Several months ago one of my best friends gifted me a Canon 20D, with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens. (As well as some other odds and ends, such as filters and so on.)

I've let it sit because, quite frankly, I was a bit intimidated by it, and I knew just picking it up and trying to take photos with it, without first learning about it, would probably be a mistake.

Christmas day turned out to be an excellent time to just sit down, study, and play with the thing. (Plug: Ken Rockwell's Canon 20D User's Guide was nothing short of invaluable for getting me up-to-speed quickly.)

I feel fairly comfortable with the camera, now, though it will take a lot more use for reaching for the right controls and making the right adjustments to come more naturally, and more quickly.

I understand the principles of the ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed "triangle," though it'll take me a while for making the right selections to become second nature, I know.

I've ordered spare batteries (STK 2200mAh).

We have a lot of wildlife in our yard. My wife and I have long desired a camera with a lens that could catch it. Perusing Ken Rockwell's reviews of telephoto lens', I found a Canon 100-300mm Full-Frame EF USM, described as “mint condition - super clean - no wear - possibly unused” for $99 on eBay.

I have a "decent" tripod. (Purchased at a local photography place years ago, for my non-SLR 35mm film camera, and recommended as a "minimal entry-level" tripod by the staff.)

I'm thinking I'll eventually want a remote controller, such as a Canon TC-80N3. Probably an external flash. Probably a decent macro lens?

But I'm not sure where to go from here. Just "take a lot of pictures and figure it out," or are there specific things I should try, read, etc.?

I posted a couple of my first efforts over in What did you photograph today?. I did some other things, but nothing that turned out well enough or interesting enough to bother posting. (Though a couple were worth saving.)

For anyone starting into photography, I recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. This should be helpful in making the settings for the outcomes you want.

Welcome to the world of digital SLR's. You are in a good place to learn without much of an investment right now. With digital camera systems it helps to think of the camera bodies like computer CPU's, meaning that they have a technical shelf life, with new upgrades coming out each year or two. You certainly don't need to constantly upgrade that hardware, but that is a typical manufacturer's timeline.

Lenses, on the other hand, are where you can invest since you can use your lenses when you purchase a new body. While there may be some lens firmware improvements, for their man purpose they are optical pieces and will have a much longer practical life than slr bodies.

The beauty of what you have is that you can get great "pictures" anytime with a fully automatic system that is really well balanced for point and shoot results, but as you learn how apertures and shutter speeds combine for a EV or correct exposure value, you will see how favoring the shutter speed or the aperture will impact the photo and focus point. Larger apertures let in more light but consequently have a shallow depth of focus; a larger aperture maybe needed in order though to get a fast enough shutter speed to hand hold the camera and get an acceptably sharp image. When you first look at telephoto or longer zoom lenses, the concept of image stabilization to me is huge. The way each manufacturer handles IS may be worth investigating; it has a bearing on the cost or bodies or lenses, depending on the technology involved.

I would spend a little time looking at publications like Outdoor Photographer just for the images, find out what you respond to visually, and then try to see how you can achieve similar results with what you have at your disposal. In most cases, this will find you realizing that you might "love wide angle scenic" and thus a full-frame SLR and ultra-wide lenses are what you will crave. You might find that you need to get close for sports or animal photos, and so fast and long lenses are your need.

Personally, I started out being hooked by the photos of Walter Iooss Jr. and Sports Illustrated. I loved sports, and shot as much of it as I could. I was a sophomore in High School when I got my first Nikon SLR. Photography and working in camera stores got me through college and grad school, and I was able to make a nice second income from whatever opportunities came up. I have photographed everything from people and their pets for Christmas cards up through three different US Presidents as they appeared at fund raising events with donors. I've photographed Winston Cup races, and turtle races.

Though I know many friends who made photography a career and a business, I have never depended on it for a primary income. Today, with the proliferation of camera phones and digital point and shoots that upload images immediately, people don't value photography as much as they used to. I am mostly speaking about weddings, as I did wedding photography for 17 years. Now you set up a bridal party for a photo, some jackass looking over your shoulder snaps the same photo with a $100 camera and it is on facebook in 3 minutes. No one cares about resolution o rmegapixels since they just look at the photos on a laptop or PC monitor anymore. The value is in the composition, paying attention to the details, and capturing expressions, but all of that has been devalued, so I quit doing weddings years ago.

All that being said, I have been toying with the thought of updating my Canon bodies to newer ones, and my lenses will still be good, and I have an eye to cityscapes and patterns. Not sure I still have the time to spend on I though. If you do, enjoy! These days, learning how to process images with Photoshop or Lightroom is almost as important as capturing the original image. I love some of the abilities you have with HDR (High Dynamic Range) images either in camera or in post-processing the digital images. HDR compiles 3+ images at least (one with correct exposure, and one or more exposed for light areas, and one or more exposed for dark areas) this will give enriched detail in both light and dark areas that a film-based image or a single digital image won't have. The results are often poster-like. So there are a tom of new things to learn.

If I have only one bit of advice, it is to find a different angle to look at your subject. low, high, whatever, just that how we see things from standing eye level is boring. It is your vision of how you see something that makes a photograph different than a picture.

quote:

Originally posted by mrbill345:
For anyone starting into photography, I recommend "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. This should be helpful in making the settings for the outcomes you want.

Absolutely, this is a stellar book.

As a possible next step, I'd suggest "Light: Science and Magic."

The holy trinity for a good photo are exposure, composition, and lighting, and "Light: Science and Magic" is an accessible, well-written book that can give you a really solid grasp of the fundamentals of lighting in photography (both in terms of things like flashes and strobes and environmental light sources).

Also, any of Joe McNally's books are worth a look. There's a lot of photographic wisdom in them, but they aren't really instruction manuals, they're more like memoirs. McNally was the staff photographer for Life Magazine for a while and has been a huge contributor to National Geographic Magazine along with a bunch of other stuff. His books are fascinating.

Thanks for the input. I'll look into those two books.

I found that, like with a lot things, hobbies, like cars, guns, photography, etc., many people get really involved with amassing a bunch of cool equipment. Then you can get a sense of pride as you brag to everyone about what you have. But, less people concentrate on using and getting good with what they have. Buying stuff is easy, if you have the money. Using the stuff and learning the skills is more difficult - that requires time and work and effort (and creativity).

I used to get caught up in the equipment game in photography. But then I started seeing awesome photos that people could take with Polaroids or Instamatics or children's toy cameras, and now smart phones. It made me rethink the game. I eventually downgraded my stuff to a decent point-and-shoot. Another thing that I discovered is that I was rarely motivated to lug all my hardware, lenses, bag, all over the place, but a pocket camera I could lug around with ease.

What I basically did was work backwards from the photograph. I studied photos and learned what made the photo work or not work, and what made it captivating or beautiful or banal or awkward. I especially studied composition and lighting. Once I knew more about photographs, it made it easier to understand how to adjust and handle a camera to create those results.

If I had to start all over from scratch, I would just start with a disposable camera and figure out how to create a good photo with it, based on composition and understanding light. It's easy to get bogged down with all the tech and adjustments and software available to modern photographers. A simple disposable camera forces you to think of the bare bones basics.

What kind of photos could come out of a simple disposable camera?

I understand where you're coming from, LCS. I'm actually guilty of gadget-itus, myself.

However...

In this particular case I was given the base hardware. All I'm adding, so far, is the telephoto lens, which is capability my wife and I have long desired. The other stuff I mentioned will come only if I later find I need it.

I've dabbled in photography before. First, 40+ years ago, with a Minolta 110 Zoom. Later with a non-SLR 35mm Pentax, then, still later, with an Olympus C-4000Z. (Unbelievable macro capability, that camera.) Each of those had something my more recent point-and-shoot cameras did not: The ability to exert some degree of control over aspects of the "exposure triangle." I'll agree that photography is more than just hardware, but I think more capable hardware opens more possibilities.

E.g.: When my wife and I visited Pictured Rocks in Michigan's Upper Peninsula a few years ago, I of course took some photos--and subsequently deleted them. Lacking a reasonably decent optical zoom, the images were profoundly... mundane. So was every other "long shot" I took on that trip.

That's not to say I haven't been able to take some very nice photos with some very limited hardware, for I have. Now, complements of my buddy, I'm looking to expand my photography horizons a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I'll agree that photography is more than just hardware, but I think more capable hardware opens more possibilities.

E.g.: When my wife and I visited Pictured Rocks in Michigan's Upper Peninsula a few years ago, I of course took some photos--and subsequently deleted them. Lacking a reasonably decent optical zoom, the images were profoundly... mundane. So was every other "long shot" I took on that trip.

Yes. Totally agree. Also, if you have specific purposes or interests in photography, e.g. sports action, macro photography, nature, portraits, travel, etc., then dedicated hardware will of course be of great use. I was just talking about when I approached photography from a general perspective. I did not have a specific purpose, other than to see what the deal was and also document my life a little (before social media and even the internet was a thing).

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
Yes. Totally agree. Also, if you have specific purposes or interests in photography, e.g. sports action, macro photography, nature, portraits, travel, etc., then dedicated hardware will of course be of great use.

Not any specific subject, but I have enjoyed finding interesting subjects, getting the framing and lighting right, and capturing nice photos.

One of these days I'll have to find what I feel to be some of my more interesting photos, create smaller copies of them, and post up a gallery.

Other than skyscapes, I've never been able to get any interesting long shots. Now maybe I will. Same with strongly lit scenes with shadowed subjects and night time photography.

quote:

Originally posted by LastCubScout:
I was just talking about when I approached photography from a general perspective. I did not have a specific purpose, other than to see what the deal was and also document my life a little (before social media and even the internet was a thing).

I took a boat-load of photos with that 110 Zoom, then turned around and let a half dozen rolls go undeveloped. I can't even recall when I last saw the X-ray-proof pouch in which they were stored, any more. They probably inadvertently found their way to a landfill

Looking at my old Pentrax 35mm film camera, yesterday, it looks like there's film in it. I wonder what's on it? (Or where I'd even get it developed, today, if it's even still salvageable?)

I've got a bunch of digital photos on the µSD card from my last Android device, and on DropBox, I really should get over to my server, before they suffer a like fate.

All those share the same characteristic: They're "just photos." Which is why they ended-up neglected.

On the other hand I can go right to some macros I took with my C-4000Z a number of years ago.

PghPI, maladat,

I picked up Understanding Exposure, Fourth Ed.: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera, Kindle Edition, yesterday, and have started reading it.

At $33 for the Kindle edition, I think I'll hold off on Light Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting, 5th Edition for now.

Thanks again for the hints!

For lighting, check out the Strobist, which has free online lighting courses.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I took a boat-load of photos with that 110 Zoom, then turned around and let a half dozen rolls go undeveloped. I can't even recall when I last saw the X-ray-proof pouch in which they were stored, any more. They probably inadvertently found their way to a landfill

Looking at my old Pentrax 35mm film camera, yesterday, it looks like there's film in it. I wonder what's on it?

All those share the same characteristic: They're "just photos." Which is why they ended-up neglected.

Ever seen Finding Vivian Maier (2013)? This one guy bids on a random crate of negatives at an auction and discovers all these awesome unknown street photography photos from a quiet soft-spoken introverted nanny from Chicago?

^^^^Wow, great show on netflix. What an amazing photographer.