Digital or Traditional?

[Laberin]

hello everyone.im new to the forum and somewhat new to photography.Im about to go out and make a big decision.im going to go out and buy my first camera.and i want your guy's input on a few questions i have.

first i would like to know should i go with a digital or traditional 35 mm camera.
i have always thought the traditional way is the best way but recently i have been introduced to digital photography.and i like being able to mess with the lighting or contrast but i usually dont go too far. i guess what i am saying is what are the advantages and disadvantages of owning either?

i would mostly be using it for artistic purposes.so i dont want too many bounderies .how can i find a happy medium?

thank you all for every bit of help and input you can spare ;)

-Laberin

[Michael Fanelli]

hello everyone.im new to the forum and somewhat new to photography.Im about to go out and make a big decision.im going to go out and buy my first camera.and i want your guy's input on a few questions i have.

first i would like to know should i go with a digital or traditional 35 mm camera.
i have always thought the traditional way is the best way but recently i have been introduced to digital photography.and i like being able to mess with the lighting or contrast but i usually dont go too far. i guess what i am saying is what are the advantages and disadvantages of owning either?

i would mostly be using it for artistic purposes.so i dont want too many bounderies .how can i find a happy medium?
-Laberin

Digital gives you magnitudes more options than film, is much easier to learn on, and is substantially cheaper overall. Film has a "look" and has a lower up-front cost.

IMHO, film is now a niche. Others will disagree. In either case, concentrate on the lenses you buy, not the body. That's where the real investment is.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

[another view]

They do look different. Personally I use both, but having to choose one would bring up more questions:

Do you want to or have time to become your own lab? With digital this is what happens. You gain control of the process at the expense of time. How much time you want to or need to spend is determined by too many factors.

What kind of subjects do you want to work with? People shots and landscapes (ie stuff that doesn't move much) are a lot different than fast action and low light (ie sports, concerts).

What kind of budget do you have to work with? Digital has higher up-front costs but with film you'll pay per roll for film and processing (could be lower if you develop your own but that's another story...). Digital isn't just up-front costs either - there are software upgrades, monitor calibration software, etc.

[Asylum Steve]

We moved your thread here to the Help Forum because it's more appropriate for the questions you asked...

-Steve

[Michael Fanelli]

Digital isn't just up-front costs either - there are software upgrades, monitor calibration software, etc.

This equipment is only useful if the photographer uses it! Most of the digital photographers I know use their digital camera just like they did with film: choose the pictures they like and take the card to Wal-Mart to be printed. No muss, no fuss. WM will even add them to a CD for you! Not even a computer is needed.

[another view]

Michael, I'd say the same thing too - most people hardly use a digital P&S differently than a film P&S, but then most people who take pictures don't even have enough interest in photography to bother to register at a forum and ask for advice. I just assume that Laberin's interest level is a little higher than most.

My own experience with a digital camera (coming from someone who shot a lot of chromes a.k.a. slides) is that you start with an inexpensive image editing program. Then you realize it doesn't do everything you want it to do, and nobody has written any books about image editing that apply to anything other than Photoshop or Photoshop Elements. At least Elements is under $100. Then you buy a printer and can't believe that what's coming out of it is supposed to be the same thing as what you're looking at on the screen. More books, maybe a seminar or two (and more ink and paper!)... Then the seminar tells you that you need monitor calibration software, you start getting used to shooting more so you need CD's, an external hard drive, browser software to find stuff, more compact flash cards...

Hopefully I haven't scared you off from getting into it, because the results can be incredible. It just takes some time, effort and money to get there. Everything that you buy on the first day may get you started but if you're picky about the quality of your images then there will be other expenses involved. I would say that if you don't want to take the time to work with digital yourself, then you'll have better results with film and a good lab.

[Laberin]

oh dont worry i have been interested in photography for a long time but i have recently felt that its time to stop dilly dallying around and start doing something i really enjoy.so no you have not scared me away

but are there things you can do with a 35mm that you cant do with a digital SLR? i want to beable to grow as a photgrapher without have to go and buy new equipment (camera wise)i know that lenses will be inevitible. but what is the sole difference?i know it would in the long run save money with a digital but what is your your guys personal opinion?do you have more creativity possibilities with digital or a 35mm? excuse me for my lack of knowledge but i need this info before i go buy something i in the long run will haveto replace.

thank you all very much for you input so far.

[another view]

but are there things you can do with a 35mm that you cant do with a digital SLR?

Yes. Well, few - but one would be long exposures. I'm talking over a minute, or maybe hours. DSLR's are getting better at this, but they still eat a lot of power and the longer the exposure the worse the digital noise (looks a little like grain) gets. My Fuji S2 is fine at ISO100 for 30 seconds but I actually haven't tried longer than that. The batteries go really quick with a lot of exposures of about this time though.

Another thing, most DSLR's have a sensor that's 1/2 the size of a frame of 35mm film. Some more, some less - but one that's the same size as a 35mm frame is very expensive. Because of this, a 200mm lens has the coverage of a 300mm, but a 20mm is now a 30mm. I essentially lost having a wide angle lens. I could get a 12-24 zoom, but once again - one more thing to buy...

The other thing is that DSLR's will cost a lot more than an equal film camera. My DSLR was more expensive than my film camera but built on a much less expensive body. Because of this, the AF system isn't as good, it's not as fast, etc. There are fast DSLR's out there, but again more $...

[Clemmie]

I definitely agree on the Time Exposures - Digital just ain't there, yet, but is gaining ground all the time.

Another big issue is the time to respond, aka "shutter lag time", with Digitals. You generally don't get the instantaneous capture with a Digital, when you mash the button, that you've come to expect from using Film cameras. That can be a major hindrance if you do a lot of action shooting, so it's certainly something to consider carefully.

What a-v said about his digital costing more than his film camera, despite being a lower model, you can pretty well count on across most lines. (I notice a lot of high end Canon film shooters are having to 'digitize' with the low end D-Rebel because of budget constraints). In that regard, probably the 'closest match' between an existing Film body and a DSLR, is with Minolta's new Maxxum 7D, which will be hitting the stores in the next few weeks. The Maxxum 7 film body is currently $400 - and the new 7D DSLR, based very strongly on the Maxxum 7 design, has an announced "Approved Pricing" of $1599 - so probably more like in the $1200-$1300 bracket, after the initial dust settles.

That provides one idea of what you'll pay, proportionately, to stay in the same 'class' of camera when making the Film to DSLR leap. And even being in a comparable class, there are still the Digital issues with the Time Exposures and Shutter Lag Time - plus the basic fact that Pixels haven't yet beaten Film Grain when it comes to technical Image Quality, though they're gaining ground on that one all the time, too.

So, for now, I would do.....what I have in fact done - buy into a high end Film system (the Maxxum 7, in my case) with the vision of being able to use the same Lenses on a DSLR somewhere down the road, once Digital 'fully catches up' to the quality of Film.

And a footnote to all this - Minolta has made a commitment to developing a line of DSLR's using existing Maxxum lenses - while Canon and Nikon are both pursuing multiple Digital formats which in some cases will, and in some cases won't, be able to use existing lenses. Minolta is also incorporating 'Anti Shake' into their DSLR bodies - which makes this useful feature applicable to ALL of the lenses used, instead of requiring expensive 'image stabilization' lenses to have that capability. Two points well worth considering, as you evaluate your equipment options.

[Laberin]

thank you guys very much.you have really clarified alot of things for me.i appreciate the help.


and if anyone else would like to add their 2 cents as well, keep it going.

[Clemmie]

Just be sure to let us know what you ultimately decide upon - and why.

It's nice for us 'helpers' to know how the story turns out.

[Outdoorsman]

Film, film. film!!! I have never seen a digital photo that matches the best pro lens with pro film. Except, of course, the 1Ds MKII. But who could afford it? I know I haven't spent that much on film and equipment in the few years I've been doing photography. I could estimate it in the 3 to 4 thousand range (print film seems to suck up the most cash!!!) but have I ever had that kind of cash on hand to buy a DSLR and lenses and equipment? Nope. I had the $300 for the Elan 7N. I had the $400 for two decent lenses. But a few grand just sitting around? Hey, I've got bills to pay! I have a few dollars here and there for film and equipment when needed. But not enough to invest in a new digital camera. I always tell people to start with film and then decide if photography if right for them. It can cost so little to get into film photography, who wouldn't want to go that route at first? I'm glad I did- if I had gone for an all-digital system, I'd be bankrupt by now... I'm just your average poor boy. No big-money job, no assests. The working poor, they call me... but at least my life is simple....

[Laberin]

absolutely Clemm ;)

[92135011]

Here is the problem I find with digital:
You take a picture, learn how to use photoshop, then modify the hell out of it until it aint the original picture no more. Photoshop is a great tool, but thats all it should be. A tool. Some people overuse it to the point where its not an image you captured. However, you can always pick pictures you want when you go digital. Let's just face it photographers, how many pictures actually turn out good when you go out for a shoot? Look at the pros. They take rolls and rolls of film, but only release a handful. Everyone screws up, even the pros. But with digital, you can choose, delete, or whatever. BTW, digital printing is dangerous. The colour on your screen isnt the colour you get printed. Maybe there is a special type of screen out there that does that, but most do not.

I thought about going digital myself because I would always be so self concious on film. What if I do something wrong? what if my overexposure effect doesnt work, what if I didnt focus accurately because it was fast action? Well I finally decided the answer to all those questions is: WHO CARES. Use the film. Make the prints. The more I screw up, the more I learn.

But I wouldnt choose either over another. For film, I would buy a fully manual minimalist camera, 35mm. (I can print these at "superstore" for less than 3 bux cdn) Then if there is anything I really like, then I can send those to better printers to print. Then I would get a fully automatic digital SLR with aperture and shutter priorites. But you see the words WOULD, because I cant afford both ^_^. Check out the Canon Digital Rebel. Its plasticy, but good value for the money considering its CMOS technology and SLR. Got more money? Canon 20D might be good for you. Never tried the Nikon, but I heard its so confusing that some people return it to get a Canon or Olympus or something else.

[Steph_B]

hello everyone.im new to the forum and somewhat new to photography.Im about to go out and make a big decision.im going to go out and buy my first camera.and i want your guy's input on a few questions i have.

first i would like to know should i go with a digital or traditional 35 mm camera.
i have always thought the traditional way is the best way but recently i have been introduced to digital photography.and i like being able to mess with the lighting or contrast but i usually dont go too far. i guess what i am saying is what are the advantages and disadvantages of owning either?

i would mostly be using it for artistic purposes.so i dont want too many bounderies .how can i find a happy medium?

thank you all for every bit of help and input you can spare ;)

-Laberin

People with a heck more experience than me have already prettily much covered everything . But please let me add my two cents here.

First, who am I?
- film shooter with Nikon system
- mostly shoot landscape/nature - hence I use slow saturated slide film .. always
- have a digital lab: systematically scan my slides with a 4000 dpi film scanner
- love making BIG prints!

Here is my personal list of pros and cons concerning digital (obviously, you have to consider where I come from and what I do):

PROS:
- pretty cheap to press on the shutter release - I would not cringe at the idea of bracketing anymore!
- instant feedback: hence you learn much faster
- no film needed: hence no worry at the airport security or finding film on location
- no development needed: no worry about finding a lab you can trust when travelling
- easy archiving: your pics are already digital!
- high frame/sec ratio: great fro wildlife and sports
- you can change your ISO at any time (*gasp* - *gulp*) ... and your white balance
- high flash sync
- crop factor in some camera systems is particularly interesting if you plan to shoot wildlife/sport action

CONS:
- high ISO (100 starts to be OK - I would prefer 50 though)
- quality not as good as film (but very close - the next DSLR generation will do!)
- dubious long exposure quality
- no such a thing as a digital Velvia! I hope one day we will have access to profiles that will micmick pro films...
- DUST ON SENSOR: at least film is always clean... even if your viewfinder is not
- very expensive when you buy it... seriously considering selling my car to buy a pro body... will take the bus!

I am looking forward to the next generation of DLSR, with a resolution >10 Mpix. I do not think you will be able to make the difference between a large print from a scanned slide and a large print from a DLSR. However, I will always hold tight to my F100 body... you know... for those long exposure night shots when street light turns greenish on Velvia...

Note: the price of a Velvia roll + development is about $15 CAN in Vancouver right now. I am however moving to a place which is MUCH more expensive ($25 - $30 USD!). Going digital might make sense then!

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Steph.

[92135011]

There is a Digital camera developed by UBC only cost them about 2000 to make
Resolution of up to 20MP or so. Made a couple years ago.

As big as your computer monitor X2 but the effective sensor is about the size of an 8x10! All this for only about 2000? what a steal

(btw...pictures take more than 30seconds process, so your subject better be REAL SLOW)

[Steph_B]

There is a Digital camera developed by UBC only cost them about 2000 to make
Resolution of up to 20MP or so. Made a couple years ago.

As big as your computer monitor X2 but the effective sensor is about the size of an 8x10! All this for only about 2000? what a steal

(btw...pictures take more than 30seconds process, so your subject better be REAL SLOW)

Not surprising! CCDs have been around for a long time now. This must be great for landscapes... no wind though!

By the way, UBC stands for University of British Columbia.... right?

[92135011]

yar

I see you from vancouver
Where you do your shoots?

[another view]

Steph, I agree with most of what you said but not all of it - exactly, anyway. Couple of points:

PROS: "high frame/sec ratio: great fro wildlife and sports" and "high flash sync" True of both high end cameras for film and digital, actually. Problem is, in the $1-2k range, DSLR's are usually about 3fps. For $700 you can get a nice used F5 film camera at 8fps. The exception with flash sync is the D70 at 1/500 (F5 is only 1/250!) but it starts at ISO200, so compared to ISO100 it's only a one stop advantage.

CONS: "high ISO" digital doesn't have any grain, actually my ISO800 digital files look better than most ISO400 films.
"quality not as good as film" It does look different than film. But big prints from the Fuji S2 with very little Photoshop work have as much detail as medium format to my eye...
"DUST ON SENSOR" true, but turns out not to be as big a problem as it was made out to be - at least in my case. Just be careful when changing lenses and you'll be OK.

I don't want to start (or escalate...) this into a digital vs film thing, I'm a fan of both. The two main "cons" for me with digital are different though - limited contrast range and lack of a good auto flash system. Digital records like slide film but the highlights blow out even easier (if you're good with Velvia you won't have any problems! ;) ). Some day the sensors will get better (the Fuji S3 says it's an improvement but there are no test images to prove it yet). Also, the flash system in better film cameras like the F100 is leaps and bounds over even the latest digital flash like iTTL. Part of the problem is with the easily blown highlights, but even with slides I don't have a problem with my film cameras. To tell you the truth, good 'ol fashioned "A" auto mode like on a Vivitar 283 is more accurate than some digital TTL systems! These two reasons are mainly why I shoot both.

[Clemmie]

It can be basically summed up as follows:

Film is a mature technology, with over 150 years of development and refinement behind it - and there are definite advantages in that.

Digital is a fairly new, though rapidly developing technology. While the latest wonders are a sight to behold, there are direct parallels with, for example, where PC's were about 10 years ago. Comparing current Digital, with where it is likely to be in a few years......is like comparing a 286 computer with DOS, to the latest Pentium 4 machine with Windows XP Pro.

Having gone through four home computers and five laptops since 1995 myself - each a successive 'generation' technology-wise - I'll be quite content to stick with FILM for my Photography for a while yet, until Digital is somewhat more 'mature' as a technology.

[Steph_B]

limited contrast range and lack of a good auto flash system. Digital records like slide film but the highlights blow out even easier (if you're good with Velvia you won't have any problems! ;) ).

Ouch! I did NOT know about that. This is a bit of a downer... Maybe I should wait some more before bridging the gap.

Thanks for your input.

[Steph_B]

Having gone through four home computers and five laptops since 1995 myself - each a successive 'generation' technology-wise - I'll be quite content to stick with FILM for my Photography for a while yet, until Digital is somewhat more 'mature' as a technology.

Good point. That's the reason I did not buy any of the current technologies and that I am not going to invest in a D70. I still feel that the technology is not 'there' yet.

[Laberin]

wow.you all have educated me so much.i think im gonna go with a 35 mm.i didnt know there were so many pro's and con's.I think its best to work from the bottom up anyway.thank you all.

now.......what 35 mm will i go with?


-Laberin

[another view]

now.......what 35 mm will i go with?

Sheesh, we go from a digital vs. film debate to a Nikon vs. Canon debate... ;)

I went back and re-read your posts - you want a camera that you can grow with and you've had an interest in this for awhile. For Nikon, a good option would be an N80. It does most of what the more advanced (F100, F5) cameras do for a lot less money - it's just a little slower with autofocus and motordrive, and not built to be used as a hammer. It can be used fully manually and has a spot meter which are very good tools to learn about exposure.

I'll let others speak for Canon, Minolta (hmm, who would that be? ;) ) and other brands. If you can give us an idea for a budget we can help with lenses too. Don't forget to save some money for a sturdy tripod and film/processing!

[Laberin]

well im willing to spend about 400$ but i know i can get a 400$camera for about 200$ to 300$.

im almost completly sold on the maxxum 7 by minolta.they seem to be a solid company and have real quality merchandise.

but what else do you all suggest i buy with it? ie lenses,film ect