Digital SLR or Film camera?

[maveric]

I'm debating whether to buy a new 35 mm SLR that uses film or a Digital SLR. Just got a check from my Ma'a estate and need a new toy.

Do the digitals take good pics? I'll pick up a photo printer if I must but am wondering how the picture quality is.

Can Digital SLR's take B&W's?

What a good brand? Canon, Olympus, Nikon????

[tjdee]

1. Digital SLR...the photographers will be along soon...

But I'm photographically dumb as a brick and can tell you that a digital is more versatile--your prints won't age as much as "real" ones, you can do far more in terms of editing/enhancing....

Many of the news photographers use digital now as well. Take a look over in the Photography group, many (if not most?) of those shots are taken with digitals, and look great.

[maveric]

2. Thank You! I didnt know we had such DU group.

Cool!

[LeftyMom]

3. My best friend the photographer is still mad for film

She uses digital for family pics and such but she feels that film is better for serious photography. I gave away my last film camera a while ago, but I take pictures and she's an artist and a professional, so I'd give her opinion more weight. ;)

If you decide to get a photo printer, I'm very happy with my Cannon (the pixma IP 6000D,) it prints as well as her HP photosmart (both look professional up to 8x10) but it's cheaper up front and the ink costs less. We both have the printers with the built-in screens that can be used standalone if the computer is on the blink. I toss mine in the trunk of the car when we go to visit relatives and let them pick and print the pictures of my son they're always nagging me for themselves. :)

[frogbison]

4. I like my

Nikon digital camera. When I take it downtown and pics printed at my retailer's, the prints do look well.

Two things. Just because a picture looks good on a computer screen, that doesn't mean it will print well.

And, I am concerned that pictures printed at home will not age well. Anybody heard that?

[Deja Q]

9. My printouts will last 75 years...

Of course I'm using an Epson Stylus Photo 2200 printer... the R800 will last even longer.

Standard dye-based inkjet printers won't last 5 years. Even at that.

[DS1]

11. Yes, and 75 years later, should you feel the need, or

some new relative feel the need, they can make an exact copy if they have the original file.

It's not like film doesn't fade.

[democracyindanger]

17. Oh, so he should spend $2000 on the Epson, too.

All you're doing is shooting film and developing as digital. Which is funny, considering how much digital is beneath you.

[politicat]

16. My brother in law is a professional photographer; he's given up on film.

He went to digital about 3 years ago, and loves it. He's got a 9 MP Minolta right now. He did the photography for a major ad campaign for the Wheeling hospitals in 2002 using his 2002 6 MP.

So I have a feeling that it's one of those preference things.

[Bok_Tukalo]

5. I never could figure out how to make digital work for me

I stick with film unless I'm taking pictures of automotive parts for instruction manuals and catalogs. Digital is good for that.

[Xithras]

6. It takes a $1000 digital to match the quality of a $300 35mm SLR

I shoot a lot of both, but when I'm taking quality photos that I'm planning on keeping as prints for the rest of my life, I still pull out my film camera. I don't have a grand to blow on an 8 megapixel SLR, and anything below that is inferior to film, quality-wise.

Of course, if you're just taking snapshots and don't care about that, digital beats film hands down. My 35mm pocket cameras were replaced by digitals years ago.

[Deja Q]

8. 35mm film is 13~25 megapixel depending on speed and type.

Slide film is about ~20MP.

100 ISO Fuji Royala is about ~13.

And the Fuji film has greater color gamut and shadow detail than ANY digital camera; not even the $8k ones. Some magazines won't take digital pics either. Not even from the 11MP expensive $8k ones.

[Deja Q]

7. Film! For a surfeit of reasons!

1. Film has a higher resolution, color gamut, and shadow detail than any digital.

2. Film treats light differently and as such makes long term exposures workable with less overexposure. Indeed, many Canon Digital Rebel camera exhibit stuck pixel problems on long exposures (pixels that light up in one color that you really don't want in the picture.)

3. You don't have to force your way to clean the digital sensor of dust.

4. Base price for a good film SLR camera is $500. Digital SLR, AFTER ACCESSORIES? $1800. (now count up how many pics you have to take to match the cost and wince.)

5. Digital is disposable commodity rubbish. The $300 compact models, even 5mp ones, are best suited to web-based stuff.

6. You can use a good film scanner (e.g. Nikon coolscan V) to scan negs and get spectaular quality from them. You can also buy a better scanner when it comes out to get even more detail from a neg. In other words, film upscales very well on a computer. As for digital? :rofl: You cannot upsample 5mp to 10mp and expect the detail to double!!!! On the contrary, it'll look fuzzy. Interpolation is not possible. Imagined detail can be guessed only to a certain extent and there's no interpolation technique that works. With digital, you can only downscale. And what's the point of that?

7. Cost for accessories is far less.

8. Digital lenses, because of digital camera designs, are not good with wide angle lenses. They're better for zooms.

9. Non-SLR Digital cameras often have lots of noise ('grain') and purple fringing. I wouldn't do less than a digital SLR, but for $1800 net? Sod that.

10. Digital cameras have inbuilt sharpening sensors. As seen on the Nikon D70, horrible non-removeable MOIRE can be introduced. Makes such a picture worthless.

11. Digital is a toy, a throwaway commodity. They want you to get next year's model, with higher resolution and otherwise features you'll never need. Plastic throwaway cack.

12. Capture lag. Press the shutter release button and you have to wait so many milliseconds or even seconds depending on the model to get the pic. What you wanted to snap and what you get might just be two very different things. Film has no perceivable capture lag.

13. Processing lag. After you've clicked, the camera needs to deal with the image. Best to use RAW mode if you need to take many snaps; but that eats disk space for breakfast.

Get a cheap digital with manual aperture, shutter, and focus settings to learn the complexities of SLR photography. Then get a good film SLR camera.

[maveric]

10. I already have a decent film SLR.

I'd just like to develop my own pics quickly and cheaply at home. A professional I'm not but like the convenience of digital.
Are they that bad?

[politicat]

18. I have a 5mp canon.

I have an adaptor that lets me use our telephoto and other lenses from my old 35 mm. (I still have the pentax body, but rarely use it.) If I use the highest resolution TIFF format with my camera, and print at 2400 x 1200, I can't tell the difference between a print and a commercial print, even with a loupe. My max print size is 8x10 at this point because I don't have room for a larger format printer.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. Go digital

I've sold my Nikons (held onto my FM for sentimental reasons), and all the photos are digital - I've printed out 24x36 prints and the quality - archival - is as good or better than any film work I ever did.

A friend of mine is a contract photographer for food magazines like Gourmet and Saveur, and they're all digital.

Lately, I'm running around with a Sony DSC-T1, and it's really terrific.

[BiggJawn]

12. Film! but only because...

I don't have a great Digi-Cam yet.
I have 4 SLR's, including the Imfamous Canon AE-1, and 20 rangefinders, all the way from the "Canonette" to over a dozen Argus C-3's.

Hey, Joe Theisman and John Newcombe liked the AE-1. Guess Bruce Jenner was a little smarter, he hawked the manual Minolta...

[gmoney]

13. Canon Digital Rebel XT with the lens...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007QKN22/

Get a 528 or 640MB memory card, Photoshop CS2, Photoshop Elements, or iPhoto (Mac) and don't look back. Most drugstores, labs, etc. will process prints for the same price as film, plus you don't have to keep any of the crappy photos.

It's so much easier to share your photos online with friends and family if they're digital, too. Even if you're a pro, anything you shoot will have to be scanned to digital anyway, so save the step.

[Schema Thing]

14. Digital

Film is just silly for anything but a few VERY rare, VERY specific artistic or resolution effects.

When all is said and done, film or CCD chips either one are just recording devices for focused light. Chips just happen to be light years (pardon the pun) more practical a way to do that.

Canon, Olympus, and Nikon are all great brands. I highly recommend that you spend the money for an SLR in whatever brand you choose, if you're at all serious about having any control when you're shooting.

[democracyindanger]

15. Nikon D70 digital

Got it a few weeks ago. Oddly enough, I had just gotten a check through my Gma's estate. Go figure.

Great camera. $100 rebate on the D70 kit right now.

[maveric]

19. My brother just recommended a Canon "Rebel".

Any good?

[DS1]

30. I love mine, I'd love the new Rebel XT even more

:D

[maveric]

20. Dumb question. Can I use my lenses from my 35 mm?

I have a wide angle, zoom, telephoto and a fisheye from my Olympus 35 MM.

[Liberal In Texas]

23. Yes and No.

Depends on the camera.

[maveric]

24. I would have to ask when I buy one.

Ok.
Thanx

[progressoid]

27. yes and no

I can't speak from Olympus experience, but for my Canon lenses...

The sensor on prosumer cameras are smaller than film size so you lenses become 'longer' than normal. It depends on the camera, but a 50mm may become a 75mm for example.

Also some older and cheaper lenses don't do well near the edges of the image with digital. You may see color fringing issues. This actually happens to film too but to a much lessor extent. Read about it here:
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Articlexasp/ff89a68a-2a67-4543-9bd0-6626e610deaf/Default.htm

However, they are making some outstanding lenses today at reletively low cost.

Here's a great site for researching cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/

[Liberal In Texas]

22. Unless you're a professional, go digital.

Even if you're a pro, it may be the way to go.

Most, if not all, digital cameras will do B&W.

I have a Hasselblad...very expensive 120 medium format camera, but I'm not a professional still photographer, and I use a Canon G2 digital. The 'Blad sits in a cabinet. The digital is just great for everything I need.

Plus, no processing costs, immediate "gratification" of the pic you just took. If you don't like it, hit >delete< and it's gone. With the cards you can get now days, put one in and take hundreds of pics.

If you are a serious artist, or photog, then maybe the film camera. But film cameras are dinosaurs.

[Renew Deal]

25. This site can help you choose.

www.dpreview.com

[evlbstrd]

26. The majority of the professional photographers I work with have gone

over to digital for the reasons many other posters have noted. But it is also really great for everday use. You'll end up taking way more pictures.

[progressoid]

28. If you shoot a lot,

the biggest advantage is a huge reduction in film and processing costs (not to mention a benefit to the environment). Plus you can edit before you print, saving more $.

However, a big drawback is spending a fair amount of time sitting at a computer previewing, sorting, archiving, labeling, burning CDs, etc. If you want to print them yourself - great. But thats more time too.

[jakefrep]

29. I'm waiting for the price to come down on the Minolta DSLR...

..since I already have the Minolta lenses, it makes more sense for me to buy the Minolta than to buy all new stuff from another brand.

[Mutley]

31. I don't know what SLR is or B&Ws

but use a digital cam. It takes great pics, and they print well even on my crappy printer with regular paper, so if you have a good printer with good paper it will look fabulous!

[Redstone]

32. One extremely important note, that nobody ever considers:

If you do buy the digital camera, yes, you'll save money on film and processing, but do NOT think for a minute that you'd be better off because you can print the pictures yourself.

Of course, for any image that you want to manipulate and print an enlargement, you'll do that yourself, but for 4 x 6 family-vacation pix, take them to a lab. It's less expensive, and the automatic correction software of the labs works well. Also, lab prints will last a LOT longer than homemade inkjet ones.

I have three high-end color inkjet printers worth a total of about seven grand in my office, and if I take family pictures with the digital camera, I have them printed by the local camera store / minilab.

PS: When you archive the pictures, put them on GOOD CDs, not Staples store brand or something. Kodak or Mitsui are the only ones I'll use, because they last. Cheap CDs can die in six months.

Redstone