Multiple beginner questions on my Canon.. Need advice and help

[BuddingCanonUser]

I have a Canon Rebel xs and I have had this one for about 5 months and am currently still learning many new things all the time. I research online, read my manual ask friends etc but there are a few things I am still unclear about:

-I have a 18-55 lens only. What's the next step and best for further away shots such as landscape?
-Is a filter necessary and which do you think is most useful for portraits, nature etc. Everything really..
-I don't understand the live view concept. I go to custom functions and know how to set it of course but there is nothing on my screen as other people have explained it showing so. Am I missing something here?
-What is the best way to take photos at an aquarium? Which ISO speed would you think?
-Is a lens hood necessary or only if one takes many photos in direct sunlight?
-I know it's an age old question but the Nikon D3000 often compared as a low cost dslr along with Canon rebels, it appears to me photos taken by those are clearer?

Any answers would be so appreciated. Thank you for reading.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by BuddingCanonUser

I have a Canon Rebel xs and I have had this one for about 5 months and am currently still learning many new things all the time. I research online, read my manual ask friends etc but there are a few things I am still unclear about:

-I have a 18-55 lens only. What's the next step and best for further away shots such as landscape?
-Is a filter necessary and which do you think is most useful for portraits, nature etc. Everything really..
-I don't understand the live view concept. I go to custom functions and know how to set it of course but there is nothing on my screen as other people have explained it showing so. Am I missing something here?
-What is the best way to take photos at an aquarium? Which ISO speed would you think?
-Is a lens hood necessary or only if one takes many photos in direct sunlight?
-I know it's an age old question but the Nikon D3000 often compared as a low cost dslr along with Canon rebels, it appears to me photos taken by those are clearer?

Any answers would be so appreciated. Thank you for reading.

Phew, I'm out of breath.

You realy should do a camera course. You need to learn the basics of photography and using your camera. Learn about exposure, ISO settings, white balance, histograms etc. Your 18-55 kit lens is more than adequate for your ability. Your Canon camera can take photos as good as Nikons or any other brand, its up to the photographer to set the camera, compose and push the little button. You have a long way to go, be patient, read and re read your user manual. Have a look at some of the ebooks on DPS, they're realy worth while. Experiment, submit photos here to get some good feedback. Baby steps at this stage Mate.

Cheers,

John W

[RichardTaylor]

(1) If you are finding yourself shooting in "tight" spaces, where you can't get it all in then I would suggest an ultrawide zoom (approx 10/12-20/24mm) should do the trick.
If you want more reach to bring a subject closer then I would suggest a 70-200 zoom.

(2) Re filters.
For landscapes you may want to consider a polariser and possibly a nuetral graduated (ND grad) and if you shoot waterfall etc a nuetral density filter so you can increase your shutter speed for those "blurry" water pics.

I wouldn't use a filter for anything else, except for shooting in inhospitable conditions.

(3) I don't own a Canon Rebel XS so I can't help. However you may find this video (from Canon) helpful.
Canon Rebel XS 1000D Live View Demo Video

(4) I havn't shot in an aquarium.
However I would shoot RAW (to give me more control) when PPing (especially white balance) and use the histogram to ensure my exposure is correct.
Do not be afraid to use high ISO if needed.

(5) I always use as lens hood. It may help to reduce flare and may help keep fingers away from the front of the lens.

(6) The final image depends not so much on the camera & lens (although good lenses do help) as (1) Skill of the photographer, (2) lighting and (3)post processing skills.
I havn't used Nikon cameras so I can't comment.

[NgaiHill]

Lets see if I can answer some of your questions...
-I have a 18-55 lens only. What's the next step and best for further away shots such as landscape? The 18-55 is a wide angle lens and generally good for landscapes, its the one I use when shooting landscapes. You may be thinking of a telephoto zoom lens like a 70-250mm, this will bring objects closer to view.
-Is a filter necessary and which do you think is most useful for portraits, nature etc. Everything really.. You should get a UV filter for your lens - it will protect the glass. If you are going to shoot landscapes you might like to get a CPL (circular polarising filter), it helps enhance colours, particularly the sky and particularly on sunny days. Just don't put it on the lens with the UV, its makes them very hard to get apart! Neutral Density (ND) filters may be a good idea for you too - especially if you'd like to take slow speed photos of waterfalls during the day.
-I don't understand the live view concept. I go to custom functions and know how to set it of course but there is nothing on my screen as other people have explained it showing so. Am I missing something here? On my 1000D when I use the P, Tv, Av or M modes I push the OK button on the back of the camera to bring up the Live View. It won't work in Auto. Also make sure there is something for the camera to see when you switch Live View on - if the scene is too dark there will be nothing showing.
-What is the best way to take photos at an aquarium? Which ISO speed would you think? Try an ISO of 800 or so, you shouldn't have too much problem with noise at that level and should still be able to get the shutter fast enough to avoid the shakes. Open your aperture right up as well.
-Is a lens hood necessary or only if one takes many photos in direct sunlight? I don't have one but it would be useful even at an oblique angle to the sun, it would stop glare bouncing off the lens, especially if you have a UV filter on.
-I know it's an age old question but the Nikon D3000 often compared as a low cost dslr along with Canon rebels, it appears to me photos taken by those are clearer? I know nothing about Nikons so I can't speak to that but there could be any number of reasons why your photos don't appear as clear as you might like. Shakes, dirty lens, shallow DOF. I use the 18-55mm quite a lot and am more than happy with it. If you have any photos that you want to ask questions about post them in the critique section.
Hope this helps

[inkista]

Originally Posted by BuddingCanonUser

I have a Canon Rebel xs and I have had this one for about 5 months and am currently still learning many new things all the time. I research online, read my manual ask friends etc but there are a few things I am still unclear about:

I would recommend finding Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. That can help you sort out a few of these snarls. Manuals are good for knowing what your camera features are for, but they kind of suck at learning what you use those features for.

-I have a 18-55 lens only. What's the next step and best for further away shots such as landscape?

Actually, if the 18mm isn't wide enough for you, then you may want to consider if you actually have a shot. But, as Richard says, the next step would be an ultrawide lens with a shorter focal length. But those start around $600.

-Is a filter necessary and which do you think is most useful for portraits, nature etc. Everything really..

Filters are used for two things. Physical protection (which is a matter of personal taste and shooting/gear-care habits). And for manipulating the light. Most of us will use a Circular Polarizer or graduated Neutral Density to "darken skies" (sorta), Neutral Density to increase exposure time, and a few specialty filters like infrared to play with non-visible light. But portraits do not typically require filters. "Nature" covers a lot of ground: wildlife, landscape and macros. Each has different demands.

-I don't understand the live view concept. I go to custom functions and know how to set it of course but there is nothing on my screen as other people have explained it showing so. Am I missing something here?

Live view actually simulates exposure for you. If you lower the exposure settings, liveview will darken. It's more WYSIWYG than your viewfinder. You'll also have magnification to nail manual focus. What's happening with liveview is that your mirrorbox is being swung up and out of the way and the data from the sensor is being fed directly to the LCD. If you're using the optical viewfinder, the mirrorbox is covering the sensor until you take the shot.

-What is the best way to take photos at an aquarium? Which ISO speed would you think?

Whatever you need to get a good exposure. The other issue to watch is white balance. How dark is your aquarium?

-Is a lens hood necessary or only if one takes many photos in direct sunlight?

Most folks use them for physical protection of the lens as well. I typically always have the hood on whether or not I need it for the shade. But then, I'm using the rigid snap-on hoods that came with the lens, not a cheap rubber screwed-to-the-filter-threads type of hood. If I'm using a screw-on type, then it's only for the shade as it's useless as physical protection.

-I know it's an age old question but the Nikon D3000 often compared as a low cost dslr along with Canon rebels, it appears to me photos taken by those are clearer?

There are a lot of other factors at play than just the cameras: the lenses, the skill of the photographer using them, as well as their post-processing skills. Sharpness comes down to a lot of things--most of them technique. Personally, I don't think there's a whole lot to choose between the two, and the D3000 has no focus motor in the body. In Canon terms, that would mean you'd have to buy USM lenses to get autofocus. And on the Nikon side of the fence, a lot fewer of their primes are AF-S than Canon primes are USM.

You want "clearer" photos, you need to make sure that your handholding technique is good, that you've mastered your autofocus system, that you know how to stop down for sharpness and depth of field, and that your shutter speed is fast enough to eliminate camera shake blur AND that you know how to post-process and sharpen a photo in post.

You still sure it's the camera that's at fault? After having been a dSLR newbie, and hanging about on boards for a good long time, I'll say that in your first year of dSLR ownership, chances are good that 9 times out of 10 it's you, not your camera or your lens.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by BuddingCanonUser

I have a 18-55 lens only. What's the next step and best for further away shots such as landscape?

To expand on a point suggested by inkista: "good landscape photography" is almost an oxymoron. Getting a good landscape photo isn't about equipment. It's about the light and the perspective.

Sure, there's always the chance of a lucky snap. But usually it's about total obsession: a willingness to spend days, weeks, or even months working at getting one photo. Planning that photo, determining what kind of lighting you want, figuring out when that kind of lighting will occur (time of year and time of day), figuring out where the proper vantage point is and what composition you want, and trudging out to that vantage point day after day — often waking up at 3 AM or so — and waiting a few hours each time, taking hundreds of photos that aren't quite right, until you happen to catch exactly what you want.

America's (arguably) most famous landscape photographer, Ansel Adams, is reported to have said, "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

Ken Rockwell, famous as a legend in his own mind, has some thoughts on the subject. He also mentions Ansel Adams: "To get the right light on a mountain you may need to wait for the right season, the right weather and the right time of day. This is how Ansel Adams was able to create such masterful works: he lived in Yosemite and only showed his works from when the lighting was fantastic. If you show up on vacation and snap away in whatever light is there you'll not likely get anything extraordinary."

Or check out the series, "From the Edge with Peter Lik" on the Weather Channel. See the expense, time, effort, and inconvenience that Lik goes through to get one photo. Personally, I don't care for his stuff, but the point is that "it doesn't come easy."

Landscape photography isn't about the equipment. It's being in the right place to get a great perspective, at the right time to get great lighting. That almost never happens by accident. It happens by planning and by dogged persistence.

Oh, here's another link, this one from Petteri Sulonen.

[lunathea]

I would check out some of Scott Kelby's books also (The Digital Photography Book). He doesn't speak over your head at all and gives tips based on scenarios. They aren't boring reads either, not a lot of technical jargon, he has an uncanny sense of humor imo.