 BetterPhoto Member |
?? Is there a difference between digital SLR and just SLR, and if so which is right for me. I'm a beggining photographer who prefers to take pics of scenery.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ryan Jones |
Yes, a huge difference! On the similiar side, SLR and DSLR are both Single lens reflex lenses. The difference is that an SLR will lift the mirror to expose the image to a roll of film. A DSLR will create the same function but expose the image to a digital sensor. They are both very fast and convenient tools but the major difference will come in your workflow and image detail. SLRs will use 35mm film while similiar priced DSLRs will have 6 to 8 megapixels. Technicaly 35mm film will produce more detail and clarity than 8 megapixels. But the digital workflow is far more cost-effective (and fun in my opinion) than film processing. If you think about it, exposing a roll of film requires a fully stocked darkroom with chemicals, projectors, etc...while processing digital images need only a computer. You can take thousands of images with a DSLR and they will cost you NOTHING! While thousands of developed film images will cost hundreds of dollars at home or a processing service(at least). But scenery and landscape images could greatly benefit from the extra resolution of 35mm film. Because honestly, only the most expensive medium format digital cameras (22 megapixels+)can compete with film's resolution( or detail). Now I shoot with a DSLR, the Nikon D70(6 megapixels) and am very pleased with the images I get. Now I don't print images larger than 8.5x11 on an inkjet printer that can print no more than 360 DPI anyways so a digital image will not lose quality at that size when compared to a film image. But if you are planning on producing poster sized prints, film will be a better choice. (You may even want to research medium and large format film which creates far more clarity and detail than 35mm) But I say it all comes down to your final output intentions. In a nutshell, DSLRs will have image breakdown much earlier than 35mm SLRs but the overhead saved in processing and production (and ease of use) can tip the scales towards digital. They did for me and I haven't looked back!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
If you're a beginner, stick with a traditional [film] SLR. You can probably buy a used one, in good to great conditioner, for a good price at a local camera store. Albeit Ryan proffers his arguments for digital, digital SLRs seem to have too many bells and whistles. As a result, they remove the real opportunity to learn. And, if that's the goal, you'll have lost it to digital wizardry. Also, don't let anyone try to convince you digital is cheap. Yes, you can take a lot of pictures at little to no cost AFTER you've laid out $600 - 8,000 for that digital SLR body. Then there's the battery pack and charger, memory cards, special digital lenses [more expensive] if you have to buy them, etc. Oh, did I mention the fairly huge computer that's recommended [3.2 GHz withup to 1 Gig RAM,]the photo printer [not the give-away one when you buy the camera,] photo paper and INK [the most expensive accessory!] I don't own a digital SLR. If I bought one, I'd get the Canon 20D - because I use the Canon EOS 3 and EOS 620 [both traditional film cameras] and I could use my available lenses. But, for that $1300-1400 body there's no way I'm going to take BETTER photographs. Because it isn't the camera body that makes the picture, it's the photographer. And, $1300-1400 pays for a lot of film and developing. Oh, did I mention that I scan slides, prints and negatives, and edit using Photoshop. So, I get the best of both worlds. Now, if and when film is no longer available, my recommendation might be different. But, to begin and learn - use a film-based SLR. Be sure it can be operated manually - a requirement of most high school, college and adult education course in Beginning Photography [unless the course is specific to digital.] See if you can find a Pentax K1000 or Minolta SRT-201 [both old but reliable.] Other newer, beginner cameras: Nikon N50, FM-10?; Canon Rebel [not sure of numbers. Minolta has a new "beginners model," as does Pentax. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Some good advice here. Bear in mind, Tyler, that an SLR is only one choice of camera design among many different types of cameras. The SLR may be 'talked about' more often because it's a versatile system, because it's currently state-of-the-art for many new digital camera buyers, or because 35mm film SLRs happen to be a great beginner's camera system you can get used at very affordable prices. But that isn't your only choice for landscape photography by any means. Landscape photographers use all SORTs of good cameras in all sorts of designs and formats - 4x5 and 8x10 large format film view cameras, medium format cameras in various formats with film or digital backs, 35mm and digital SLRS, twin lens reflex (TLR) film cameras, rangefinder film cameras, etc, etc. Sure, if you can't wait and want to spend just a few dollars now and get your feet wet with a camera, fine. Speaking for myself, I'd skip the cheaper autofocus (AF) Minoltas, Pentaxes, Canon Rebels and Nikons under N80. You can't get something for nothing, and my rule is the more the camera's internal complexity, the higher level camera you should buy, unless you like waiting for new circuit boards, LCD displays, or AF motors. Simpler mechanical film SLR cameras with manual film advance can be very durable, but any camera older than 15-20 years or so could probably use a recent clean-lube-adjust at a shop just to make certain nothing's sticking and the shutter speeds are accurate. But if you're thinking of spending a lot of cash, you'll save money and likely a few expensive wrong turns if you learn about all the pros and cons of each type of camera and imaging system before you purchase.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Geez, I use a PIII 500 Mhz machine with 256M of RAM for much of my photo editing and I'm perfectly satisfied. So, don't think you need to spend tons of money on computer equipment. I like film, but digital is the future of photography. Yes, you can buy a film SLR body for a few hundred bucks, but you're looking at $6 to $8 per roll of 24 exposures to get it developed. If you take one roll of pictures a week, that means you'll spend $300 a year on image processing. Not to mention the price of fuel going to and from the film processor, plus the wait to get images back. The increased costs of a digital camera means you'll spend about $1k for a decent dSLR with a couple of 'kit' lenses and a memory card. Once you've spent that, you can take pictures to your heart's content. You get INSTANT feedback on the quality of your photo (exposure, focus, composition) so you can re-shoot if necessary to capture the image you envision. None of these things can be done with a film SLR. In short, if you want to remove the drudge and delay from photography, go digital. You won't regret it. And besides, you KNOW you're going to want a dSLR eventually. Why not buy it now and save the $$ you would have spent on a film SLR?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
"Yes, you can buy a film SLR body for a few hundred bucks, but you're looking at $6 to $8 per roll of 24 exposures to get it developed" Really? You're getting ripped off. I spend $1.29 for 36 B&W exposures, $5 a roll for color reversal, 120 rollfilm $4.75. Bulk film is even cheaper, y'know. Film use varies with the photographer. But film shooters will ALWAYS shoot less, they don't chimp away until they get it right. "You get INSTANT feedback on the quality of your photo (exposure, focus, composition) so you can re-shoot if necessary to capture the image you envision. None of these things can be done with a film SLR." I see a lot of people that claim this as a benefit. But I notice a lot of people still don't record their exposures, so they don't know how to fix it right the next time they shoot. The poor resolution of most LCD displays is certainly not equivalent to examining slides on a light table, or even large prints. As for composition, well, once you get past the 'tree growing out of the head' phase, that's mostly about developing an artistic eye, i.e. knowing how to compose on the screen before you ever take the image. "The increased costs of a digital camera means you'll spend about $1k for a decent dSLR with a couple of 'kit' lenses and a memory card." Oh, more than that, I'd think - batteries, extra cards when the first card is corrupted or malfunctions, computer software, a card reader, printer, better lenses to replace the cheapo kit zooms, etc, etc. And don't forget the backup body when the DSLR goes back to the shop for a few weeks of repair. Even if you're prescient enough to KNOW this, you may not WANT what's available now. What if you like wide-angle work, and want a FF DSLR camera that is equal in reliability to a Nikon F3, and costs about the same?. Not there yet. "Why not buy it now and save the $$ you would have spent on a film SLR?" Because you can get a very nice upper-level, reliable film SLR NOW for $200-$300. You can get some very nice used prime or zoom lenses for it for $30-$100. You can't get a nice, reliable DSLR system NOW for $200-300, and good lenses for it are mostly new, and are expensive. There are people that have used the same 35mm SLR for 25 years without malfunction. DSLR? They don't make such an animal yet. I see DSLR owners now reporting 3, even 4 warranty returns for separate failures inside of 1 year -I've never seen anything like that before, not even from cheap 35mm P&S owners. Dead pixels, dead sensors, circuit board failures, AF failures, flash failures, power supply failures, LCD panel failures, bent CF pins, cameras dying from light moisture ingress or even high humidity - the list goes on and on.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
I disagree with some of the statements made by Ryan. Digital processing is not free. You have to pay for cards for the camera ink for the printer, paper for the printer. C.D's to save files on. This all cost money and can be expensive. It's very easy to drop a roll or two of film off at a lab you trust and pay the 15 dollars for processing on two rolls. Film cameras are perfect for the beginer and very cost effective considering you can buy used gear dirt cheap. Digital is the wave of the near future, but for me I need more mega pixels at a more cost effective price.When I can buy a digital camer with 20 megapixel for 1200 dollars , thats when I'll give the thumbs up to digital. I do understand that working pros need the convienience of digital to compete in the business. But for beginers I feel film is still the way to go and a great way to learn about photography.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
"$5 a roll for color reversal"... okay I quoted a price that was $1 over that. Not a big deal. Film photographers are still paying $6 a roll, plus gas to and from the processor (twice). The advantage of digital over film for avid photographers is that you CAN "chimp" as much as you want until you get the print you want. Re recording exposure data, the camera does it for you (unlike any film camera) so you can look at the scene, look at your original photo, and then maybe understand why you had to open up by two stops to get a decent picture instead of being disappointed yet again when you browse the results at the photofinishers. Re camera reliability, mechanical devices do tend to be more rugged than electrical devices... but reliable? Generally an electronic device that doesn't fail shortly after being built will outlast mechanical devices. As far as digital processing being free (or not), you don't have to print, or save, the images that you don't want. If you get two good images out of fifty taken on a trip, save them and delete the other 48 images... and there's no cost. Re quality of digital versus film... for 8x10s and below, relatively inexpensive 6 to 8 MP dSLRs will be indistinguishable from 35mm film in most instances. What you lose in resolution is more than made up for by lack of grain. To reiterate: digital is initally more expensive but offers more rapid feedback and, once the investment in equipment is made, reduces the incremental costs of taking pictures to virtually nothing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"Re recording exposure data, the camera does it for you (unlike any film camera)" Gee, I didn't know that. Then what is all that printed stuff on the edge of the negatives that came out of my Pentax 645N. Sure looks like exposure data to me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Kerry, your 645 certainly isn't a beginner-level, inexpensive film camera.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
all you said was that no film camera can record settings and the pentax 645N can.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Justin G. |
i would take the 645N over a digital right now because of the fact that it CAN record your settings like the digital would. and the 645 resolution would just murder a digital camera's reso. taken the settings from a decent entry level digi, rebel xt (3456x2304 raw[8MP]) and knowing the fact that it takes around 300dpi to get a high quality digital picture that leaves you with a quality 8x12. i'm sure with the 645 kerry can pull off tack sharp 16x20's AND he has his settings recorded. now my point. ooo la la you get instant gratification with digital but when you 8x10 is sitting next to kerry's 16x24 I bet he'll have end gratification and i'd rather have the end gratification so that I can make some decent sharp prints that sell. but that's just me, some people don't mind small pics but when I shoot a pic, i'm shooting for 16x20 or bigger. I want all my hard work to be seen. just me though
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kevin Ekstrom |
Yes, Iwould take her Pentax over digital. I would also take my Bronica over digital and my N90s and my FG and my N70 and so on..............
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
That's HIS Pentax. At 6' 210 lbs. and a bald spot I would make a terrible looking woman. Come to think about it, I don't make such a great looking guy either! I would take your Bronica over any digital or 35mm too. It's a great camera. Shame they quit making them.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
"The advantage of digital over film for avid photographers is that you CAN "chimp" as much as you want until you get the print you want." Sure, providing your subject and light conditions cooperate for you by remaining absolutely unchanged, and you happen to notice the difference on the poor-resolution display. Don't move, Mr. Leopard! So much for mastering the decisive moment. Better to get it right the first time I think, by mastering lighting and composition. "Re recording exposure data, the camera does it for you (unlike any film camera) so you can look at the scene, look at your original photo, and then maybe understand why you had to open up by two stops to get a decent picture instead of being disappointed yet again when you browse the results at the photofinishers." You could do that only if you kept the data long enough to view the final large print critically with enough resolution, but most don't. Viewing the EVF display is not equivalent to a loupe and light table. Like someone with a 35mm with motor drive and a 250-shot back, the tendency is to shoot first, think later. Most advice I see for DLSR owners here is not about developing skill and creative vision for the initial image at the critical moment - it's how to fix things in photoshop. And by the way, those defocused photoshopped backgrounds designed to imitate a film camera wide-open sure look phony to me. Yes, but we're not speaking generally, nor even of devices that consist solely of electronic or mechanical components. We're talking about comparing better film SLRS with a proven history of reliable performance over many years, sometimes decades, without need of repair, to DSLRS crammed with brand-new mass-produced technology costing two-three times as much, and experiencing breakdown in a matter of months. Even the most ardent DSLR enthusiasts I've read find it somewhat hard to argue equivalent reliability when they are advising the very next DSLR owner about his/her dead circuit board, dead pixels, dead EVF display panel, dead sensors, etc. You may be willing to put up with that obvious disadvantage, if you have the funds, but Tyler may not.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||