Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Jonathan Wienke on April 27, 2003, 05:20:08 pm
-
Are SLR's in danger of becoming obsolete any time soon? (he felt that film will be around for a loooonnngg time)
We were discussing popularity of digitals and the reasons why. Basically, I've come to these conclusions.
The only real advantages of D over SLR are:
a) you get to view your pic immediately
2) you bypass the middle process of waiting for development by uploading images onto computer immediately
However, what I understand is digitals don't have the same quality initial photo (proficiency of photographer accounted for) compared to SLRs, and really, anything can be achieved with sofware, like Photoshop. Meaning, it's easier to fix a good SLR shot with PHotoshop than it is to improve a lesser quality digital.
2) things like lenses and filters are more limited, whereas with SLr's you can go nuts buying things forever
Upfront cost. But realisitically, say you never added any extras to an SLR and for six months used both, how much cost difference would it roughly be re SLR processing, puttting onto to CD, development, vs digital's batteries and cards.
Here's my 2 cents:
Film SLR's can produce results better than digicams (Powershot G3, Nikon Coolpix 5000, etc.) but there are some significant caveats:
1. You need to buy high-grade film, like Fuji Reala 100(negative) or Sensia (slide). Cost: $4-8 per 36 frame roll. The normal Kodak Gold 400 you can get at Wal-Mart isn't going to deliver the goods.
2. You need to buy a good film scanner that can scan negatives at 2400 DPI or better, and learn how to use it. Cost: $400-3,000, depending on quality and features. The pictures on a CD you get from Wal-Mart, etc. are usually 1536x1024 pixels, which is 1.5 megapixels. Not high quality at all.
If you are serious about wanting picture quality and want flexibility and upgradability get a DSLR, like the Canon 10D or D60, the Nikon D100, or the Fuji S2. All of these take Canon or Nikon's standard lenses and filters and are capable of excellent image quality. I know you said that you weren't in the market for one of these, but consider this:
Film Setup (Equipment + 2,000 shots film & processing)
Nikon N80 kit $499
Minolta DiMAGE Scan Multi II $550
28 rolls of Fuji Reala 100 negative film: $336
Processing (single 4x6 prints) $380
Total: $1765
If you aren't willing to spend this kind of cash on this level of film SLR equipment, then you will get results inferior to the decent digicams (Powershot G3, Coolpix 5700,etc.).
You could take the $1765 and get a Canon 10D and a couple of 256 MB memory cards. Notice I am not including things like lenses, tripods, filters, or printers, because you will need them whether you go film or digital. I am not a pro photographer, but I owned a Kodak DC4800 3.1 megapixel digicam for 2 years and managed to take about 11,000 frames with it during that time. I'll let you do the math on what that would have cost in film and developing. I learned a lot about photography from those 11,000 frames that I would never have if I used film.
Digital is to film what CDs are to cassette tapes. Point-and-shoot digital image quality is better than point-and-shoot film, and SLR digital quality is better than SLR film. SLR film quality can be better than point-and-shoot digital, but the total equipment costs, film, and processing will cost you more than SLR digital in the long run. And it's a lot more hassle to scan film than it is to pop a memory card into a reader. Any speck of dust on the negative means touch-up in Photoshop.
Just for the record, I got started in photography using a Pentax K1000 manual 35mm film camera, then got the Kodak DC4800 digicam. I recently sold the DC4800 and am back to using 35mm film with a Canon EOS Rebel TI film camera temporarily until my EOS-1Ds arrives (all the accessories I got for the 1Ds will work with the Rebel, so I at least have some kind of camera in the meantime). Going back to film after 2 years of digital freedom has been one of the most frustrating episodes in my life, except for the time some gang people were stalking me because I ratted out their friends to the police after they beat the crap out of some of my neighbors with sawed-off baseball bats...but that's another story for another time in another forum. Oh, yeah, and my divorce and the ensuing child custody battle.
-
I bought a powershot A70 for my son for his birthday. It is a 3.2megapixel camera so the resolution is a bit limited. However I was astounded at the flexibility this camera has. I would suggest that because of the various shooting and metering modes, it is a better learning camera than an SLR because of the instant feedback. This may sound a bit like heresy to many individuals, however I have been using SLRs since 1972 so I am not uninformed. Any camera that has evaluative centre weighted, spot metering along with manual exposure and focussing cannot be all bad. About the only thing it does not have is remote flash capability, however I could use the built in flash to trigger my sb 28 in auto mode for off camera flash in manual exposure mode. My two bits worth.
-
(PS Jonathon, you don't need a camera, you need a witness protection program and an attorney! Sorry that you're going through it, though. With the amount of action in your life, maybe you should consider shooting movies instead of stills?) _
Actually that stuff happened several years ago; I got the gang folks off my back by going down to the local shooting range and swiss-cheesing the bullseye of a paper target with my Desert Eagle .44 Magnum (http://www.magnumresearch.com/), (click on "Firearms & Accessories", then "Mark VII Pistols" to see the gun I have) and then taping the target to my front door. After cruising by my house a few times, they decided following me around wasn't fun for them any more and left me alone after that. The child custody thing didn't work out so well--my ex and son live in South Dakota now. But life goes on...
-
I've heard the odd person comment on the slightly cold look of digital images.
An image being "cold" has nothing to do with it being digital or film. It's a issue of color temperature, proper illumination, etc. If they shot that image in a raw file format, all they'd have to to is pop the color temp a little higher. Sweet.
There is one other nice interesting difference between shooting film or digital. With film, you have all of these different stocks to play with, that in a sense, completely alter how your camera sees light. It can be quite fun to see how Kodak's 100S handles a brightly lit landscape vs a indoor macro shot, for example. Likewise, with digital, you have raw files, which open the door to all sorts of experimentation (exposure, color temp, saturation adjustment) -- it's like have one multiple-master of a film stock! Either way, you win.
-
(cw. who doesn't own a gun. Or even a camera to shoot with, at the moment).
Cafewriter, I hope you are joking. If not, please visit the UK where we are blissfully ignorant of gun use - apart from the drug gangs killing each other that is.
Erik, of course I've had disaster shoots, I'm a pure amateur.
I was taking pictures of a Provencal hill top village in very difficult lighting conditions recently. Despite bracketing by more than two stops I didn't really have a single image (in 36) that cut it. On the same trip, I found an amazing old chapel. I was shooting at the end of the day hence fast changing but beautiful light. There was a bush next to the chapel which didn't look that great to the eye. I tried every angle to create a pleasing composition. Don't forget the light was changing every minute. At the end of it all, I had a couple of nice compositions with vanilla sky and a couple with radiant light but crappy composition. I think instant feedback would have helped in both cases.
Jonathan, I totally reject your analogy.
I have very successful photographer friends who use Leica, Hasselblad, Imacon and film. Whereas I take your point that transfering film to digital via a scanner degrades the quality, I don't think you could honestly look at one of their prints and say it equated to music on cassette!
You are over cooking your argument so much it becomes a non argument IMO.
A cassette is the lowest quality you can use to record music onto. Your analogy is just nonesense.
-
ok, I've had a lot to chew over, as Dan S said. Even forgetting my personal prefences, the argument seems to side with digital. Onto some replies.
Dan S asked me if I want to dark room developl.
No, I don't have the facilities. It would have to be somebody else, in which case, the 'local place', quality would vary.
He goes on to suggest slide projection; which sounds like a good idea, except, and assuming I am correct that you mean the old fashioned type family and dog gatherings on the livign room wall, sounded good, except that is not practical in my place.
Digital lends itself to viewing via laptops, and prints: no laptop, but I do want to make prints, above standard size.
At first I viewed the argument that viewing the pic immediately was in part just a case of instant gratificatio; therefore I was prepared to wait, if it meant better quality. J Warthman pointed out that that the person I spoke to in the shop clearly hadn't tried much of digital, and he's right. He was a Nikon man through and through, and eventually moved me around to the Canon Elan 7. JWarthman also made the very good point which was echoed later on that there would be a change over a learnign curve again, because that's the way of the future. Excellent point. One up for the digis.
Someone here suggested I get a camera like this, and get a cheap snap and shoot digi for the fun pics. That was the way I was heading. Since then, however, a number of arguments and points have come up.
JWarthman again starts off the point of experimentation with a digi..several other people mention it also later on. Many talk about taking a lot more shots; JW (guns aside) further talked me around with breakdown of the cost of reasonable SLR equipment, which had me balking, and compared that if I wouldn't spend that money on an SLR equipment, then the results would be inferior even to the G#, Coolpix 5700 etc). He then talks about the 11,000 frames he took with his 3.2 digicam and the learning he did got in that time.
Once again, the argument is coming through clearly that digicams encourage much more picture taking and experimentation, but what struck me most was the learning people got out of this, it wasn't just a case of instant gratification for the sake of it at all.
Dansroka mentions no dark room and chemicals...big factor for me.
Chrisso says he regrets not owning one, and once again the doing lots of photography and the instant feedback as a learning tool is once again hit home to me.
Ray adds to this, with mention about all the time spent scanning, and wouldn't he rather be out taking pictures? a resounding.....YES!!!!
Me so far? Great suggestions, guys, but
at this stage, though DSLR is still out of price range, and the instant gratification part of me is no longer willing to wait for a camera.
JW, although I'm a novice at this, I too questioned the validity of the analogy you drew between audio and film, and that argument was met by Chrisso, more in the know than I; however, you sold me completely on the dust issue, the price of a SLR set up, the cost of scanner and assorted other important and well-put thoughts.
Just to make this all come to thread, on Tuesday I happened across an article in the WSJ, (which I rarely read), on the state of this argument, and once again, it seems digital wins.
But still can't do the DSLR thing.
So, it's down to this. I think digital, and get the really cheap, old SLR so that I can appreciate the Zen experience, as Dale put it, ( I loved that expression), put the few $ I do have into a better, but not DSLR digicam.
Now, fellas, the question is, which?
JW mentions the Coolpix 5700, I'd seen the Canon G3, there's also a Nikon running around with reasonable reviews, too. (no time to look it up right now) I also liked the Olympus C5050 for some reason. (5 mpx).
And while we're at it, any suggestions on a ligher model (I know some of those older ones can be real clunkers) good old second hand SLR that would be good to learn with? So, is there any camera worth a look at which has the most flexibility in terms of lens add-ons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
thanks again, all
Cafewriter
-
Cafewriter: A few quick points (including two meta-comments, 'cuz that's the kinda guy I am).
1) This forum has a vocal preponderance of digital favourers. Just as matter and anti-matter nuked it out a few microseconds after the Big Bang and matter won, so on this forum digital and film duked it out a few microseconds after the turn of the Millenium and digital won. If you had started your thread in a pro-film universe - I mean forum - you would have gotten a different slant. (Not better; not worse; just different.)
2) You talk about limited facilities; I get the impression you travel. Since you rule out slide projection (yes it takes the space for a screen and projector), are you in a situation in which you can sit down for a few hours each time you get a new roll of film you want to scan? Otherwise, you won't have a very satisfying view of your work until your next session with the scanner. With 35mm slide film the only other option is to put a slide on a light box (or hold it up to a good light) then peer at it through a loupe.
3) If you can afford a G3 or similar, you can afford a used Canon D30, which is a 3 mp dSLR. dSLR pixels are better than digicam pixels, so those 3 mp will take you up to about a 10" x 15" print for most frames, and larger still for close-ups. There is an excellent review of the D30 right here on this site. I am not - repeat not - recommending you buy a D30 (or any other camera for that matter) - just pointing out an option for the sake of completeness.
4) This thread is starting to degenerate into one of those how-many-politicians-can-tapdance-on-the-tip-of-a-campaign-promise debates that seems to be the inevitable fate of threads on this forum. To revive it, you'll need to introduce another fundamental question such as Canon vs. Nikon, prime vs. zoom, or tripod vs. handheld.
*
Chrisso: Thanks! And I'm right behind you. Let's give these caffeine and Coors types a miss and head for the nearest cask-conditioned pub.
-
I use the Nikon Coolpix 5000 at work for taking pictures of products that go on our company's web site. I find it much more annoying to use than my former Kodak DC4800 or my newly-acquired 1Ds. Some of the buttons are set up very strangely; for example, there is a button used to set up a 10 second shutter delay, it is also used for deleting images. I would much rather have separate buttons. But once you get past the inspired-by-bad-crack-trip user interface, it can take fairly decent pictures.
-
Hi all,
This is going to please some of the pros out there, but I am starting to have a total rethink about a digital camera altogether and go for an SLR. Reason? Having talked to a photo guy about it today, he feels that and SLR would allow me the room to grow into the camera that I know I would need, and there is so much more you can do with them. It started out like this:
A guy in the shop had me virtually sold on the Canon G3, but it's a tad pricey. I'm a newbie, I haven't had a camera in years, but I'm the sort where I know that once I get going, I will want to play around with all sorts of features etc, so feel straight point and shoot isn't going to be enough. The same thing happened when I got my first PC. The guy in the shop under-sold me for my needs; the moment I got it I set about mastering and learning about it feverishly. In 3 months, I outgrew the computer. So, knowing this about myself, I want to make sure I get enough advanced features so that once I get up to speed, I can keep going for a while--I I am liable to read everything I can on photography, take a course etc. Yet, I can't afford to go hi-end pro. What I liked about the G3: I liked the feel of the camera in my hands, not too heavy, but something I could 'grip' onto. I think I liked having some 'body' to it. I also particularly liked the fold-away LCD to keep it from scratching. I will be mostly taking outdoor scenes, plus would like to do close-ups of flowers and birds. Will be printing, too. Because birds have a tendency to move, I think I need something that would be able to capture movement. He also recommended it to me because he had had nothing but good reports about it.
However, talking to another guy in another shop, explaining my needs, he felt that going SLR would be better.
Since I'm not in the market $ to get a digital/SLR, it's still a choice which way to go. So here's some q's:
Are SLR's in danger of becoming obsolete any time soon? (he felt that film will be around for a loooonnngg time)
We were discussing popularity of digitals and the reasons why. Basically, I've come to these conclusions.
The only real advantages of D over SLR are:
a) you get to view your pic immediately
2) you bypass the middle process of waiting for development by uploading images onto computer immediately
However, what I understand is digitals don't have the same quality initial photo (proficiency of photographer accounted for) compared to SLRs, and really, anything can be achieved with sofware, like Photoshop. Meaning, it's easier to fix a good SLR shot with PHotoshop than it is to improve a lesser quality digital.
2) things like lenses and filters are more limited, whereas with SLr's you can go nuts buying things forever
Upfront cost. But realisitically, say you never added any extras to an SLR and for six months used both, how much cost difference would it roughly be re SLR processing, puttting onto to CD, development, vs digital's batteries and cards.
3) he said digital are less robust generally, more fragile technology.
4) they're trendy, they're the latest thing, so that's in part accounts for the popularity
any further thoughts/clarifications??
Yes, I know you can get good shots with the digis coming out now, ( I had my heart set on the Canon G3), but having now looked at the Canon EOS Elan 7E, and what I can do with it, I'm now changing my mind. Good quality prints are important to me, but I also want to upload. Is putting on CD rom the only way to do this with SLR's?
The only thing I had with the Canon 7E was just ever so slightly large for my small hands, (whereas he showed me Nikon N80 SLR which was really comfortable). Any suggestions on similar features in a model just slightly smaller?
Where can I now go to get SLR advice?
If anyone thinks I still could do fantastic work with digital and to go for the Canon g3, then please argue me back around to digital. Otherwise, SLR lovers, direction, please?
(this is my first camera purchase since many years)
thanks
-
I totally agree with every word of the replies you've gotten so far. I'm one of the few people on this forum who still shoot film. If, like me, you had already invested in film equipment, you would certainly be happy with the results you'd get. But to start fresh at this time, the cost of a scanner offsets the apparent lower price of a 35mm camera body. You may have been thinking to have your film developed and printed at the corner store. This is fine for snapshots, but if you are thinking along artistic lines - forget it.
However, there is one film approach that actually does make good sense given your needs - slides. Buy a used 35mm SLR - you really don't need auto-this and auto-that - plus a used 50mm lens. Buy and read the book Nature Photography or Landscape Photography by John Shaw, before buying anything. Shooting slide film for a year or three will teach you photography from the ground up and from the inside out. You would also buy a slide projector and projection screen, which many people find to be a very satisfying way to view their work. Prints are possible using slide film, and you have the advantage of having the slide itself as a reference for colour accuracy (which is a big issue with negative film).
One thing I do like about this approach is that it has a divide-and-conquer aspect. You spend your first year or two solely focused on image capture; where with scanning or digital you'd be trying to master editing and printing along with capture.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not encouraging you to go this route; I'm just saying that it is a viable option. For what it's worth, I don't think you'd outgrow a G3 in a few months. It takes that long just to read the manual. I'd put my money on the G3 lasting you at least a year. At that time you could sell it second-hand or keep it as a very useful back-up and carry everywhere camera. Another thing about the G3 is that it is not a toy camera. It may or may not be a good fit for the areas of photography that you end up concentrating on, but it is definitely a serious photographic tool. As an art photographer, I could spend the rest of my life using a G3 and turning out professional-quality images without ever feeling road-blocked by the camera itself - or at least no more road-blocked by the G3 than by any other single camera.
-
I am really torn on this one; my sub-G3 class digicam gets used more than my technically superior 35mm film SLR, but I trained on a beloved Pentax K-1000, and see a lot of virtue in learning photography on a camera that allows you to do it all yourself. The G3 has a lot of flexibility, but manual focus and wide angle are still drawbacks.
Do not worry too much about extremes of image quality; you can get to good 8x10" prints with either a cheap 35mm plus wise (not necessarily expensive) lens choices or with a good 3 or 4MP digicam, and then upgrade when you know better which way you want to go photographically. Upgrading is a fact of modern electronic life!
So:
On one hand, I second or third the idea that a serious student of photography seek a low priced 35mm film camera, and add the idea that it be MANUAL FOCUS ONLY (unless action photography is a big issue for you), since that is probably the only affordable way to get good viewfinder focusing aids like split image and microprism collar and a nice big, bright viewfinder image. Go for a brand that will also let you use current AF lenses on the MF body (almost any but Canon!?) since MF lens choices are shrinking into the extremes of second hand and expensive high end.
On the other hand, perhaps you could add a cheap digicam too, maybe telling yourself that it is just for emailing snapshots to friends and relatives; the total price of both camera kits could be less than the G3 kit alone, and you would get to make comparisons. You could try using the digicam for "proofing", to test and immediately review many approaches to a subject, and then put a few of the most promising ideas on slides.
-
Wow! I am blown away by the caliber and quality of the replies! What can I say? Lots of things to think about, consider, very useful. Thanks guys! What a bag of gems! The spirit out there is just wonderful. In fact, I thought the replies so good, I printed them out and am going through them more thoroughly. Im going to respond to parts, but will need to do that in a day or so. In the meantime, here's the sitch: where I live there are no camera dealers. Right now, I am in San Diego, and want to take full advantage of being here to do the camera sho/get infor. Is there anyone,a dealer or someone who knows his stuff, I go and talk to in San Diego downtown, or near Oceanside/Point Loma?
thanks again,
Cafewriter
(PS Jonathon, you don't need a camera, you need a witness protection program and an attorney! Sorry that you're going through it, though. With the amount of action in your life, maybe you should consider shooting movies instead of stills?) _
best,
Cafewriter
-
wow!
Looks like I started something! (still to get back to all of you, I'm in transit mode).
What I like about this board, and I haven't been on many sites, is the quality of the info, the input, and the debate. (as a writer, I enjoy debate, though I'll stay out of the gun issue). This really is an exciting time for technology, as far as I can glean so far. (and I've only been really researching this for about a week). I did like the book recommendation, that is extremely helpful. Which magazines/periodicals would anyone suggest? Again, I'm looking at doing nature photog.
cheers all,
Cafeontherunwriter
-
>>Jonathan, I totally reject your analogy.
I have very successful photographer friends who use Leica, Hasselblad, Imacon and film. Whereas I take your point that transfering film to digital via a scanner degrades the quality, I don't think you could honestly look at one of their prints and say it equated to music on cassette!<<
Jonathan,
I have to agree with Chrisso. A drum scanned 35mm or MF tranny printed on a lightjet is in another world from a home scanned 35mm print or an optical MF print. Printed using the right techniques, a properly sized print from an MF slide exhibits virtually no visible grain. Also, a professional drum scan from an outfit specializing (like West Coast Imaging) in fine art landscape work does not return a file with inaccurate color.
-
Hey guys!
It's taken me ages to find a computer so I can talk to you all again.
Chrisso wrote:
Cafewriter, I hope you are joking. If not, please visit the UK where we are blissfully ignorant of gun use - apart from the drug gangs killing each other that is.
No I don't own a gun. I am blissfully ignorant of gun use, too.
(we have more sun than you! post-Aussie). :D :p
CW:
I've been following this thread with great interest and have one question for you: How much are you intending to spend for your equipment?
well, that was dependent upon what I GET. You see, I'm an easy-sell. I like to have a rough ball-park idea, but I am very easily upgradable, if I can see the advantage in it. In other words, tell me what I get for my $, what I can do, and then I'll FIND the money. (within reason, if you know what I mean).
I ask because you may be assuming that you can't afford a DSLR (and I'm guessing that's what you would really like).
You not only guess right,k you are psychic as well. New career awaits you, my friend.
I just checked KEH's web site and they have a used D30 for $849 (US).
A G3 will probably set you back around $600. A film SLR body (assuming you want auto focus) may be $250 (a SWAG). Between the two you've just about equalled the cost of the D30. Yes, you still need a lens for the D30 but then you'll need one for your film-based SLR as well.
Excellent point. And thanx for doing a little legwork. I'm normally attached to a computer by IV, but in travel mode at the moment, (you only get 1 hour computer time at these libraries...sod it!)
Just a few more things for you to chew on. :-)
chew, chew, chew, (hey, what's that bit of cork doing in my Merlot?)
JW : Interesting point, there are numerous D30's listed on E-Bay for around $500. Hmmm...
It's not the state of the art, but it does take good pictures, it is digital, and all of the lenses and most accessories for the D30 will work just fine if you upgraded to a 10D or a 1Ds later on.
SHHHH!!! You guys! Email the bargains to me privately, or else everyone will be rushing in to buy them.
thanks Johnno.
Cafewriter: A few quick points (including two meta-comments, 'cuz that's the kinda guy I am).
Meta denotes change, so since it's inevitable...go for it..
This forum has a vocal preponderance of digital favourers
yes
If you had started your thread in a pro-film universe - I mean forum - you would have gotten a different slant. (Not better; not worse; just different.)
Yes, I've been looking at a few others, starting to see that. It's all good.
You talk about limited facilities; I get the impression you travel.
At the moment I'm on holiday,yes. But the place I live has no wall space to swing a cat at.
Since you rule out slide projection (yes it takes the space for a screen and projector), are you in a situation in which you can sit down for a few hours each time you get a new roll of film you want to scan?
I suppose you mean do I have the time or the inclination....who are you kidding, that kind of self-indulgence?
Absolutely!
If you can afford a G3 or similar, you can afford a used Canon D30
I'm getting the message thx.
, which is a 3 mp dSLR. dSLR pixels are better than digicam pixels, so those 3 mp will take you up to about a 10" x 15" print for most frames, and larger still for close-ups. There is an excellent review of the D30 right here on this site. I am not - repeat not - recommending you buy a D30 (or any other camera for that matter) - just pointing out an option for the sake of completeness.
No no, if you even attempted to do that, I would have my shopping my lawyer after you.
This thread is starting to degenerate into one of those how-many-politicians-can-tapdance-on-the-tip-of-a-campaign-promise debates that seems to be the inevitable fate of threads on this forum.
I'd like to see them Limbo, instead.
To revive it, you'll need to introduce another fundamental question such as Canon vs. Nikon, prime vs. zoom, or tripod vs. handheld.
Ok, how's this one for a start. I finally got to a shop, and the guy there is a semi-pro and recommended the G3 even over the Coolpix 5700. He said the 5700, in HIS opinion, (so you can get your shopping lawyer onto him, not me) , even though it was 5 mpx, was not as user friendly.
As for the last q's, someone will have to start that one for me.
Chrisso: Thanks! And I'm right behind you. Let's give these caffeine and Coors types a miss and head for the nearest cask-conditioned pub.
Can I come too?
Cafewriter
Once again, you guys are awesome, even when you're arguing. Nice being here.
-
To be facetious for a moment, "a properly sized print from my old Instamatic exhibits virtually no visible grain". But it has to be a rather small print (as Instamatic prints were!)
BJL,
You understand my point exactly. If you want to migrate to larger and larger print sizes with no grain or loss in detail you move up in film or sensor size. No one should knock film just becuase their 35mm prints were never satisfying. It wasn't film that was the problem. It was the SIZE of the film they were using that was the problem. What they should have done, years ago, was move over to a larger format if their previous prints disappointed them. That seems rather basic. I own a DSLR. I would never try out a cheap P&S digital and judge digital by that measure. By the same token no person should evaluate film based on some rather poor experiences with 35mm film and some consumer grade CCD scanner.
-
Interesting point, there are numerous D30's listed on E-Bay (http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?GetResult&SortProperty=MetaHighestPriceSort&query=canon+d30&from=R8&ht=1&combine=y&st=2) for around $500. Hmmm...
It's not the state of the art, but it does take good pictures, it is digital, and all of the lenses and most accessories for the D30 will work just fine if you upgraded to a 10D or a 1Ds later on.
-
Dear cafe, (may I use your first name?),
By all means. Call me Caf for short.
(as opposed to 'cough').
I have one quirky comment on that "a used D30 costs no more than a new G3" discussion: if you, like me, expect to take a lot of photos over the moderately wide angle to moderate telephoto range, and want to avoid frequent lens changes on a DSLR (noting their problems of getting dust on the sensor) you might possibly prefer a G3 over a D30 for now, and not for the few extra pixels and nominally faster zoom lens.
The G3's lens covers the 35mm equivalent of about 34-140mm, f/2-f/3, and gets down to 28mm equiv. when you add Canon's .8X supplementary lens (about US$200: this and all other prices from the B&H web site), or down to about 24mm equiv. with a third party .7X sup.
The best all round lens option for the D30 is probably the new Canon 17-40 f/4 (35mm equiv. of 27-64mm); apparently very good quality, but limited at the tele. end, with no option of adding a sup. for more wide angle, and costing about US$800 [about Au$2000 with GST?].
Ye Gads! Yes, point (and shoot), taken. Actually AU doesn't affect me, I live in the US, that was only a comment to a Brit about the gun thingy.
Other options get a bit wider (e.g. the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-f/4.5, equiv. to 24-48mm, US$550; or the Canon 16-35 f/2.8, US$1360) but they all have a very narrow zoom range, so you might be in for a lot of lens changing.
hmmm....
It is thoughts like this that might make me get something like a G3 for now,
I think I may be back to this again, the universe is telling me. It's just as well my trip turned out a lesser event, I wanted a camera for it, but haven't needed it.
cheers & beers,
Cafewriter
(who has only two more days in less than sunny San Diego).
oh well.
Regards,
B.
Edited by BJL on May 05 2003,18:32
Back to top
-
I'm sure you will get many different opinions here, but given the choices you've listed, I would go with an entry level SLR to learn the basics. You can add lenses, filters, closeup equipment, etc, etc, as the need or interests dictate. Later on, if you still feel inclined to try digital, your lenses would still be useable. I have been involved in photography (as a hobby), and had a professionally equipped darkroom since 1959. I made the transition to digital by first scanning my film and making digital prints, and just several weeks ago adding a Canon 10D digital SLR body. I am not that familiar with the Canon G3, but I think it is basically a "point and shoot", albeit probably one of the best. I would agree the Elan 7 is a good entry level Canon (that's what I use as my Canon film body).
Good luck
Dave Gurtcheff
www.modernpictorials.com
-
It sounds to me that you are a serious hobbiest like my-self. One factor that has not been mentioned is slide projection. I really enjoy sitting around with some good friends and projecting my images using a zeiss lens on my projector. I even project my 6x6 transparencies on an old Kinderman 66 projector. Shoot slides, edit them on a even balanced light table and project them - especially velvia for landscapes! Of course this is just my opinion - if you have great images really won't matter what you use - will it????????
-
You have a lot of ideas to chew on here, so I'll just toss in a few more. Be sure to think of how you will want to work with the photos when after they are taken.
Developing: Do you want to experiement with your own darkroom? Then I'd get a film SLR and use black and white film. Do you want someone else to handle all this? Then again, a film camera works great: drop the film off at a good processor and you are set. Do you enjoy working digitally? Then go for a digital. Me, I have been doing computer graphics for years, so a digial SLR feels very comfortable to me. If you don't like sitting in front of a computer screen, then it might not be for you.
Display: Again, the same questions. Film lends itself to slide projection, and getting prints made at the local photo place. Digital lends itself to viewing images on a laptop, and making your own prints. Which is more you?
The great thing about getting more serious about photography now, is that there are so many options. With every new digital camera than comes out, there are a bunch of people who are selling off their barely-used equipment to upgrade. Gives you a great chance to pick up some high-quality used equipment.
I don't agree with BJL's comment that a serious student should only get a manual focus camera. However, he's got a good point. You could probably get a 20-30 year old manual kit for a song. And these are awesome cameras to work with -- they have a very special feel about them. I still use my Dad's old Nikon FM once and a while, to reconnect to the tradition of photography. Heck, I also give my pinhole camera a workout when I really want to go old school.
Here's some of my answers to your questions:
>>Are SLR's in danger of becoming obsolete any time soon?
No.
>>The only real advantages of D over SLR are:
>>a) you get to view your pic immediately
>>2) you bypass the middle process of waiting for development
>>by uploading images onto computer immediately
#2 is a big one -- you get to do darkroom work without chemicals.
>>However, what I understand is digitals don't have the same
>>quality initial photo (proficiency of photographer accounted for)
>>compared to SLRs
Not true. All point an shoot camera shoot "very nice" photos, whereas if you are shooting with a more advanced set up, you'll need to think more, and work more.
>>2) things like lenses and filters are more limited, whereas with
>>SLr's you can go nuts buying things forever
Only if you buy a non-SLR digital camera. The DSLRs use the same equipment (for the most part).
Dan
-
If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Actually, I did start out digital, then switched to film; and if I had to start fresh today I'd probably - if reluctantly - still opt for film. In fact, I've gone back to using my made-in-1970 Nikon F2 over my made-in-2001 F80. I don't have the pressures a pro has to crank out product. I can afford to enjoy the sensual experience of operating an all-manual camera. I have the leisure to wait half an hour for my scanner to do its thing. I have this strange idea that what I'm doing is called art and that art is a leisure-time activity and that leisure is to be enjoyed.
A camera is a toy that we play with (however much we may try to couch our play in more dignified terms). If you're going to play with a toy it might as well be the toy you really enjoy playing with - whether high-tech digital or low-tech antique.
Not only have I gone back to an F2, I'm loading it with 800 or 1600 ISO neg film and using it handheld - gasp! - to shoot landscapes. The resulting image quality is magical.
There is a certain Zen to working this way, of becoming one both with one's camera and with the land, that happens to work for me. Another person would feel that same sense of appropriateness using an 8x10 view camera on a wooden tripod and yet another person, using a D30 with an IS zoom lens. Whatever works; whatever turns your crank. The amazing thing as that truly beautiful art can be created with just about any camera in the hands of a person who is attuned to it.
-
>>I've had whole shoots that have been fruitless. That would never have happened with a DSLR. <<
Oh, yea. Blame the camera! But seriously, in what aspect was the shoot fruitless? Were you trying to do something highly experimental?
-
Digital is to film what CDs are to cassette tapes.
Jonathan,
OK, you're a gun owner but that is SOOOO biased and basically rubbish. That's like comparing a 1DS to a disposable camera.
Digital is to film as CD is to VINYL.
(Or in pro-recording, digital hard disc recording vs 2" tape)
At the top end of the audio scale there is still a full scale argument as to which sounds better.
I think tape and analogue are slightly edging it currently, however where digital wins out is on the question of convenience.
This applies to photography as well.
I'm not a DSLR owner, but the one argument that could win me over is the workflow one. I hate scanning!
I'm yet to see a debate on the aesthetic qualities of film vs digital. In music we equate it to warmth and character.
I've heard the odd person comment on the slightly cold look of digital images. I think the professionals that are most concerned with quality over convenience (probably mostly editorial or art photographers) are still using film.
Having said all that, I don't disagree with any of the previous advice to Cafe Writer. If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Lastly, I thought the initial conclusions that Cafe Writer came to were very interesting and one of the strongest arguments for film over DSLR that I've seen.
How about this one: A 6 megapixel DSLR (10D, D100, S2 Pro, etc.) is to any kind of 35mm film what the 1Ds is to 645 medium format film.
So far, the best 35mm scans I have been able to make are only slightly better in color, clarity (grain/noise), and resolution than the images I got from my Koday DC4800 P&S (POS) digicam. And that's using a L series Canon lens (the 35-350 mm f3.5.5.6L) on an EOS Rebel TI body. By the time I size the image down to where the film grain particles aren't 5 pixels wide any more, and spend 20 minutes per frame cleaning up dust spots, I've got an image that isn't much better than what I could have done with a cheap digital in the first place.
Using film and then scanning is like recording audio to tape, then digitizing the tape; you lose a significant amount of quality by adding the extra analog step. You are better off converting the light directly into bits without a bunch of intermediate analog steps. I know some people like the sound of cassettes over CD's, but I have never encountered a cassette deck that didn't have an audible level of hiss when playing at normal-to-loud volume levels, and CD's outperform cassettes in every measurable aspect of signal-to-noise ratio, total harmonic distortion, wow & flutter, etc.
The graininess of film cancels out most of its' alleged resolution advantages, and decent digital cameras (SLR or not) have more accurate color than film. I've worked with the Kodak DC4800, the Nikon Coolpix 5000, as well as other digicams, and I can usually get good color with a simple levels adjustment in Photoshop, and maybe tweaks to saturation and the like. With scanned film, I almost always have to do curves on each individual color channel to eliminate color casts in the shadows and suchlike. I have tried several scanners from different manufacturers, so I'm skeptical that it is a scanner issue. And don't even get me started on the whole dust-on-the-negative thing...
-
It's just the music cassette thing.........it's totally wrong.
I could agree if it was an equal analogy.
I work in the field of music. Tape is noisey, vinyl is inconvenient. Digital is now affordable. People are making pro quality records in their bedrooms.
So let's have an honest debate about the state of digital in the visual arts.
-
>>Jonathan, I totally reject your analogy.
I have very successful photographer friends who use Leica, Hasselblad, Imacon and film. Whereas I take your point that transfering film to digital via a scanner degrades the quality, I don't think you could honestly look at one of their prints and say it equated to music on cassette!<<
Jonathan,
I have to agree with Chrisso. A drum scanned 35mm or MF tranny printed on a lightjet is in another world from a home scanned 35mm print or an optical MF print. Printed using the right techniques, a properly sized print from an MF slide exhibits virtually no visible grain. Also, a professional drum scan from an outfit specializing (like West Coast Imaging) in fine art landscape work does not return a file with inaccurate color.
OK, granted, but you are talking about equipment/processing costs that totally change the equation here. Drum scans can cost over $100 per frame, Lightjet prints are not exactly cheap, either, and if you want to buy the equipment to do them yourself, you need to take out another mortgage on the house. So that is meaninless in the context of someone who can't afford $2000 or so for a 6 MP DSLR setup.
I stand by my contention that film as an intermediate step in the photons-to-bits process will reduce quality. In case you haven't noticed, the founder of this site sold off his medium-format equipment after buying the 1Ds, because the 1Ds, using 35mm sized lenses & sensor, can record images that rival the best quality drum-scanned medium format film has to offer. If you put a digital sensor with the same pixel density, quality, and dynamic range as that found in the 1Ds, and put it in a Hasselblad or Leica, you can achieve image quality better than that possible by scanning a piece of film of the same size. Adding an analog step into the photons-to-bits cannot improve image quality, only degrade it.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying that all film images are crap (like music on cassette tape), what I am saying is that if you take a Leica or Hasselblad film camera, and replaced the film with a equal-sized digital sensor of 1Ds quality, that same lens/camera would produce images of a higher quality than would be possible by using film as the recording media and scanning the film. And the magnitude of the quality difference between the photons-to-bits image vs. the photons-to-film-to-bits image would be substantial.
-
Point taken, I did not mean to imply that all film images are crap (the work of Ansel Adams certainly is not crap). $49/frame for drum scans is still a little expensive for someone operating within the budgetary constraints specified at the beginning ot this thread, though.
-
Interesting point, B. When a point and shoot has a good lens (like Sony's use of Zeiss) and enough resolution, you can get some beautiful shots. I have a Sony F707 which I take on hikes and trips, and I am always impressed at how well some of the shots come out. Not always as good as I could do with my Nikon D100, but often very very close.
It all depends on what you want to shoot, your budget, etc. A good point and shoot digital can have some nifty advantages. If you are into candid street photography, a low-profile P&S can get you shots before anyone notices. If you hike a lot, a P&S is much easier to carry. If you shoot in dry dusty places, the sealed nature of a P&S keeps you from getting dust on the CCD. Etc, etc., etc.
I'm actually now looking for a good SMALL P&S to replace my 707, something I can palm, pocket, and keep with me at all times.
Dan
-
cafewriter,
First, let me say that I have nothing against film or those who choose film over digital!
The G3 seems like a very good non-SLR digital, but you're right about its relatively limited "growth" potential. Similarly, a few years ago I was considering a move to digital, and the sales guy at the camera shop convinced me to wait for what turned out to be the Canon D30. I'm glad I did!
I think you should adjust your terms a bit. When you talk about "digital" you seem to be referring to the non-SLR cameras like the G3. When you talk about "SLRs" you seem to be referring to film bodies. It would be less confusing if you kept to terms like "film" or "film-based SLR" and "digital" or "digital SLR" (DSLR) instead.
Your "advantages of digital" are true, as far as they go. But it's clearly a list made by someone without the benefit of having done a good deal of digital work. I'm sure others will weigh-in, but I would add these other benefits of shooting digital:
* The low cost of shooting & immediate feedback both encourage experimentation - have become a better photographer as a result.
* The histogram and "exposure warning" help fine-tune exposures - I find this to be better than relying solely on the meter.
* I'm shooting more and sharing more than I ever did with film. It's much quicker and easier to put up a web page after a digital shoot. Yes, with film I could get it processed and scanned, but that's much more work, IMO!
You've been led to believe that 35mm film will produce results that are superior to (non-SLR) digital cameras. That's probably true for the most part - depending upon how large you intend to print. For example, I bet you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a 4 x 6" print made from 35mm negative and one made from a G3. If you were to make 16 x 20" prints from the same sources, the difference would be more evident. Whether you would prefer the print made from film isn't necessarily clear, though!
Okay, let me get to the bottom line. It sounds as though you're serious about doing photography, and (as evidenced with your PC experience) you're likely going to be adding accessories to your camera to allow you to more flexibility in your shooting. I personally think you would be best served with a digital SLR. This will give you tremendous flexibility, and the advantages (and disadvanteges :-) of a digital workflow. For most photographers, the future is digital. Period. If you're just now starting into photography, I strongly suggest that you take the digital path. Aside from your choice of camera, you'll need to set up a workflow that works for you. Maybe you'll use Photoshop (I suspect most photographers do), and you'll need to figure out things like how to get the best prints and how to archive your images. There are many, many good resources on the web to assist - including The Luminous Landscape! But IMO you should get started with the whole digital process, then gradually add to your camera gear. That way you're always moving, more or less, in the same direction. If you start with film, you're virtually guaranteeing that you'll need to make a dramatic change somewhere down the road.
There are several good DSLRs from which to choose. You could go for the Canon 10D, which is probably the *best value* today. It makes outstanding images, and can take the same lenses as Canon's other SLR cameras, both film and digital. If you don't want to spend ~$1,500 on the camera body, consider getting a used D30 or D60 for considerably less. These cameras, too, make excellent images. I know personally of a D30 that recently sold for ~$1,000 - including the versatile 28-135mm IS lens. Either way, your investment in lenses and other accessories will remain viable into the future, if you decide to upgrade to a different Canon DSLR down the road.
Of course you could go with a Canon film-based SLR, and the same applies: your lenses etc. will remain useful when you make the switch to a Canon DSLR. But if you take this route, you'll be investing in the whole film-based workflow which you'll have to "unlearn" later.
For me, the choice is clear. Spend a bit more now (or after you've saved a bit more), and go with a digital SLR.
I suspect others will have a different view, and as they say, your mileage may vary!
Hope This Helps!
-- Jim
-
I also agree with most of the advice so far. Dale's suggestion of shooting slides with a second hand camera and lens sounds like a good temporary measure if money is a problem. DSLRs can only go one way, ie. get better and more affordable. However, at some point I think you're going to want to digitise such slides, especially if you take too many good ones :) if for no other reason than to preserve them.
I find that scanning slides or negatives at high resolution and bit depth can be very slow and time consuming, especially if you give individual attention to each frame. So it's not just the money for equipment that's involved, but your time. Quite often I ask myself, when scanning some of the many slides that I took years ago, would I not rather be out shooting pictures and experimenting with my D60?
-
P. S. to my last post; I just noticed your (cafewriter's) comment about close-ups of flowers and birds. My experience with flowers is that precise manual focusing is needed here, since auto-focus often picks the wrong part of the flower, and that this is one thing that digicams are worst at --- but the G3 has an improved MF system, so have you or anyone else tested its manual close-up focusing performance? Bird photos on the other hand might favor AF, but suffer from the longish shutter lag of a digicam, even a good one like the G3.
-
Digital is to film what CDs are to cassette tapes.
Jonathan,
OK, you're a gun owner but that is SOOOO biased and basically rubbish. That's like comparing a 1DS to a disposable camera.
Digital is to film as CD is to VINYL.
(Or in pro-recording, digital hard disc recording vs 2" tape)
At the top end of the audio scale there is still a full scale argument as to which sounds better.
I think tape and analogue are slightly edging it currently, however where digital wins out is on the question of convenience.
This applies to photography as well.
I'm not a DSLR owner, but the one argument that could win me over is the workflow one. I hate scanning!
I'm yet to see a debate on the aesthetic qualities of film vs digital. In music we equate it to warmth and character.
I've heard the odd person comment on the slightly cold look of digital images. I think the professionals that are most concerned with quality over convenience (probably mostly editorial or art photographers) are still using film.
Having said all that, I don't disagree with any of the previous advice to Cafe Writer. If I owned no camera equipment I would probably start by going the digital route.
Lastly, I thought the initial conclusions that Cafe Writer came to were very interesting and one of the strongest arguments for film over DSLR that I've seen.
-
Dale,
I'm with you all the way.
I do have regrets about not owning a digital camera though.
A friend of mine has just bought one. Since he's had it he's been bombarding all of his friends with email attachments of all his shots. 1. He's obviously doing a lot of shooting, 2. He's obviously happy enough with the results to want to share them with everybody.
My other regret is not having the instant feedback. I really think it would be a great learning tool.
I've had whole shoots that have been fruitless. That would never have happened with a DSLR.
-
Ok, here's the sitch: where I live there are no camera stores, so I haven't been able to research this much. (which is why I'm here).
I've just hit San Diego, and want to take the opportunity to put this to bed, while I'm here. Any recommendations for someone who knows their stuff I can visit in San Diego downtown or great dealers?
(cw. who doesn't own a gun. Or even a camera to shoot with, at the moment). Also, I was blown awayn by the cost of set-up for an SLR. (good points, JW). Ok, models, choices, Im very happy to go second hand everything. Good point about the cost of the scanner offsetting other costs. Also, any recommendations for books, magazines, people, mentors, courses, and a guaranteed cure for wrinkles?
-
a properly sized print from an MF slide exhibits virtually no visible grain. [edited to add the author's screen name]
To be facetious for a moment, "a properly sized print from my old Instamatic exhibits virtually no visible grain". But it has to be a rather small print (as Instamatic prints were!)
To be a bit more serious, if you want to fairly compare imaging technology options, you need to specify various print or projection sizes in relation to viewing distances, and then argue which looks better under these conditions, rather than making claims about one option achieving "perfection" under unspecified viewing conditions.
For my aging eyes, "perfection" now comes with only about 2000 camera pixels per viewing distance, and several lens makers have stated a comparable but slightly stricter design goal. Also, 10" is as close as I can comfortably go, and is also a common reference close viewing distance. So my starting point for digital to film comparisons might be a 6MP (2000x3000 pixel) image, printed for viewing from as close as 10 inches, which for my eyes requires 200 pixels per inch, giving a 10"x15" print; that "10x15 from 10" reproduces the angular field of view of a 24mm wide angle lens in 35mm format, and is as big (in angular size) as I personally am likely to want to view my prints. I am sure that a sufficiently big film format can match or exceed that, my main resolution question in film/digital comparisons is how big, and I do not know.
On the other hand, some of this is about setting a personal standard to use when comparing equipment options; for one thing, better eyes resolve 3000pixels/viewing distance or more. People who care a lot about what a wide variety of viewers think obviously need a stricter standard than a self-centered hobbyist like me.
-
Dear cafe, (may I use your first name?),
I have one quirky comment on that "a used D30 costs no more than a new G3" discussion: if you, like me, expect to take a lot of photos over the moderately wide angle to moderate telephoto range, and want to avoid frequent lens changes on a DSLR (noting their problems of getting dust on the sensor) you might possibly prefer a G3 over a D30 for now, and not for the few extra pixels and nominally faster zoom lens.
The G3's lens covers the 35mm equivalent of about 34-140mm, f/2-f/3, and gets down to 28mm equiv. when you add Canon's .8X supplementary lens (about US$200: this and all other prices from the B&H web site), or down to about 24mm equiv. with a third party .7X sup.
The best all round lens option for the D30 is probably the new Canon 17-40 f/4 (35mm equiv. of 27-64mm); apparently very good quality, but limited at the tele. end, with no option of adding a sup. for more wide angle, and costing about US$800 [about Au$2000 with GST?].
Other options get a bit wider (e.g. the Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-f/4.5, equiv. to 24-48mm, US$550; or the Canon 16-35 f/2.8, US$1360) but they all have a very narrow zoom range, so you might be in for a lot of lens changing.
It is thoughts like this that might make me get something like a G3 for now, and wait on a DSLR until someone offers a standard zoom lens of more convenient range, say the equivalent of a 24-70mm or 28-105mm. There is a rumour of a forthcoming Nikon DX in this class, and the forthcoming first Olympus 4/3" system camera will have a 28-108mm equiv. lens option, which might also be usable with an Olympus .8x sup. lens to get to about 23mm equiv. But if we always waited on rumoured future products, we would never buy any digital camera!
Regards,
B.
-
CW:
I've been following this thread with great interest and have one question for you: How much are you intending to spend for your equipment?
I ask because you may be assuming that you can't afford a DSLR (and I'm guessing that's what you would really like). I just checked KEH's web site and they have a used D30 for $849 (US).
A G3 will probably set you back around $600. A film SLR body (assuming you want auto focus) may be $250 (a SWAG). Between the two you've just about equalled the cost of the D30. Yes, you still need a lens for the D30 but then you'll need one for your film-based SLR as well.
Just a few more things for you to chew on. :-)
Bruce
-
Drum scans can cost over $100 per frame,
Jonathan,
A 200MB Tango drum scan from one of the USA's premiere fine art landscape printing and scanning outfits, West Coast Imaging, costs only 49.95. A 14x19 inch 8bit image is only 84megs, so you could get by with a 100mb scan that costs only 39.95! NancyScans in NYC has similar prices.
Anyway, I do own a DSLR as part of my arsenal, so to speak, so I'm hardly anti-digital. I simply meant to make the point that, handled correctly, film, and especially the larger film formats, are still capable of awesome results.