0

Digital SLR or Film SLR

Forums > Photographic discussion > Digital SLR or Film SLR

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Leave a Comment
    First · Prev | 1 | Next · Last
    H_brown
    10
    33 forum posts
    2 Mar 2002 - 9:06 PM
    0

    I'm facing something of a dilemma. I'm quite new to photography, and have been following the developments of digital SLR's with great interest. I'd obviously love to own one of the new D60's or D100's but can't justify the cost as I am only an amateur. I don't want to have to put up with a consumer digital camera, like the coolpix 5000, as I know that they can't match the performance of an SLR (either film or digital).

    So what I'm thinking now is to forget digital till the prices have dropped to a reasonable level, and just use a basic film slr. Anyone think I would be making a mistake and should instead just save up for a digital SLR? Perhaps with the D60 announcement D30's will reach the less than 1000 price point second hand.

    If I'm shooting only two or three films a month I'm guessing the cost saving of digital won't really be a factor. Or am I missing something.

    Someone please help Smile

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    2 Mar 2002 - 9:06 PM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    mebbesen73
    2 Mar 2002 - 10:29 PM
    0

    I would get a film SLR, and since you are hooked on getting a digital SLR down the line, why not get a Nikon or a Canon. Then when you can afford a digital SLR you allready have some lenses, you also can use with a digital SLR.
    This way you can start building a system and then when the time comes you can just add a digital body.

    Personally I will stick with film, mainly because, I think the price on digital SLR's are just way to high, and also I don't the resolution on them is high enough for them to compeete with film. I do however believe that for some jobs they are better suited than film.

    Just my 2c hope it helps

    Martin

    Martin's World

    Stephen
    10
    33 forum posts
    3 Mar 2002 - 5:04 PM
    0

    You seem to be taking the stance that anything other than a Digital SLR is not up to the job. I think you are wrong. If I were you I would not hang around, but jump in now and get a digital camera that you can afford.

    If you were to get a 3-4 MP camera now you will be amazed at the quality you can achieve. You say you take 3-4 films a month, you will take far more with a digicam. You are missing out if you wait for digital slr's to come down in price.

    I use a Nikon D1 and a Casio 3500. I can tell you now the Casio although inferior to the Nikon in many ways will produce pictures up to A4 that are indistinguishable from those taken with 35mm film. But you have all the advantages that digital can offer, and I don't need to go into all those now.

    You obviously have a PC and no doubt a decent printer. For well under 800 you could get a Canon G2 which in fact is often more versatile than an SLR, and do more. The pictures are superb and you have the satisfaction of getting the instant feedback, the ability to produce a print of better quality than one from the high street, show the photos on your PC within minutes, send them to others via email or CD... Oh look I'm telling you the benefits and I said I wouldn't Smile

    Forget the cost saving, this should not be an issue. Prices are coming down anyway and memory is cheap, just do it!!!

    Stephen

    rh_hill
    10
    27 forum posts United Kingdom
    5 Mar 2002 - 11:14 AM
    0

    I was in a similar situation and decided to stay film. I reckon digital is still a bit immature and unless you want to shell out loads of cash for a top-flight camera, it struggles to match the quality of the low to medium speed films I use.

    Apart from that, I don't use a large volume of film and I get more than enough of computers in my day job (I.T. support). Also, you need to own / purchase a decent PC & printer if you want to manipulate images at home.

    Well, that's my opinion anway!

    Richard

    Bramble
    10
    6 Mar 2002 - 8:12 PM
    0

    I agree with Stephen, buy a digital now, even if it is a lesser spec than your regular film camera. You have to remember that the technology is moving along, no matter how long you wait, there will always be something better available but your will lose out on the learning curve if you wait too long! There are many inexpensive digital cams that most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the prints from them and the non-digital prints! (for many purposes anyway) and at least if you buy digital now, you are learning and managing to come to grips with the technology as it moves ahead!
    Mo

    Big Bri
    11
    14836 forum posts England
    13 Mar 2002 - 5:02 PM
    0

    I own a very old digital camera which was state of the art 3 years ago, but the pictures from it are truly awful. Compare it to what you get now from a camera half the price and you can imagine what will be available in another couple of years. I still shoot lots of film, because I like using an SLR and can't afford the EOS 1D that I played with at Focus Sad
    What you should really think about is how you will feel if you spend 1500 on a good digital SLR now, then can't afford the one that's twice as good when it comes out next year. It's like computers - you have to make the decision then jump with both feet !!!

    First · Prev | 1 | Next · Last

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.