35mm SLR versus Digital SLR?

[biguniverse]

I've been using point-and-shoot digital cameras for the past 4+ years now. However, I'm getting ready to take a Basic Photography course and they require a 35mm camera.

My question is, should I borrow a 35mm from someone for this course instead of investing in a new 35mm camera (e.g. Canon Rebel)? Or, will I need the 35mm for anything else in the future that I cannot use a D-SLR for (e.g. Canon 10D)?

My interest is in nature photography and possibly selling large pictures (e.g. 20" x 24"). My fear is that I won't be using a 35mm beyond this course because I'm really interested in digital much more.

[Sean Dempsey]

Digital.

My recommendation for anyone looking to break into Digital SLR's is the Canon 10D.

The world is ONLY getting more digital. A film SLR will be alot cheaper, so you won't be out alot, but if you get a good digital SLR like a 10D or D70/D100, you'll have something that isn't just a "hold over", you'll be able to use it as professionally as you can afford lenses and gear.

Buying a film camera is like going out and buying an OS/2Warp computer or a BetaMax video player, or a cassette deck for your car.

[Sebastian]

Biguniverse,

It depends. You said you'll be taking a class. Does that class involve darkroom work? If so, the 1500 spent on a DSLR will be wasted because you'll only be able to use a film camera. What are the specifics of the class? We need more info to give you an INFORMED answer, something that Sean did not provide you with since you didn't give us enough to go on.

And PLEASE respond with new posts, do not edit your original since you will get no more chances at a better response form others on this forum.

So change your post back to give others a chance to respond.

[biguniverse]

Thanks, Sebastian. Sorry about the Edit of the original message -- I thought I was editing one of my replies (the Back and Forward and browser caching did some funny things which confused me).

Anyway, I guess my real question is that are today's digital cameras and printers that print digial pictures good enough to produce large pictures (e.g. nature photographs of 20x24" size)? In other words, would I need a 35mm beyond this class if I don't want to do dark room stuff but still wanting to produce large (framed) prints that I can potentially sell?

By the way, here is the description of the class I'm taking (no dark room activities):

---

Basic Photography: Four Week Learn the basics of photography in this
course. A 35 mm SLR camera with manual controls is required. This class is
designed for the beginner who wants to go beyond “point and shoot” photography. Students will learn the basics of light and composition, as well as an introduction to rules of proper exposure. There will be one class devoted to photographing in the field.

[Sean Dempsey]

If the class requires a film camera because you're going to be doing darkroom work, get a 25 dollar camera from a pawn shop. My university has a "Digital Photography" course, I see no need to take a class in something you aren't gonna use. My "uninformed" post still stands.

And I can already hear the arguments for learning to develop in a darkroom and use all the equipment. I did that, and it sucked then, and I'll never do it again. Even in my Calculus 2 class a few years ago, the teacher said "use the calculator and computer as much as possible, you're never gonna not have them, so screw paper".

ITS THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION, all the flat-earth society people can keep their film! haha!

[Sebastian]

If the class requires a film camera because you're going to be doing darkroom work, get a 25 dollar camera from a pawn shop. My university has a "Digital Photography" course, I see no need to take a class in something you aren't gonna use. My "uninformed" post still stands.

And I can already hear the arguments for learning to develop in a darkroom and use all the equipment. I did that, and it sucked then, and I'll never do it again. Even in my Calculus 2 class a few years ago, the teacher said "use the calculator and computer as much as possible, you're never gonna not have them, so screw paper".

ITS THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION, all the flat-earth society people can keep their film! haha!

Sean,

You really need to get your ego in check.

"All the flat-earth society people can keep their film!"

Statements like that will do you no good in the long run, they are immature and short-sighted, and they are a big reason you are seeing fewer and fewer responses to your posts. They are simply insulting. We are here for the love of PHOTOGRAPHY, not for the equipment. We use toy cameras, we use film, we use digitals, we use WHATEVER WE NEED TO MAKE OUR VISION A REALITY.

I am a big proponent of digital WHEN IT MAKES SENSE. Do I prefer it to film? Most of the time, but sometimes film is preffered. Go out and shoot some more instead of looking for more gear and you will start to understand. None of these tools are ever a step backwards for anyone if they get them to where they want to be.

You're a good guy and have a good eye for photography. There is nothing wrong with you loving digital, but please don't insult others here and make them out to be cavemen. Those "flat-earth society people" know more about the true nature of photography than you and I ever will. Try to respect that.

[Sebastian]

Biguniverse,

I would contact them and find out why a 35mm SLR is required if there is no darkroom work. There is a possibility that there will be a review of how to read negatives, how to judge density, etc.

I second Sean's suggestion on a cheap SLR. Anything old, working and wth a decent 50mm lens should work. Good old manuals can be had for about 100 bucks.

Will digital give you 20" x 24 prints? Easily. But realistically, will you ever sell stuff that size? And why are you even worried about it when you're just about to take a basic class? I'm sorry, but I think you might be a bit premature in aiming for sellable images at this stage. Unless you are very advanced and are just trying to get some paperwork to support your skills, in which case I take that statement back. Get a film SLR, finish the course, and worry about it then. In the end, the camera does not determine quality anyways, it's all in the lens and film. Any old SLR with a great lens, good tripod and good technique can easily give you great 24 inch prints. Same thing is true for digital. As for printing, those sizes are easily achievable in a digital darkroom using a 6mp DSLR and a good inkjet.

Just to let you know though, with digital you need good lenses, computers that can handle the workflow, software and printers. And YOU take the job of the lab, you need to make sure the system is calibrated, and you need to keep up with the best techniques to use what you have. It goes WAY beyond a camera and some equipment. With that also comes the cost. 1500 for the body, same for some good lenses, a couple hundred for the memory cards, computer upgrades, calibration equipment, printer, paper, ink...the list goes on. Take that into consideration.

Bodies are no longer an investment that will last for years, that went the way of the Dodo once digital became the norm. Put most of your focus in your skills and in your lenses on the equipment end, and get the bodies that fit the ends of the lenses. That's the best way to insure that your future images really will be worthy of framing and selling.

Everyone always says start with the basics. I don't believe that it's right for everyone, and you will have to decide what is right for you in the end. Those are just my thoughts as to the safest way to progress. I would hate to tell you to spend thousands on gear only for you to sell everything at a loss in a few years.

Keep the questions coming, I know there's no way this answers everything that could be on your mind.

[biguniverse]

Hey, guys. I just want to say that information BOTH of you provided has been VERY helpful -- thank you. I appreciate it :-)

Also, please don't let the forum get personal; I suppose parts of each of your replies could have been omitted, so no one person is fault. You both are awesome :-)

Thanks again!

[biguniverse]

Hi, Seb. Sorry, I didn't realize you had another reply posted (I must have been typing mine about the same time).

Anyway, you are right about me getting ahead of myself, that is, it is premature to think of selling stuff when I'm just beginning a "photo 101" class. I guess, recently purchased nature photographs is what got me inspired and being a computer/IT guy, I naturally lean towards digitial.

Anyway, in summary, do you think, going with something like this now and getting practice with it and let prices of digital equipment come down is a smart choice?

http://www.circuitcity.com/detail.jsp?oid=91623

[Sean Dempsey]

It was hyperbole for humor. I never thought that comparing film cameras to "flat earth" believers would be taken seriously. I live in America, and we are all free to conduct our hobbies however we see fit. It was an attempt at a joke along the lines of the "nikon samurais" and the battle between nikon and canon that crops up occasionally in jest. The same for film and digital.

So next time, when I compare film cameras to typewriters, it's a joke. And, if it's not funny, well, maybe I just have a bad sense of humor.

[Sebastian]

Hi, Seb. Sorry, I didn't realize you had another reply posted (I must have been typing mine about the same time).

Anyway, you are right about me getting ahead of myself, that is, it is premature to think of selling stuff when I'm just beginning a "photo 101" class. I guess, recently purchased nature photographs is what got me inspired and being a computer/IT guy, I naturally lean towards digitial.

Anyway, in summary, do you think, going with something like this now and getting practice with it and let prices of digital equipment come down is a smart choice?

http://www.circuitcity.com/detail.jsp?oid=91623

Yeah, I think that would suit you fine. It has full manual control whcih might be needed, and that's really all you need.

Another alternative would be to just buy the body without the kit lens and get the 50mm f/1.8 for an extra 70 bucks. That would save some money and get you MUCH better optics.

Like I said though, see if you can get in touch with the instructor and find out why they require a 35mm SLR.

You mentioned borrowing, would that be difficult? That might be THE way to go. Some classes I took also had loaners available for a small fee, for the length of the class. And one instructor had connections with a local shop and he would get students used camera at a steep discount.

But, if you think you'll use it, then yeah, the K2 would be decent.

[biguniverse]

Sounds good. Thanks again.

[Sebastian]

Sean,

I sent you a private message.

[Sebastian]

Sounds good. Thanks again.

You're very welcome.

If you get the time, drop in and give us an update on how you're doing. This is a great place to get many viewpoints, and that is the best thing for learning how to "see."

Good luck with your class and with your decision.

[another view]

biguniverse, welcome to the site. I think the best advice is to see what the instructor recommends. He or she will have a reason that they recommend this piece of equipment, and you just might be better off having it because of their experience and maybe some tips that they'll pass along about it. I've experienced that before myself.

However, down the road it might not be what you want. No matter what you buy, this could be the case so don't worry too much about it. Just get something that allows you to shoot manually so you can really learn what's happening. Not that you'll always shoot manually when you get more experience, but a lot of people here (including me) shoot using some of both, depending on the situation. Having a camera like this will leave those doors open for you. Looks like you have a good choice there. The advice about the 50mm lens is good too - some people think it's best to learn on a "prime" (non-zoom) lens because you end up thinking more about your composition. Can't hurt, you're building your foundation here.

Down the road when you want to work with large prints the story might be different, but medium format film cameras (like some studio and wedding photographers use) are really cheap because everyone is going with digital. You can get beautiful prints of that size with even the smallest medium format cameras. My point is, there are other options. The most important thing is learning and shooting.

[another view]

It was hyperbole for humor. I never thought that comparing film cameras to "flat earth" believers would be taken seriously. I live in America, and we are all free to conduct our hobbies however we see fit. It was an attempt at a joke along the lines of the "nikon samurais" and the battle between nikon and canon that crops up occasionally in jest. The same for film and digital.

So next time, when I compare film cameras to typewriters, it's a joke. And, if it's not funny, well, maybe I just have a bad sense of humor.

Sean, I guess I read it wrong too. From your previous posts I have to believe that there's some element of truth to it though. If film has no place in your camera bag that's fine but don't discount it for the rest of the world. With all the "pros" of one medium, there are an equal number of "cons".

Good irish guys like Steve McCurry and Joe McNally are still shooting tons of film. Tell you what - next time you're in a major city, take a look at a photography exhibit and really examine the prints of the masters. The depth and character of those prints is amazing.