digital/srl film

[chihiro]

hey people
can you advice me and tell me the pros and cons of having one of this - digital or srl film camera?
which is better to buy -digital (with 5 or 6MP) or canon eos elan 7n?

thank you!

[almo]

Well it depends on what your needs are. What your situation is. What is your style? D you use computers?

More info please.

[chihiro]

i have computer,and I have never use srl film camera,
I have use some digitals cameras
i also want to make more art pics

[Michael Fanelli]

hey people
can you advice me and tell me the pros and cons of having one of this - digital or srl film camera?
which is better to buy -digital (with 5 or 6MP) or canon eos elan 7n?

thank you!

Unless you know what you are doing and see film as a necessity, digital is much cheaper and of better quality than 35mm film.

[another view]

It's "SLR" which stands for "single lens reflex".

Digital may not be cheaper than film - it depends on your situation. You'll need a fast computer with a big hard drive and a CD burner (better yet also an external HD). Software for image editing - a basic program usually comes with a digital camera. Memory cards for the camera - and the camera itself will cost a lot more than 35mm - especially if you buy a used 35mm. But if you have all or most of this, then there's no "per exposure" cost like there is with film.

With digital, in some ways it's a one-time cost but that's not entirely accurate because everything gets upgraded from time to time. You'll have to shoot a lot of film to pay for the digital investment.

Great work comes from them both - and they both have advantages.

[payn817]

I use both digital and slr. I can then compare and choose which I like better. I got my actual prints and they were much better than the scans. In some situations the film looks better.

The great thing about doing this is I get to do a lot of test shots using the digital before wasting film.

[Stephen Lutz]

One thing you should consider is the "chain of ownership" of your images. If you want to do art prints, the best way to have complete ownership of the image is by going with a digital format. You can capture the image, manipulate the image, crop the image, add special effects to it, etc. to your heart's content. Then you can print it yourself (assuming you have a printer big enough for your needs). With digital, you are in complete control of the process from image capture to image printing. With film (unless you have a darkroom, enlarger, etc) you have to rely on someone else to develop your film and print it. The choices that person makes may not be the ones you want, particularly at the print stage.

I shot film for many years, and traded my EOS 3 for a D-30 some years ago. I haven't shot film since. Not once. And I haven't missed it at all. For me, the total ownership of my images was the paramount reason I switched to digital and the reason film isn't for me. (Plus the fact that I shoot a lot of images, sometimes 700 a week or more. My web site has over 12,000 of my images, which, if I had shot film, would be 333 rolls of 36 exposure film).

[Outdoorsman]

I shoot an Elan 7N. On avearge (all film types considered) I spend a quarter each time I hit the shutter release. To switch to digital (which I am going to soon) even a used 10D is going to run around $800 and then I need a bunch of extra stuff (cards, lens, vertical grip, printer, Photoshop, ink, paper, PC upgrade, etc). But even if I spend $2,000 on everything, I have to take 8,000 pictures to make it all pay for itself (so to speak). Considering I don't take 8,000 images a year (yet) it seems like a silly investment, especially considering the upgrades and new products that will eventually come out to make a current system less than desireable. I simply can't afford the constant film expense right now, and more importantly, people who would hire me usually choose not to when they hear I'm still using film. They think that digital is the magic bullet to getting good cheap photos. And I would rather get paid than be a "film purist"!

If you can afford it, go with film. It's not as instant as digital, but the digitals you own can serve as "Polaroids" to make your film exposures better on location. But on the other hand, simply having a digital can be the difference between getting the shot and not, since your shooting capacity is essentially limited only by your memory capacity, not by the number of film rolls you brought. On the other foot, pro slide film is now rivaled (and surpassed in some cases) by top-of-the-line pro DLRs. But those are very expensive. Also consider the low noise at higher ISOs (see the Canon 20D test on this site) compared to the graininess of film at those ISOs. Film is on the downslide right now but digital is also still in its youth.

For art-type images, you'll want to go with film. Remember that with film you can always scan at a higher resolution than any DSLR out there, if you need digital images. And with pro print film, your exposure latitude is greater than digital, so you can get more shots in more situations.

It's a tough call, but all in all, you really can't lose with either system. It's all a matter of what best fits your current needs, the needs you expect in the future, and most important, your budget!
Good luck!

[almo]

One thing you should consider is the "chain of ownership" of your images. If you want to do art prints, the best way to have complete ownership of the image is by going with a digital format. You can capture the image, manipulate the image, crop the image, add special effects to it, etc. to your heart's content. Then you can print it yourself (assuming you have a printer big enough for your needs). With digital, you are in complete control of the process from image capture to image printing. With film (unless you have a darkroom, enlarger, etc) you have to rely on someone else to develop your film and print it. The choices that person makes may not be the ones you want, particularly at the print stage.

I shot film for many years, and traded my EOS 3 for a D-30 some years ago. I haven't shot film since. Not once. And I haven't missed it at all. For me, the total ownership of my images was the paramount reason I switched to digital and the reason film isn't for me. (Plus the fact that I shoot a lot of images, sometimes 700 a week or more. My web site has over 12,000 of my images, which, if I had shot film, would be 333 rolls of 36 exposure film).

When I worked at the prolab the average cost of proofs from 35mm film was $15.00. 333 rolls would equal $4.995.00 for processing and proofing at that price. This doesn't even include any post processing printing or scanning, or any other work you might want to have done.

[Michael Fanelli]

For art-type images, you'll want to go with film. Remember that with film you can always scan at a higher resolution than any DSLR out there, if you need digital images.

This is misleading. At about 2700-3000 dpi, you are down to the level of film grain. Much more than that gains you nothing other than large files with lots of redundant (and useless) data. You can't read subportions of grain! People have actually scanned to the point of seeing the rough backing on Fuji film (the famous "Fuji Pepper").

[Stephen Lutz]

This is misleading. At about 2700-3000 dpi, you are down to the level of film grain. Much more than that gains you nothing other than large files with lots of redundant (and useless) data. You can't read subportions of grain! People have actually scanned to the point of seeing the rough backing on Fuji film (the famous "Fuji Pepper").

I used to get pretty serious grain, even at the highest scanning resolutions I could get. But the scanning grain wan't the big deal with scanning film. The big deal was dust specks. Jesus, talk about a hassle! Scan one frame, then clone out dust for 20 minutes. Per frame!

To me, for 35mm anyway, the only way film makes any sense is if you are going to shoot black and white, develop it yourself, and print it (with dodge and burn, etc) to make your own unique "art" prints.

[Stephen Lutz]

Follow-up. When I got home I went through some of my recent photos, and printed this one at 13x19. ISO 400, JPG large/fine. Taken with a 50 1.4. The print was pin sharp, no pixelization and the colors were nice an warm. The natural light in the room was perfect for this.

Can you take this with 35mm film? Yes. Can you get grainless 400 speed prints that large? No.