or spot-metering.

 

[CuriousMike]

Even when your exposure misses, you can often save photos.
Your camera has the ability, with a raw file, to miss by 2-3 stops of light.
You've given me JPG'd files exported with who knows what, but there is still detail there.

 

[phucheneh]

I can see your point, but for my purposes, I think I'm just gonna stick with jpegs for right now. It's not helping me that I don't even have a usable card reader at the moment...the one plugged into my PC is apparently not compatible with a 32GB card, so I gotta read them with my laptop, transfer to flash drive, then load to desktop. A bit burdensome, even with the 'reasonable' 10-20MB jpegs. I'm tempted to just shoot in ~14MP mode, but I just can't bring myself to not use all that extra glorious resolution. I would never have thought 24MP would actually be usable, but it kinda is.

Example:

And a crop from that image at 100% size:

I did apply some mild sharpening, but otherwise, that's as it came from the camera. Saved at '11' quality in Photoshop CS3.

I'm really appreciating how 'pure' the images are, and how well they respond to mild tweaks. Really makes me understand the deficiencies in the competing Canon models- what I had been interpreting as a 'better' picture was just processing being applied inside the camera; whereas the Nikon really IS taking much better pictures, and they have the potential to be MUCH cleaner and sharper if I decide that's what I want.

 

[phucheneh]

Have I mentioned yet that this camera is incredible?

I'm going to have to get downtown to do some night shooting. It is just so damn capable in low light.

 

[phucheneh]

So I've already acquired another lens. Bought the 35mm DX prime. It is quite excellent.

This is my new favorite picture of the dog-

 

[CuriousMike]

Bought the 35mm DX prime. It is quite excellent.

That is the lens that got me more serious into photography.
I don't think you can spend so little and get so much in photography as when you buy one of the $200 primes.

(Nice shots of the dogger - good contrast - get the flower pot out of the shot next time. )