Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2003, 12:37 PM   #21
lg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823
Default

One thing you'll learn is just how convenient your digital camera really is! Before digital, I would wait up until I had several rolls of film to develop. Only after the trouble and expense of developing the film would I realize that someone had their eyes closed, another was making a face, or I just really should have framed the shot a little differently to make it just right! Preview onscreen right after the shot is a wonderful asset!

This is a great topic, and I'm really enjoying everyone's responses. Keep it up!
lg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2003, 12:51 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 240
Default

There was a reply on rec.photo newsgroups that said the question is not film vs. digital, but rather, SLR vs. non-SLR for maximum photography experience. I think I tend to agree with that--it seems SLR gives the user (assuming he/she is a serious hobbyist or a professional) the right tools and flexibility to achieve optimal shooting under a variety of conditions, better than any non-SLR can. Of course, the key difference between digital and film SLR is the cost, and with folks on fixed budget (like me), there's no question at this point--$400-500 for a beginner's SLR complete with lens and dedicated flash, or $2500+ for a digital SLR plus the lens and flash.

I have my C-4000, and I'm plenty happy with what it can do; but I think I will also explore the world of film SLR photography and see what I can do with it as well.
Hyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2003, 3:28 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

Quote:
SLR gives the user (assuming he/she is a serious hobbyist or a professional) the right tools and flexibility to achieve optimal shooting under a variety of conditions, better than any non-SLR can
In the recent time-life best photos of the twentieth century, 75% of the shots were taken with rangefinders. Of those, about 25% were from 1970 and on, well into the time that SLRS had become popular.
Its the old ".. the magician not the wand..." idea.
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2003, 3:40 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geof
Its the old ".. the magician not the wand..." idea.
Given the same magician, which wand would perform better? :lol:
Hyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2003, 3:58 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 292
Default

The slr of course...Unless you need a quiet shot, or an incospiquous shot, or need to carry a light camera, or a small camera, or ...
I love SLR's That doesn't make rangefinders sub-par[/quote]
geof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2003, 4:02 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 107
Default

Just tuppence worth.The digital camera I would say has developed its operating system and hardware to mimic the film camera,I mean whats electronic ISO or focal lengths or300mm lens.SURELY PHOTOGRAPHY? is the attempt to add some artistic skill to the camera and if you are unable to do that within the resolution of the digital camera then higher resolution of film might be an answer.However a look thro the various photo sites will demonstrates artistry of the highest order via the digital media and so its not the camera at fault in developing skills.This from an old novice but it is fun learning.
jasm
jasm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2003, 6:38 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 240
Default

I've had time to further think about what I really wanted since I started this thread. It's DEFINITELY NOT ABOUT film vs. digital, nor how one's better than the other for learning photography. It boils down to three things, and how to achieve them within my limited budget: 1) I want to be able to take long telephoto shots of the wildlife; 2) I want to be able to use an external flash; 3) I want to be able to use different lenses (or lens attachments) as the situation demands.

Of course the DSLRs available now fit the bill. But considering that most of them start out at $2,000+ just for the body, that's not an option for me.

Of the digitals with long zooms--like the C-2100UZ, C-730UZ, or the upcoming Panasonic FZ-1 (12x optical)--they are nice but so far most of them are limited to 2mp and are either out of production (2100UZ) or not yet released (FZ-1) and with no manual controls (again FZ-1).

Then there are cheapy options like the Tiffen 2x telelphoto converter (that I have)--they are OK, but by no means quality.

To add a dedicated flash system to any digital camera (SLR or P&S) would cost $300+.

I'm considering the following setup for a film SLR:

- Canon Rebel Ti body with wireless remote
- 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF lens
- 50mm f/1.8 lens
(longer zoom lenses will come later, after I "master" (ha ha!) the camera)

The body is only about $250, the lenses however cost more than that! But the lenses seem to hold their value pretty well over the years and if I were ever to get a Canon DSLR way down the road, I could still use the same lenses with it.

Yes I know that there's processing costs involved with film (not to mention buying film in the first place), but that doesn't bother me much... yet. :lol:

I still love my C-4000, and will keep on using it. I don't so much look at it as "going back to film," but maximizing advantages of both the digital and the film.
Hyun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2003, 4:32 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve6
Why do these (FL40) flashes cost so much. Are they that sophisticated or a rip-off????
The Oly FL-40 is a superb flash. First of all it talks back and forth with the camera...you can set a setting on the flash and the camera will adjust, and of course vice versa. The flash has a motorized zoom that keeps up with the zoom level and distance of the camera. The flash also has a focus assist beam so you can shoot in total darkness (you would normally have to set the focus manually without it). I got to play with the FL-40 on a E-20 at a camera show few months back (note I'm a C-700 user).

There are other options that are TTL (Through The Lens) compatable with the Oly cameras, and a list can be found at http://www.the-meissners.org/olympus-flash.html[/i]
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2003, 11:16 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 240
Default

As a side note, as it pertains to my point no. 1 above ("want long zoom for wildlife photography"): Amazon.com is listing two "soon-to-be-released" Ultra Zoom cameras from Olympus. One is a 3mp, 10x optical zoom model (C-740, $499), and the other is a 4mp, 10x optical zoom model (C-750, $599). Not sure if they'll include image stabilization at those price points.
Hyun is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:33 AM.