| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2006 11:23:56 PM · #1 |
I am wanting to buy a new camera (SLR) and I was wondering which is better for beginner SLR users 35mm or digital and which models are the best.
Thanks |
|
|
|
10/27/2006 11:40:57 PM · #2 |
I'm good at stating the obvious so here goes.
The big advantage for beginners and digital is the ability to take tons and tons of pictures without worry. You get to experiment a lot and don't have to worry about spending hundreds a week on developing. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:35:31 AM · #3 |
My Friend said that someone said that it is harder to learn how to set things (ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, etc.) on a digital and that it is best to learn on a 35mm.
Is this True???
Thanks |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:42:09 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by kh82791:
My Friend said that someone said that it is harder to learn how to set things (ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, etc.) on a digital and that it is best to learn on a 35mm.
Is this True???
Thanks |
no. it's easier on Digital because the trial and error only costs battery power, instead of endless failed prints. the exif info built in tells you what the exposure setting were after a shoot, so you don't have to write it all down at every shot.
If you want to change ISO on film BTW, you change the film instead of flipping some buttons. How easy is that? Not.
Film is good for a LOT of things, but it's not for learning on the cheap. Most photography schools will start you on a digital SLR now, because it's easier to get trial/error done in the short term, and because digital is the future. The film and large format classes come after you've learned the basics on digital, because they have higher level concepts and a higher learning curve.
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 15:42:56.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:46:30 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by kh82791:
My Friend said that someone said that it is harder to learn how to set things (ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, etc.) on a digital and that it is best to learn on a 35mm.
Is this True???
Thanks |
Get digital and a new photo buddy. Don't take anymore advice from him.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:09:55 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
Originally posted by kh82791:
My Friend said that someone said that it is harder to learn how to set things (ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, etc.) on a digital and that it is best to learn on a 35mm.
Is this True???
Thanks |
Get digital and a new photo buddy. Don't take anymore advice from him. |
i gotta second that :)
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:19:20 PM · #7 |
In some situations I think film is better. If you cannot afford a digital SLR, computer & software (there are free options at least in s/ware) then I think the startup costs are much smaller for film and certainly better for learning then settling for some cheap P&S digital thing (I can hear the cry's now but IMO it's true unless you can get a P&S with a lot of manual features).
I said start-up costs, not long-term costs (although as I said, I think they are closer then most will admit) - you can get a great film SLR for a couple of hundred bucks (with likely more features then spending 10 times that on digital) and buying/developing slide film is pretty reasonable by mail/internet order (you want to do slides rather than prints IMO for learning).
I think people underestimate (or put some bits in a separate mental bucket) the real cost of digital and it's not just the up-front camera & computer (how much storage do you have?). |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:22:27 PM · #8 |
| Unless you can afford a dSLR, a manual film SLR is a better way to learn than a P&S digital. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:28:54 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Raziel:
Unless you can afford a dSLR, a manual film SLR is a better way to learn than a P&S digital. |
There are a lot of fixed-lens "P&S" digital cameras which have full manual control over ISO, aperture, and shutter-speed -- I think that's what's needed for basic "learning" about photography. Digital is the only practical way to experiment with things like shooting the same set-up with five different ISO settings to compare the results ... |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 12:59:18 PM · #10 |
Digital has many advantages over film in terms of convenience and running costs.
I'll probably never go back to working in a darkroom, squinting under a safe light, bathed in the fumes of smelly chemicals, but believe me - there is nothing more satisfying more rewarding or more magical in photography than to develop and print your own film. I feel sorry for the digital generation photographers that will never experience that trully awe inspiring moment.
I wonder if the plate photographers thought the same when film was invented?
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 16:59:57. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 01:03:43 PM · #11 |
I shoot only film right now, but I would say digital is a little more practical to start out, because of the trial-and-error thing that was already said. Film is cheaper, though, and you'll more or less get better results straight from the camera with film. DSLR's don't process the images very much, and if you're not comfortable with editing, you won't be turning out very good stuff for a while..
You can get a pretty good DSLR kit for around $1k assuming you already have a computer, and the software that comes with them (PS elements, etc) is not bad for learning.
For a film camera, you could pick up a Canon rebel K2 with a 28-90 lens at Walmart or Best Buy for $200, add another $50 for a tripod, $100 for a 50mm 1.8, $50 for some books on photography, and about 5 packs each of Kodak BW400CN and Fuji Superia 400. All for a little over $500 including processing for the film, and that's about 950 shots. With the DSLR, you'll probably take 950 in the first week, film teaches you to think more and take a little more time so it would last you quite a bit longer.
Slide film is nice, but it can take longer to get processed, and since you don't get proof prints back, all you'll have is the little slides to hold up to a light and look at (unless you have a projector).
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 01:15:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Raziel:
Unless you can afford a dSLR, a manual film SLR is a better way to learn than a P&S digital. |
There are a lot of fixed-lens "P&S" digital cameras which have full manual control over ISO, aperture, and shutter-speed -- I think that's what's needed for basic "learning" about photography. Digital is the only practical way to experiment with things like shooting the same set-up with five different ISO settings to compare the results ... |
Have to agree. If your beginning then stay away from the dSLR's until you're comfortable and know that is something you want to do. I had two Oly's (c3000 and c5050) that offered more settings than I even knew what to do with starting out, but it offered me the ability to test them out and see the result immediately and change anything that was wrong. I just now went to a dSLR and am dying cause I can't offord anything other than the kit lens.
You don't even have to have a computer and software really, if you're deleting the bad and able to reshoot on spot till you get what you like then you can just print that at photo labs. Yes, a lot can be done to "fix" an image on the computer, but there are a bunch of photographers that would say you don't have to do editing when you've learned the right way. A computer is certainly a must later on but starting out with a lower priced P&S that offers lots of options will help you save up to get the more expensive stuff you need.
If you want to see how much you save on film, get the basic cost for film and developing and break it down to a "per print" price. Then everytime you delete and reshoot on your digital put that amount of money into a jar for your dSLR...wonder how fast it would grow.
(traff, you are right, I have never done the dark room developing (well other than x-rays at my job but not the same) and hope someday to actually experience that. My brother borrowed equipment from his high school one summer and turned his bedroom into a full darkroom complete with enlarger and all, funny thing is that now he barely picks up a camera.)
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 17:16:10.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 01:29:56 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I shoot only film right now, but I would say digital is a little more practical to start out, because of the trial-and-error thing that was already said. Film is cheaper, though, and you'll more or less get better results straight from the camera with film. DSLR's don't process the images very much, and if you're not comfortable with editing, you won't be turning out very good stuff for a while..
You can get a pretty good DSLR kit for around $1k assuming you already have a computer, and the software that comes with them (PS elements, etc) is not bad for learning.
For a film camera, you could pick up a Canon rebel K2 with a 28-90 lens at Walmart or Best Buy for $200, add another $50 for a tripod, $100 for a 50mm 1.8, $50 for some books on photography, and about 5 packs each of Kodak BW400CN and Fuji Superia 400. All for a little over $500 including processing for the film, and that's about 950 shots. With the DSLR, you'll probably take 950 in the first week, film teaches you to think more and take a little more time so it would last you quite a bit longer.
Slide film is nice, but it can take longer to get processed, and since you don't get proof prints back, all you'll have is the little slides to hold up to a light and look at (unless you have a projector). |
I mean I can get a dSLR for $100 bucks more then all that film and camera etc. and the film will only last a week.
The Nikon D50 Digital SLR w/Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6 G Lens from ritzcamera.com is $599.99
There are mixed feelings about going beginner dSLR or 35mm but this clearly shows that in the long run 35mm will be more, and eventually I will want a digital if I go first with the 35mm
Message edited by author 2006-10-28 17:30:18. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 01:49:37 PM · #14 |
Not exactly. If you want to go by only the body and kit lens, use the $200 number for the K2/28-90.
BW400CN is $9 for 3 rolls, Superia 400 is $7 for 5 rolls, of 24exp each. Processing for 24exp at Sams Club is $3. $45 for 5 packs of CN, $35 for 5 packs of Superia. About $120 for processing for all of it.
So it's a little over $400 without tripod and 50mm. And 40 rolls is quite a bit of film to shoot in a week, digital is a lot different.
But I do agree that a DSLR will help you learn faster, just clarifying the numbers.
BTW, don't count on sticking with just the body and kit lens. If the bug gets you, you'll be buying lenses, flashes, CF cards, tripods, etc left and right :p
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 01:58:46 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
BTW, don't count on sticking with just the body and kit lens. If the bug gets you, you'll be buying lenses, flashes, CF cards, tripods, etc left and right :p |
Precisely one of the main reasons I went the non-dSLR rout, along with avoiding any issues involving sensor dust : ) |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:11:25 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kh82791:
I mean I can get a dSLR for $100 bucks more then all that film and camera etc. and the film will only last a week. |
Check out film & developing prices, not as bad as you make out really.
That is a lot of film to start with but say we run with that.... Does that dSLR come with a reasonable CF card? How much does that computer cost by the way? Want some software [I mean neatimage/NN is required right :-)]. Do you need some external hard drives to store that (or larger drives then you otherwise need)? Want to backup those images, so maybe some DVD's (oh and a burned and some software unless you use the crap windows interface)? What about long-term image storage (film last decades with no cost)?
When you print the digi files [you do print at least some right? :-)], how much is that compared to slides/film?
Yeah, you could use the Kodak machines at the chemist and not need a computer, but why bother with a real SLR if you are doing that. Yeah, in the long-term digi is probably somewhat cheaper. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:13:23 PM · #17 |
The big advantage digital has over 35mm is the EXIF data. Back when I was a beginner, I was encouraged to keep a log of every shot I took. I'd write down ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture settings and a few notes for each shot in the log (ok, I'm lazy I didn't do every shot).
That data was to help me understand what did what. Now, with the EXIF automatically storing those values, all I have to do is look at the shot and I can see what went wrong/right for me, including whether the flash fired, what focal length I was at, etc.
Ofcourse, you can't forget the cost advantage digital has over film. Also, the ability to chimp and study the histogram helps a lot with exposure.
All in all, digital makes it a LOT easier and a LOTTTTT less expensive to learn.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:15:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
The big advantage digital has over 35mm is the EXIF data. Back when I was a beginner, I was encouraged to keep a log of every shot I took. I'd write down ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture settings and a few notes for each shot in the log (ok, I'm lazy I didn't do every shot).
That data was to help me understand what did what. Now, with the EXIF automatically storing those values, all I have to do is look at the shot and I can see what went wrong/right for me, including whether the flash fired, what focal length I was at, etc.
Ofcourse, you can't forget the cost advantage digital has over film. Also, the ability to chimp and study the histogram helps a lot with exposure.
All in all, digital makes it a LOT easier and a LOTTTTT less expensive to learn. |
dude, there's an echo in here :P
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:20:04 PM · #19 |
| The best thing a beginner can do is take a class. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:38:30 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
dude, there's an echo in here :P |
in here in here in here in here .... :-P
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:48:48 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by wavelength:
dude, there's an echo in here :P |
in here in here in here in here .... :-P |
The echo effect is determined by the resonance characteristics of the surrounding structures and the wavelength of the originating vibration ... |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 02:51:20 PM · #22 |
Well thanks everybody since it seems like Digital is the way to go I think the Nikon D50 would be best for me.
But Now my last question is wich package is best to start out with:
1. Nikon D50 Digital SLR w/Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6 G Lens for $599.99
2. Nikon D50 Digital SLR & Quantaray 28-90mm AF Lens $549.99
Thanks again for all your help with me continuing my photography journey. |
|
|
|
10/28/2006 03:11:14 PM · #23 |
You can't directly compare a film slr and dSLR UNLESS you include all the darkroom equipment with the film camera OR a scanner or pay for the scans at the lab.
You can avoid the computer with a dSLR - just take your CF card to the kiosk and download it. No puter needed, no CS, no nothing.
Compare apples to apples folks.
dSLR $800 (more or less - lots to choose from new and used) 2 Gb CF card is $70. You don't need a balls to the wall computer to edit pics, and every camera will come with software. So worst case, $500 for a computer. $1370. prints are extra and optional.
Film body...buy canon or buy used? I think Canon is the only one left making new film bodies bedsides the Nikon F6. $9 for every 24 exposures for film and lab processing. You could get the equipment to precess your own negs pretty cheaply. Printing, especially color, is gonna get pricey for the equipment and you may have to modify your house to do it.
$200 for the camera and 38c every time you push the button. I guess we'll need a computer and scanner and software (not free with a film body!) so $500 + 200 + 100 = $800. So now we've spent $1000 and 38c every time we push the button, and have ISO issues ....
At 1000 exposures it becomes cheaper to go digital. If you want to compare apples to apples.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 03:13:36 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kh82791:
Well thanks everybody since it seems like Digital is the way to go I think the Nikon D50 would be best for me.
But Now my last question is wich package is best to start out with:
1. Nikon D50 Digital SLR w/Nikkor 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6 G Lens for $599.99
2. Nikon D50 Digital SLR & Quantaray 28-90mm AF Lens $549.99
Thanks again for all your help with me continuing my photography journey. |
NIKON LENS!
Avoid the quantarray.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 03:15:44 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
BTW, don't count on sticking with just the body and kit lens. If the bug gets you, you'll be buying lenses, flashes, CF cards, tripods, etc left and right :p |
Precisely one of the main reasons I went the non-dSLR rout, along with avoiding any issues involving sensor dust : ) |
oh, that's the fun part!
and dust is becoming a moot point as more cameras add those shake 'em filters. copperhill sells a brush for $25 that will deal with 99% of dust in 2 seconds.
|
|
