sandeep

For the record, it took me a little while to figure out if I ought to post this in the photography forum or the general. If this belongs in another forum, I do apologize, but it seemed right here.


About three years ago, for about 2 weeks I did some photography in high school. In those two weeks, I convinced myself that I would buy an SLR camera and take up the hobby. The thing that stopped me, was the price. I just didn't have the hundreds of dollars that it seemed it would cost me to even put together an inexpensive camera.

Recently I've been considering buying a digital camera, but I'm torn between going ahead and putting together a nice used SLR camera, or buying a hot little digital camera. The digital camera would be a fantastic accessory to my nerdiness, and admitedly is very appealing because of its gadget-osity.


I was just wondering what you all use? Do you use manual SLRs (I don't even know if that's the correct terminology, but basically i mean "not digital") or a digital camera?

If you use either or, any pros or cons would be appriciated as well. I don't mind spending the money on either of the two (well, i do, but I'm willing to make the purchase) but I am having a hell of a time deciding between them.

Also, different models of SLRs and digital cameras, and your experiences with them would also help out in my research.


I've been going back to this for years now, and can't make a decision. It's driving me nuts

onetime2

I have an Olympus 5050 digital. It can be shot in full manual mode and offers just about everything you could want from a camera (whether digital or SLR). The major drawback to it, IMO, is shutter lag. With an SLR the picture is taken instantly. With most digital cameras, there is some amount of shutter lag. This basically means that it can take up to a few seconds AFTER pressing the button for the picture to be "taken".

The new digital SLRs solve this problem but are very expensive. Most of my shots are underwater pics, so there's a lot of room for error. Lighting, backscatter, keeping the camera stable, etc are big issues and quite a few of the pics I take are doomed to failure before I even trigger the shutter. This makes digital the best route for me since I don't have to wait to see what the developed photo looks like to make adjustments. Being able to quickly view the finished product on the LCD screen, make adjustments to settings, positioning, lighting, etc while I'm on the dive means not having to go back later to reshoot subjects. Obviously, this also saves money on development costs by allowing me to just have the good shots printed.

One other positive is the capacity of digital. With film cameras you are generally limited to 36 to 38 pics on a roll. With my camera using a CF memory card and an xD card (the camera can hold both at the same time) I can take well over 200 pictures with very good quality.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

dogzilla

I have a Canon Power Shot s40 4 MPixel digital camera I bought last year. This is a compact digital camera that takes pretty nice pictures. I even got a good 16x20 print of a picture I really liked.

Digital is good because I can check the picture immediately for problems with exposure or framing and re-take the picture if I want.

I don't have to worry about using up a roll of a particular film before I can use a different type. I can also change 'film speed' (ISO) and white balance on the fly.

Once I get home I can load the pictures on my computer and edit them with photoshop to tweak brightness, color, etc or crop what I don't want.

The cost of taking pictures is almost zero since there is no film processing cost and you can just erase bad pictures.

The camera I have is ideal for carrying around when I bike, in case I see anything interesting.

I take mostly outdoor landscape/scenic pictures. So the drawback to the compact camera for me is the limited focal length, in my case max of 105MM.

I've just ordered a Canon Digital Rebel SLR, a 70-200MM zoom lens and a lens extender to get to a maximulm focal length of about 650MM.

My brother has a Nikon D100 digital with a similar lens and has some really nice pictures.

Problem with SLR is that it can get expensive :-)

Cynthetiq

I'd go digital because the lack of expense for developing costs.

You can get an inexpensive digital camera that allows you to do a majority of the things that an SLR does.

I have an Olympus 2020, my only gripe is the lack of better zoom. Other than that.. my 2.1mp camera holds it own even against current cameras.

Another benefit to digital is being able to do post work in photoshop. Adjusting, cropping and other things that just can't happen without the digital darkroom.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Nefir

Definitely go digital. Not only do you get immediate feedback about your picture, but also you can take advantage of the digital darkroom, to clean up your images, instead of messing around with a scanner that will butcher the quality. You can also save up for a digital SLR, to get the best of both worlds.

I use a Canon EOS10D, a digital SLR, and the 28-135 IS USM lens, and IMHO its the best thing since sliced bread.

__________________
You do not use a Macintosh, instead you use a Tandy
Kompressor break your glowstick, Kompressor eat your candy
Kompressor open jaws, Kompressor release ants
Kompressor watch you scream, Because Kompressor does not dance

Craven Morehead

I've got both. ABout 7 years ago I bought a Canon Elan IIe w/ the same lens that Nefir has (which is a superb all around lens). A few years later I added the Canon 75-300 IS lens and a Canon flash unit. Superb camera. Probably a bit more than I need. But have been very happy with it.

Just last week I purchased the Canon Digital Rebel. I've been waiting for Canon to release an 'affordable' digital SLR. This is a great camera. However, its not inexpensive. Besides the purchase price, I have to add firewire to my PC and a card reader. I didn't have to upgrade my PC as it has a fast enough processor and enough disk to support photo processing/editing, but I can see where that may become an issue for someone starting out in digital. I picked up professional grade (40X) 512 mb compact flash. Minimal shutter lag, it can take four pictures in burst mode before I have to save or delete. With the 40X speed CF, the save takes about a second for a 6.3mp picture. That's a lot of detail to saved. Supposedly 8 mp (mega-pixels) is the equivalent of 35 mm film, however I'll never need that additional resolution. I'll be surprised if I ever blow anything up past 8 X 10. My color printer really should be upgraded to take advantage of the higher resolution, however I'm not planning on doing that at this time. I'll email the images to a photo center for print processing. Wal-Mart will print 4X6's for $.26 each. Not a bad price. Target and K-Mart also do this as well as many franchised photo stores.

Best of all, the two lenses I have for my Elan and the flash unit works with the Digital Rebel. Since the sensor chip in the Rebel is smaller than 35 mm film it effectively increases the focal length of your lenses by 60%. I was going to buy longer glass this year, probably 400mm at least and the cost of that lens would have been as much if not more than the Digital Rebel. So it became an easy decision for me to move to digital, although I am not abandoning film photography. I'll do both.

As far as what's best for you, I can't say. I've seen some really good prices on entry level film slrs. Just saw a Nikon advertised for under $400 and it included two lenses and a flash. That is a great price on a great entry level camera. On the other hand, my Rebel was over $900 alone w/o compact flash and computer upgrades. Check out the many fine camera sites on the web and research both methods. I nearly didn't purchase the Digital Rebel only because I know in two years the technology used in it will be out of date. However, its advanced enough and has enough resolution that I don't think I'll be hindered.

good luck

sandeep

The thing I'm facing now, is if I end up buying digital, then it won't be a high end camera. Since I've never really shot much before on either digital or manual, I don't know what I need. I've been leaning more towards a lower end digital camera with some manual features to get accustomed to. I'd rather not spend $1000 on a digital camera that I won't be able to use until its available for $200 a few years later.

Hmmmmm. this is killing me, but that seems to be more of the way I'm leaning lately.

Also, I'd rather comb through some flea markets and garage sales for an old SLR camera body for a really cheap price, and spend a little bit on a lense. The entry price of SLR seems too dramatic. Even 400 USD is about 600 CAD.


I'm going to check out some of the digital cameras mentioned here, and keep looking. Thanks for the input everyone.

As always, more is welcome.

sailor

If you want to play around, digital is probably a good choice because of its lack of developing costs. However, the major shortcoming is that digital SLRs (with the ability to change lenses) are very expensive--the cheapest one, the Canon Digital Rebel, is around 1000. Nicer ones start from 1500 and go up to about 10,000--and those are for the bodies only. Conversely, you can put together a film based system from anywhere from 200$ up. For really cheap, you can get an old fully manual camera, which will teach you a lot, but isnt very good for snapshots. I personally started on an old Nikkormat, and still have it around--its built like a tank. If you want something automatic, the Canon Rebel 2000 (there may be a newer version out now) is a very good camera, that costs around $300 with a lense. The Elan 7, the next step up, is around $400 for the body. Lenses run from about $75 for the cheap basic ones on up. A 75-300mm zoom is about $150-$200.

It really depends on how serious you are about it. I would recommend going to a camera shop that sells used cameras and getting an old manual body and lense (probably 50mm). You could do that for $200, maybe less.

__________________
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."
--Plato

Frowning Budah

I have both manual and digital, but the quality and control I get with the SLR usually wins out over the convenience of the digital. Just depends on what you are looking for and how much you have to spend.

saltfish

I have 3 35mm SLR's raning from a full manual, old-school Minolta to a Canon Rebel X to a Minolta Maxxum 7000i. I also have 3 digitals, a Sharp VELC-1, a HP 2.0Mp and a Canon a70.

Starting on a full manual is the best way to go. Once you understand all the technical aspects of a manual camera you can understand how to take perfect photos.

I have found that b/c I have had such experience with the manual I can take full advantage of the digital. If you do get a digital camera, I would suggest a camera that has FULL control, such as:
Aperature Priority
Shutter Priority
Full Manual Mode
Flash output control
Bracketing
just to name a few.

The Canon A70 is a great example of an inexpensive 3.2Mp camera that is durable, has a great optical zoom, as well as wonderful quality outputs. If you are interested I can provide you with some FULL sized shots that really show off what this camera can do.

...that, and if anyone is interested in a slightly used Canon Rebel X, I've got one for sale!


-SF

Fire

worked for a few months with a professional photographer - digital all the way- for one, we could send it direct to photoshop-
for another, you could shoot a lot more, increasing the chance of getting the good shots...

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

samiam

I use both film and digital. Film has the advantage of finer grain and the choice of films for specific purposes. Digital has the advantage of the digital darkroom possibilities and the ease of taking multiple photographs from which to choose. If you are planing to get close to your subject, a reasonable number of pixels is fine. If you plan to stand a distance from your subject, get as many pixels as you can afford.
If you're near Totonto, there is a photographic supply store named Vistex. They sell both new and used equipment and have the best trained and patient sales staff I have ever encountered. They seem to like answering questions such as yours. Good luck and have fun with whatever you buy.

Sapper

I too agree: digital!

I also use a Canon 10D and LOVE IT !! You can't beat it for less than $8'000

__________________
rm -f /bin/laden

sandeep

saltfish, I have actually been looking at the Canon a70 as one of the cameras I may buy if I go digital.

The way it looks, both within this post, and in general, I'm going to go digital.

I'm just deciding on my price range now, and the camera that I want to start with.

Thanks a bunch for the input everyone. It really helps having a few more voices to work through something that I'm not too familiar with.

I'll let you know what I decide on once I do.