Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   General Discussion (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/)
-   -   Digital vs. SLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/general-discussion-11/digital-vs-slr-2033/)

ERIK Aug 18, 2002 4:33 AM

Digital vs. SLR
 
Hi all, I'm an ametuer photographer and was seriously thinking of buying the Canon Eos D60. I use the EOS Elan 7. Due to the cost of buying film and developing them gets pretty costly compared to scanning my own digital photos. Please tell me what you think. Back when I bought my SLR, I didn't know that much about Digital cameras. Now I'm hearing good things about the D60. Should I go Digital ? Thanks, Erik:cool:

Lin Evans Aug 18, 2002 3:15 PM

Hi Eric,
The only thing you will loose by going digital is the large cost of developing, printing and keeping a shoebox full of photos which you just can't throw away because you "paid" to have them printed.

The D60 will, in nearly every case, outperform your 35mm film camera. The only place that I've found 35mm color film superior is when photographing a subject that is amenable to moire. Tweed or herringbone pattern fabric, certain upholstery, etc.

Otherwise you will not only save tons of money if you shoot a lot, you will be able to "afford" to do the experimental things which will make you a better photographer.

Once you've tried digital, you will never go back to film. This is, of course, for APS or 35mm platform. Large format is still primarily the domain of film.

Lin

ERIK Aug 18, 2002 3:50 PM

Thanks
 
Thanks for your reply Lin. I bought 3 rolls of film yesterday and paid $25.00. Gzz. I think now I will go Digital. Thanks, Erik

[Edited on 8-18-2002 by ERIK]

ashenfie Aug 19, 2002 8:52 AM

I have recently moved from Film to Digital. I can see No costs savings at all! I have a nikon F80 and have purchase a Fuji S2pro. The S2 based on the F80 so features & metering are the same. The F80 cost $400 and the S2 cost $2400.

So I have to save $2000 before I can start getting my money back. For each print I produce there is a cost of paper & ink which is not cheap. Do a web search for you printer and see the cost per print.

The first thing I notice about digital is the lack of sharpness. I thought this was me, but it turns out to be a digital issue and requires work to resolve reguardless of camera. If you love slide films you not going to be happy with digital

I am warming to digital slowly and getting acceptable results. but NOT bowled over.

Lens are issues due to the small CCD size a 100 lens works like a 160mm film lens(on Canon) which means if like wide angles then you may need a new lense

You may ask why use Digital. Simple I like working in the Digital darkroom. It saves me time over developing my own. Free to fiddle with my final results and No lab to chop off the top or side.

I would love to see a Digital camera that produced results a nice as slide with a full size CCD that I can afford. Until then the S2 wil have to do.

Bottom line. Try one out and do expect too much like I did.

Lin Evans Aug 19, 2002 9:36 AM

Interesting, but unusual viewpoint...
 
You may not see the savings yet, but if you shoot more frequently than a weekend hobby, the savings over film will happen very quickly.

Let me give you a simple example. A few weeks ago I covered a fairly typical Blue Angel's airshow. In about 5 hours I shot around 1500 images with my EOS-1D. Let's take a quick look at the costs. Let's just say we wanted to do this with film. That's about 42 rolls of 36 exposures. What would you pay for this in film and processing - even if you wanted to do it all in your own darkroom? How about your time? If you are professional, you will only print the keepers and simply determine this by making contact prints. Of course if you are shooting slides, you will have decidedly more expense and time. Do you mount your own? Do you scan the keepers and make necessary modifications?

If you don't see the savings with digital, then it may not be for you, but the savings for many are substantial and immediate. They certainly have been for me. You say that for each print you produce there is a cost of paper and ink which is "not cheap". It's as "cheap" as a film print - or cheaper. You only print the ones you need printed. What's the difference between the digital file and the slide or the negative? This makes no sense??

Sharpness: If you are not getting prints as sharp as you did from your slides you are doing something wrong or your camera has a problem. Getting tack sharp prints is not an issue for anyone I know who uses professional digital. I can understand if you are not happy with your results, but to suggest that if one "loves slide films" that they won't be happy with digital defies the experience of many thousands of professionals who would strongly disagree.

Give it a little time and learn the process and workflow and I suspect you will have a different opinion.

Best regards,

Lin

sjms Aug 19, 2002 9:56 AM

you know it seems that for the tele lover the dslr is a godsend. instant gratification for the owner of a 300mm that is now a 450. i shoot wide. my 20mm just turned into a 30mm. i'm losing ground here. so as an investment for me for now its a no-go



[Edited on 8-19-2002 by sjms]

Lin Evans Aug 19, 2002 10:22 AM

Yes, unless you bought a rather expensive Contax N Digital:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0205/02...issexcited.asp

The ContaX has a full sized 35mm equivalent sensor and would be identical to existing 35mm film counterparts in effective focal length.

For most applications of wide angle, I find doing panoramic stitches to be quite satisfactory. Obviously, that won't work in some situations, but for landscapes it allows shooting even wider distortion free images than current lens technology alone allows, but your point is relevant and removable lens dSLR's do offer more to the telephoto end than otherwise in general.

Lin

Lin

sjms Aug 19, 2002 10:36 AM

it hasen't really hit the streets yet. i got to work with it for a bit. it left a bad taste in my mouth for all the rest of the crop. all the usual zeiss quality w/matching price tag. it had and did all of what the others lacked.

stitching is all right. again the fix it in the mix just doesn't do some shots justice as you agree

[Edited on 8-19-2002 by sjms]

NHL Aug 20, 2002 8:52 AM

I've to agree with Lin with either a single photoshoot session or a week long vacation trip, the cost of processing films will immediately pay for a pro-sumer 5Mp level digicam...

However with several months behind the 3 competitors, and the short life time of a new digicam, the financial success for the Contax N Digital for both Kyocera and the photographers is rather slim (if not axed)! We will find out won't we in about a month:

http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home_e....256C1500363308

(click on news)

[Edited on 8-20-2002 by NHL]

ashenfie Aug 20, 2002 10:19 AM

Thanks for you view point Lin. The Orginal post read 'Hi all, I'm an ametuer photographer and was seriously thinking of buying the Canon Eos D60'. I therefore answer from that view point.

I use digital & SLR, i agree not as a Pro. but can't say Digital has changed my life Yet.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:32 PM.