Thanks @johnalison some good tips there.
You will certainly have an option for putting a grid in the viewfinder screen. Although the ‘thirds’ rule is a bit corny, it can be a useful horizon reference, though other grids are usually available. I can’t be bothered with the file sizes in RAW, though it has its uses for some kinds of work.
Perhaps not a new one, but I have the 450d, a 90d and an R6 and have to say even a relatively recent second hand camera would be a vast improvement. ISO levels have been improved a lot so less light is needed for a good picture and auto modes mean that using manual mode is a thing of the past, with aperture priority taking over for most people with either a fixed ISO or shutter depending on the effect you want. Autofocus has drastically improved, I think AI was added in the 450d to do eye detection, alongside mirrorless mode which I don't think you have - this allows you to see the output on screen even if you're using very dark ND filters for long exposure.
I had a grid on my EOS 650 in 1987! I agree that most cameras can take decent or good pictures and that playing around won’t make you a better photographer, though you may get more flexibility and perhaps more pleasure from a modern camera. From my personal point of view, I would beware of getting too involved with things such as landscape or passive scenes. What a camera can do uniquely well is capture life, which I mean in a very general sense which might include ‘the moment’, and it is tempting to lapse into the easy business of navel-gazing and taking pretty pictures. I think that now is the time to show us some of your sea shots and be prepared for the oohs and aahs and brickbats.My camera does not have all those fancy electronic wizzy things like grids in the view finder. It came to market about 20 years ago. As it will take better images than me and at my age not worth spending beer tokens on a new one.
I find RAW fantastic as I can do lots with it. 32GB data cards give me about 3000 shots per card.
I shoot mainly land and seascapes hence the decision to go manual is an easy one. If there is a sudden opportunity for a shot I use the phone.
I don't use a grid, any slight tilt I edit out in iPhoto(?) or whatever its called these days.My camera does not have all those fancy electronic wizzy things like grids in the view finder. It came to market about 20 years ago. As it will take better images than me and at my age not worth spending beer tokens on a new one.
I find RAW fantastic as I can do lots with it. 32GB data cards give me about 3000 shots per card.
I shoot mainly land and seascapes hence the decision to go manual is an easy one. If there is a sudden opportunity for a shot I use the phone.
Not entirely true. Many pictures you can get with your R7 would have been near impossible or totally impossible with the D60. There's no shame in admitting technology has made this stuff easier and better. Your camera has a max shutter speed of 1/16000 so one very real example of that being nicer on a boat is not needing to carry or swap ND filters in bright conditions. I wasn't suggesting the 400d can't take nice pictures, just pointing out that for a very, very small spend on a second hand SLR body the photography gets significantly easier and more capable. SLR bodies are going for peanuts since mirrorless arrived, and they often have the same sensors and options (albeit without electronic viewfinder).
I did say "understanding the capabilities of the device"
.... I certainly agree that with all the tech available today everything has improved immensely, but I think I could get pretty much the same aesthetic on my D60 as my R7 ... the R7 is just easier, faster, more accurate, sharper, and with better resolution - it's technically better, but a cr@p composition or subject is a cr@p composition or subject, no matter how sharp and technically superb the photo is.
Some cracking shots there.
I've just checked - the camera I grew to hate was an Olympus not a Minolta. My DiL now takes magnificent pix with it. I found that every time I picked it up the settings changed. Probably to do with the size of my thumbs rather than the fault of the camera.
My wife is a very keen photographer and spends many weekends away with her camera club pals. She shoots raw and is quite proficient with Lightroom.
And there I think you have hit the nail on the head. A good picture is all about the moment - even in a landscape (the light may only last for moments) or the body language in a portrait. It's easy to get lost in technology but by shooting lots, even with a simple camera, somewhere in there will be a really good picture.
Certainly my go to method, shooting in 4k at 120 fps or 8k at 30 fps. It's easy to find a great frame and use it as a single pic , coupled with AI and a 100x zoom .
