Digital or Film SLR?

It's really a matter of spending the money now or later. The digital SLR requires at least twice to three times the initial expenditure. (~$300 for a film body to $800 and up for digital). On the other hand, you do away with film and processing costs, which can be about $15-20 per 36 exposures (last I checked). If you shot a lot, the digital camera could probably pay for itself inside of a year. And with digital, you have the option of knowing if you actually got the shot right then, whether than waiting until you get the pictures back from the lab.

Shooting digital also saves you the hassle of scanning if you want to manipulate in Photoshop or Paintshop Pro.

On the other hand, digital still can't quite duplicate the intangible qualities of film, but other than that, most of the advantages are with digital, as long as you can handle the higher upfront cost of the camera.

Go digital Jeff. You'll love it!

Photography is heading in the direction of more digital and less film.

Many people like myself used to be into film SLRs and the difficulties associated with a darkroom such as chemical fumes, working in a hot small room with limited ventilation & virtually no light. I eventually gave it up for easy to carry point & shoot film cameras.

When digital SLRs became available the interest I had in photography returned with a passion. You get instant feedback on your photos. You can process the pictures on your own computer & print them out on your own printer or at just about any photo processing facility. The quality is fantastic. It’s a dream come true!

Going digital is a tremendous learning tool. The instant feedback coupled with the ability to click away without fear of cost are great advantages.

You've got a few options... you can acquire a used film body and a couple of lenses for $150 or so - very cheap. But you lose all the advantage of film.

I recommend digital.

You could go with a capable digicam - something like the Canon S2. It's not an SLR but it is a very nice little camera - light weight, good optics, and full manual control is an option. I've been very impressed with the output of this camera. The S2 and a SD card will set you back about $500. This is an affordable way to get a decent camera and see if it really holds your interest. If so, you could move on to the DSLRs later, and either sell the digicam or hold onto it as a spare.

Next step up is the entry level DSLRs - the Canon Rebel, Nikon D70, or Minolta 5D/7D. These will set you back near $1000 with a kit lens and CF card. To get equivalent coverage in focal length to the S2, you'll be dropping some coin on a couple of zoom lenses.

Then, there's the Canon 20D or Nikon D100. They will set you back close to $1400 when all is said and done.

There are threads here that give pros and cons on most of the camera models I've mentioned.

A trip to http://www.dpreview.com may also be in order. They have reviews and comparison guides for almost every camera out there.

-Scott

Jeff,

Here's a link to Short Courses in Digital Photography:

Digital Photography Short Courses

Here's a link to Extended Exposure Photography:

Extended Exposure Photography

You got that right...
I spent almost $3000 on Canon L Series glass in the first year after I bought my 10D. The nice thing there is, high quality glass holds value more than anything else in the photo world.

-Scott

Yeah, I've tried hard to avoid spending that much on lenses, but I suspect I'll be right there also by year's end or early next spring when I'll likely upgrade from my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 VR (to go w/ that D200 upgrade) -- apparently, it's all gonna be a 10-year anniversary present from the wife (after I mentioned how someone on DPR got a $2K D2H from his adoring girlfriend). Of course, there's also the $300+ flash, the computer upgrades, software purchases, portable storage purchase, maybe potential purchase of studio strobes and such, etc. that technically don't fall under the same umbrella of "lens lust". :b

Anyway, it all adds up, so maybe Jeff actually needs to look beyond that initial ~$700 price tag for something like the D50 + kit lens. Once you start getting serious about photography, that initial investment just becomes a drop in the bucket. That's not to say you can't get great images w/ something more affordable and modest, if you limit the kinds of photos you make and/or dispense w/ any convenience/efficiency features (like image stabilization or fast, silent wave focusing), but then again, they don't call it "lens lust" for nothing.

Jeff

The only thing I want to add is if you are serious about night photography, stick with film. (Someone please correct me if i'm wrong)

My d70 has a longest shutter speed of 30sec. Otherwise there is a bulb setting so it stays open for as long as I like but I gotta hold the shutter down, which won't work if you want sharp pics even on a tripod. Maybe you can get a remote and hold the shutter down from that. It also drains battery. You need shutter times of minutes to hours for star trails.

Otherwise I love my D70 and haven't shot film since jun04. For critical work, I would still choose 35mm (Nikon's DX is not good enough yet). Used 35mmm bodies are cheap. Buy digital first. Learn to use it. Buy some lenses. Then go to 35mm and reach for the stars.


As for learning SLRs/photography:

Learning the basics is not hard. Aperture, shutter, focal length are relatively easy. Learning exposure is the harder part. Don't use 35mm negative to learn exposure cuz the labs correct them. Use slides for that. But it costs too much and too time consuming to learn exposure. Digital gives you the instant feedback and it is super accurate. It gives you the power to be as lazy or as disciplined as you want to be. Also, exposure with flash takes time to learn (for me anyway) so digital is such an awesome learning tool.

Good results have been gotten with digital night photography and astrophotography. The newer sensors (especially in the last year) deliver much lower noise levels at high ISOs. I have a particular interest in astrophotography. Check this out (I have no affiliation with these photos):

http://www.spacehutobservatory.ca/canon10D.htm

While I'm not familiar with Nikon's DSLRs, I'm sure you can get a locking remote. I use a electronic timer remote on my Canon 10D. It lets me automate long exposures, intervalometer settings, etc. Also, some DSLRs are available in a modified format that is IR sensitive, which I guess can be useful for astrophotography. Unfortunately, that's an either/or. A modified body can't be used for normal photography.

I've played around with non-telescopic astrophotography, using a 300MM lens and a 1.4x teleconverter, and also wider lenses for starscapes. I'm thinking of building a "Barn Door Tracker" to allow longer than 30 second exposures without trails at 50mm. Such a tracker can go well over 30 minutes without error. These can be built for well under $100, much less than a decent equatorial mount.

http://hometown.aol.com/davetrott/page17.htm

As far as critical work, 6MP is more than sufficient for 13x19 printing. I've made acceptable 16x24 prints from 6.3MP. Now, of course, there are 8MP DSLRs available, too... then there's the new Canon 5D 12MP full-frame. It is certainly capable of doing critical work - of course that body is over $3000.

-Scott

Scott:

You're right about the night/astro photography. Those are nice results. I guess DSLRs deserve more credit than I give'em!

Critical work:
I'm no PS pro, this could be why..... I worked with NEF file before (Nikon's RAW format) and saved them as TIFF files about 34MB per photo. I did some (minor) cropping and contrast/color temp adjustments on these portraits. I then had them printed at a local lab that was well known for highend graphic arts work and the results were OK. The same lab has also printed slides for me up to 8x12 via an internegative and the results were excellent. Cost me $40cdn per print though.

"Acceptable" for you and I, I'm sure is different. Maybe you can email me about how you got good 16x24 prints so as to not threadjack. I could learn a few things. miseryrepublic@hotmail.com
I don't check my pm's.

Ryan: Perhaps I should qualify my comment on critical work. In comparison to your average 35mm print film, 6 - 8 MP will give you a quality which is better in some ways to film, but worse in others. The pure resolving power of a 6MP camera will be bested by a quality film. But the digital image will be free of grain structure - and, if shot under good light at low ISO, virtually noise free. Depending on subject matter, a grainless image may be preferable even if there is slightly less detail. A 16x24 print can look good for a scaled up 6.3MP image - if the subject matter isn't highly demanding of razor-sharpness. Hang it on a wall behind glass, and step back to a normal viewing distance, and the results are impressive.

For real critical work, I would shoot medium format. Since I can't afford medium format digital, I'd have to go with film. Still the new 20+ MP medium format sensors are truly amazing.

-Scott

You'd want to read the specs. I have no experience with Nikon DSLRs, but the Canons (at least the 10D on up...) can take a couple of different remote shutter releases. They tend to be electronic and proprietary... I'd be surprised if there were a DSLR that didn't have a remote socket.

Vital stats for any camera can be found at www.dpreview.com.

-Scott

>> "use a hat to effectively act as mirror pre-release mechanism"

Never heard of that Man, can you expand?

I don't believe the Canon Rebel has a mirror lockup, either... or a DoF preview. You have to move up tp a 10D or better for those features.

No hesitation - go digital.

Sooner, rather than later, chemical film is going to go. Ok, not tomorrow, but in a few years time for sure.

By the sounds of things, I'd recommend you go for a digital SLR. I have two Nikon digi cameras - a Coolpix 8700 and a D70.

Ever since I've had the D70, it's been my camera of choice, despite the fact that it's more lumpy to carry around! It's a great camera, and it's fast coming down in price. The D70's can be firmware upgraded so that they have attributes of the D70S, (improved menus and better focussing performance).

The 8700 has a higher pixel rating, but the sensor on the D70 is superior. Having a DSLR in your hands is great again - I'm sure you will enjoy it.

If you go for the Nikon DSLR, the 18-70mm lens kit is worth having if you have no leses to put on the Nikon body.

Canon do a great range of DSLR's as well - a mate of mine has just bought a Canon (EDOS 300???) and is pleased with it.

Good luck with your choice - let us know what you go for!

I believe the Minolta Maxxum 5D and 7D also have mirror lockup, integrated with (2-second?) self-timer mode.

For any D70 owners and other aspiring digital photographers, I recommend the book "Nikon D70 Digital Field Guide" by David Busch. I bought one off eBay for under $10 and it really has gone a long way past the owner's manual in explaining how to use the camera and also gives a lot of good basic photo advice.

One question I have for Man-Fai (or others): I bought a circular polarizer to get better outdoor colors (bluer skies, etc.). Should I also buy a UV filter or would that be overkill? Can these filters (even good ones) just be added on without degrading the lens' optics?

Never "stack" filters.
Only use filters when needed.

Others will say a UV or Skylight filter should be on the lens as protection. I follow this reasoning only when shooting in hazardous conditions (salt water, dusty air, etc). Other than that, I leave filters off unless optically needed. Each layer of glass you add affects the optics of the system, degrading performance. Stacking filters compounds the problem and adds flare possibilities.

You can use a lens hood to improve contrast on bright days. It will have no negative effect, and provdes some protection to the front element.

That said, a good UV or Skylight filter, and a good CPL should be in your arsenal - just keep them in your bag til you need them.

-Scott

Some have the long exposure (15 seconds on Canon IS2) but most don't seem to have a "bulb" setting (meaning that the shutter stays open for as long as you hold down the button). The higher end Nikon Coolpix cameras do, but I haven't found any others (so far).

For starters you might want to go the digital route the astro photography stuff is not the easiest place to start at. As you read there are so many variables with this also when shooting these types of shots.

You should start off with more of the basics such as how ISO, aperture and shutter settings effect your photos. Starting off with an SLR (film or digital) will be expensive because your going to want to get new lenses and most decent lenses cost more than a DSLR. There are many digital pro-sumer cameras out there which are a step above the point and shoot which offer a decent set of features at a good price point. These cameras have manual overrides which will allow you to learn more about using the various settings on a camera.

The top of the line P&S cameras like the Canon A620 (brand new) are fantastic performers in their class, they produce great photos and have lots manual settings as well. Something with all the settings that this has would also allow you to learn more about photography.

Just to give you an idea of what results a good digital P&S can produce check out my photo galleries at http://www.pbase.com/eddyb/a95 All the photos there were taken with my Canon A95 (the previous model to the new 610/620.)

Consider this if you go the SLR route you might still want a smaller camera to use as a backup or when you dont want to carry the bulk of a larger camera around. There are models like the Canon S80 that will fit in your pocket and lots of DSLR guys are getting smaller cameras as backups.

Ed

A few years time? Not likely, although we'll likely see less "1-hr photo" type setups in "normal" stores (drug stores for instance). But past that digital is not where it needs to be for film replacement, we're only now getting to the point where digital is a reasonable replacement for 35mm, but there is no digital answer to medium and large formats.

Normally I'd recommend digital for newbies, the cost to start is high, but easily made up, plus it helps you to become a better photographer as you won't be worried about taking risky shots, for instance I have no problem going outside and taking 200 pictures of the moon, it doesn't really cost me anything to do it. On film that would have cost me around $60-70 to do.

However, if you want to do star trails and that type of photography (ultra long exposure times) I'd say get a film camera. Digital sensor noise (ISO noise) is a function of many things, one of them is exposure time. The other issue is battery life, it's one thing to get 700 shots out of a digital battery charge, but will it hold the shutter and power the camera while recording the image for 6hrs while getting a star trail? For that you're best off with a really old film camera.


Mirror lock up isn't going to be needed on a long exposure (say over a minute), the milliseconds that the camera is shaking from the mirror slap isn't going to expose anything if it takes minutes/hours to properly expose the rest of the picture.

The hat trick is good, and no need to worry about camera shake once you have the lens covered.

Andrew

An interesting point of view, although I can't totally agree with it.

Digital is not where it needs to be for film replacement - quite right. But given a few years time, I reckon it will be.

Film production is gradually being stepped down. Nearly all the trad film producers have had to go into the digital market - not necessarily out of choice, but beacause film sales were diminishing, and still are.

Nearly every new PC in this country has a 'digital' package available as an option. A reasonable quality digital camera is nearly always part of that package, and this extra cost option is not very expensive.

You are quite right to mention more special creative photography, but I do maintain that digi cams are getting more and more creative-friendly as the years go on. Again, I reckon that in a few years, DSLR's will meet chem-film cams head on.

The best part of this is the waiting for it to happen! In a way, I hope that 35mm doesn't die - for personal reasons as well as pure preferential ones, but given the way the digital market is accelerating, I do fear the worst for 35mm chemical film.

For 35mm formats then digital is already there unless you want to get down to the VERY fine details (which are irrelevent in 99% of the cases).


Very true, see above. Especially in the "true" consumer market, the people who buy a camera to snap pictures of their kids birthday party, or their vacation (essentially people who have no "artist" reason to be taking photos, they collecting memories).

Medium/Large formats have not felt much if any impact from the digital market. A few people have switched over on the medium format front, but that's still a large investment (minimum of $10k to get entry level MF digital).

Andrew