Getting serious about photography, what camera?

[artwell]

I already own a Casio Exilim Z3, which I use in everyday point-and-shoot pictures. This was the first digital camera I owned, and is what got me to be more serious about photography. Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

[Franglais]

I already own a Casio Exilim Z3, which I use in everyday point-and-shoot pictures. This was the first digital camera I owned, and is what got me to be more serious about photography. Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

In order to learn the different parameters involved in photography you need a camera where you can set these parameters. Most SLR's allow you to do this.

If you ONLY do prints from the lab then fine buy a 35mm film SLR.

If like most of us you see and rework your images on your computer and occasionally print one then a film SLR is not complete without a film scanner to digitise the image and you're talking about the same budget as a Digital Rebel (which may drop in price next month).

Charles

[opus]

Artwell, I own both the 35mm Rebel Ti and the Digital Rebel. I'm torn in what to tell you.

The 35 mm Ti made me feel like a photographer again. And, to be honest, I think I get better pictures with it than I do with my digital. Don't ask me why. My color on film is fantastic, and the Ti made me SO excited about photography that I got serious because of it.

However, I am learning more with my digital. It cost more to start, but I've taken SO many pictures with it now that if it were film, the processing costs alone would be double the cost of the camera, I'm sure.

And since I'm using the digital, I'm learning so much more about technique, and the instant feedback lets me experiment so much more and the lessons learned are getting through faster. So my pictures are getting better. That's the biggest advantage to digital so far for me, aside from the *wonderful* ability I have to carry my whole library with me on my laptop, to bring up whenever the occasion arises (showing vacation photos without carrying around a suitcase full of prints; showing my best shots to professionals I meet; downloading pictures of an occasion to show people immediately after taking them; finding and posting instantly to any subject that comes up here, etc.)


The one thing I have to add is whatever you go with, don't forget to add the cost of a good lens to it. I've learned that the kit lenses that come with the Rebels are fine but not great. I bought a new Good lens and my images are SO much sharper now! Just the lens purchase alone has increased the quality of my shots.

[FREELANCE2004]

nikon d70,d100, or any dslr.youll take twice the pictures,experimenting with lenses,white balances,ect.i shoot both 35mm and digital.i still prefer film in the studio.its usually a surefire good portrait under the strobes.its so simple too.if your not shooting a ton of action shots,where you have to shoot 300 frames a game,a good film camera is still a great way to start,then again,if you have some jack,buy you a fat nasty dslr ,and a epson 2200, and photoshop cs,and your in business.you will need a wide angle lense and a 300 mm to start.a couple 2 or 3 grand and your SMOKIINN.

[another view]

You're talking about budget - DSLR's start close to a thousand, then add in a couple of compact flash cards and spare batteries. That will get you started in a DSLR but the way I read it, this isn't going to happen.

Depends on what you want to do. Same as always, if you have a camera that lets you shoot manually then you'll learn more about how to get the results consistently. If you let the camera decide, it may or may not always handle a situation like you want it to. Seems like most people here - myself included - use a little bit of manual control in their shooting.

One inexpensive option is an older all-manual camera like a Nikon FM. Get a 50mm and maybe another lens or two pretty inexpensively and you'll have good equipment that depends on you to call the shots (pun intended). Load it with slide film and when you can consistently get properly exposed slides, you're in good shape. If you go this route, you could also go with the older Canon cameras which won't be compatible with the newer ones (different lens mount) but they're very inexpensive because of this. You could always try a camera like this for a while, and if it's not your thing, just sell it for probably about what you paid for it. Also the older Olympus OM series would be a good choice.

Like I say, it depends on what you want to do. If you want a 35mm camera you can eventually add a DSLR to, or want autofocus, then the Canon you mention or a similar Nikon would be a good choice. This way you would be building a system.

[FREELANCE2004]

Ive Got A Couple High End Pentax 35 Mm With Lenses Ill Sell You For Cheap.i Use Them Commercially,they Are A 9 Out Of 10

[mikehulsebus]

When considering the cost and all that, make sure that you look at this as an investment as opposed to a one time purchase. If you're serious about photography and you get a camera that's mediocre you're gonna later be saying "gee, if i woulda plunked down a hundred more I coulda had that...." I myself like digital better than film. I know I learned a lot about photography with my little 28mm digital point and shoot taking photo after photo until I said "whoa that looks cool" I think you're more apt to experimentation the more photos you can take. On many of my "rolls" (i use the term "roll" loosely as I'm shooting digital, but you know what I mean) the real keeper image will sometimes be forty or fifty shots into the roll.
Regardless though, the camera itself is sometimes as important to photography as pans is to great chef--sure the pans permit cooking, but its not the pans that makes the food great. So just figure out what kinda stuff you wanna be able to do and make sure you camera doesn't limit you from doing them. If price is an issue from getting those, by yourself a great segue camera that you can use for whatcha wanna do, yet that you could possibly transistion out of later if you decide to go better. In terms of price lemme also kick in that film has as lower inital investment (ok, much lower when you're buying bodies), but you gotta go and get your film developed
Alright, I'm done rambling, hopefully theres something in there that'll be of help to ya and hopefully I didn't contradict myself more than a coupla times

[Clemmie]

Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

Digitals have their place in the world - but the technology is still developing, and is quite limited in its capabilities. For full versatility in your photography, and to have the capabilities needed for really learning the craft, you NEED a FILM camera. A 35mm SLR is an excellent choice.

In addition to the Rebel Ti, I would encourage you to also take a look at Minolta. (I'm an ex-Canon guy who has gone 100% Minolta - better value for the money, better pictures, friendlier to use). The Maxxum 5 and the Maxxum 70 are two current models that compare favorably with the Rebel, feature and price wise.

I can also recommend the Maxxum HTsi Plus - a recently discontinued model which falls in-between these two, feature wise - and currently some excellent deals available on it. I bought one new about 6 months ago, with a refurb 35-80 lens, for $139. Originally a $400+ combination. (It is now my 'backup', as I've since sprung for the top-line Maxxum 7.)

Minolta's lenses are superb - and are generally less costly than the Canon or Nikon equivalents. They are also quite affordable in the used/refurb market. And unlike some others, any Minolta Maxxum lens works on any Minolta Maxxum camera -- so you won't have to replace lenses when you later move up to a Maxxum 7, like I recently did. And they also will work with Minolta's new DSLR, to be introduced at the Photokina show next month.

Here's a few links for you:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

http://www.minoltausa.com/eprise/mai...ucts?cname=cam

For your digital sharing needs, Film is now easily digitized. The Wal-Mart labs (and most others) can scan your negatives as a PhotoCD for less than $4 a roll. Load that to your computer, and you can do anything with your film images that you're currently doing with digital.

If you wonder about the quality of that - as most people do - I invite you to take a look around in my online archives of this summer's shooting:
http://clemmie.smugmug.com
With the exception of one small album done with a Kodak digicam, all of these were shot on Film with Minolta cameras and lenses, and scanned to PhotoCD by the Wal-Mart lab.

If you get to doing a good volume of film, as I do, you may eventually want to skip the CD's and get a film scanner. Good ones run $250-$400 these days. I'm at the point I am seriously considering one myself.

But first things first. First you need a Camera!

[Elysian]

Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range.

Well, isn't that your answer?

If you had the money I would most definitely advice you to go digital. Digital has the future, the quality is amazing, the possibilities are enormous (camera, digital darkroom, archiving, internet, etc).

[Chunk]

I already own a Casio Exilim Z3, which I use in everyday point-and-shoot pictures. This was the first digital camera I owned, and is what got me to be more serious about photography. Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

You need to run an experiment.
You are taking daily pictures with a digital camera. Take a look at what film and development/printing costs are per shot. Each day take pictures like you have been and figure out what it would have cost you in film,etc. to take that many shots. Take that much money out of your wallet (which is effectively what you'll be doing if you buy a film camera and don't change your shooting habits) and put it in a sock. After a month (or when your sock drawer is overflowing with cash) count up the cash and figure out how long it will take you to buy that digital rebel. You'll probably find it won't be that many months and you'll have already accumulated an nice little nest egg toward the purchase.

[Axena]

I already own a Casio Exilim Z3, which I use in everyday point-and-shoot pictures. This was the first digital camera I owned, and is what got me to be more serious about photography. Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

Well... if this isn't the question of the past 5 years! Here is my $.02 for what it's worth...

If you are looking to go middle of the road, but still on the high-end amateur, low-end professional, and have a small budget to work with, I would strongly recommend the Cannon G5. It is versatile enough to do a lot of work, produces images that rival any 35 film camera, and yet, does not require the purchase of expensive lenses. There are certainly limitations however, such as shutter speeds and the inability to really diversify your lense options. You also must shoot at ISO 50 for the best images. The Canon G5 allows for many options found on DSLR's such as externally mounted flashes (I strictly use mounted flashes and umbrellas with my G5) and mounted telephotos and wide-angles. But that is pretty much it. If you have about $1000 then I would recommend the Canon Digital Rebel. If you have a little more then the D20 (coming out in September by Canon) will probably be what you want. Yes, I like Canon's, so that is all the opionion I can offer you as that is all I have ever used. You have to really do some shopping and determine what your budget is, and what you really want to do. For me, I will probably never go back to film (cost, inability to do post production easily, etc), even though film can be fun. I feel for the money, digital certainly has the edge over film, and really, does not lose any quality, in fact, photo for photo, I think digital has the edge. Hope this helps...

[ner]

If you're serious about learning "the proper techniques and concepts" of photography, buy a film camera. Medium format, e.g., a used Pentax 6x7, would be a better choice than 35 mm.

[Michael Fanelli]

If you're serious about learning "the proper techniques and concepts" of photography, buy a film camera. Medium format, e.g., a used Pentax 6x7, would be a better choice than 35 mm.

FWIW, digital cameras do everything film cameras do and a lot more.

[ner]

FWIW, digital cameras do everything film cameras do and a lot more.

Sounds like an opinion to me. Here [http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html] and here [http://www.crystalcanyons.net/Pages/...VsCP5000.shtm], for example, we find some rather interesting facts about this comparison. Note that both of the cited analyses tested 35 mm film. Notwithstanding the wonderous utlity of digital cameras it seems from these and numerous other reports readily available on the internet that no digital camera available today can match the resolution of medium and large format films. I have yet to see any digital print that rivals a fine print from film competently managed, or to meet a digitographer, other than one who arrived at that medium after reasonable if not considerable analog practice, who understands the principles and techniques of negative and print exposure and development that inform traditional photography. Although I have seen some very impressive digital works on screen, I reserve higher praise for prints that reflect the artistic skill and craftmanship of their makers vs. computer-generated images that illustrate the powers of software programs. I did not recommend a film camera to ignite a debate about digital vs. film: I'm sure we're all tired of that. I recommended a film camera because I interpreted the writer's interest in learning photography as a curiosity about traditional work. Think of it as a possible prerequisite to better digitography.

[Elysian]

Although I have seen some very impressive digital works on screen, I reserve higher praise for prints that reflect the artistic skill and craftmanship of their makers vs. computer-generated images that illustrate the powers of software programs.

True, they made things too easy in Photoshop!

[Clemmie]

I don't have, and have never looked at, Photoshop - so I ask this question in perfect innocence:

Is THAT an ACTUAL menu option?

And if it is - how well does it work?

[Elysian]

I met a lot of dumb people in my life, but...

[Clemmie]

Now, now. I asked in all innocence - and I don't put ANYTHING past today's software writers.

[PointBreak]

I already own a Casio Exilim Z3, which I use in everyday point-and-shoot pictures. This was the first digital camera I owned, and is what got me to be more serious about photography. Now I'm considering another camera in order to help me learn the proper techniques and concepts of photography. I've read great reviews on the 35mm SLR Canon Rebel Ti, and it is something I can afford. Getting another digital camera that is better than the one I currently have is probably out of my price range. So should I keep learning w/the Casio, or get a 35mm film SLR to add to my photography education?

Is the Canon Rebel Ti just the only model or are there other Rebel Ti's? For example I saw a Rebel Ti 300V and a Rebel Ti QD? Sorry I'm a beginner and I too was interested in this model.

Thanks