Better and economic way going digital?

I am quite confused while I am thinking about the way going digital

and have been doing researches on digital SLR and film SLR cameras.

I intended to buy a digital SLR, D70, which seems to be the most

popular consumer level digital SLR. Digital cameras are great. I have

a digital point-and-shoot camera, and I really like it. I shoot

whatever I want to shoot, don?t have to worry about wasting films (and

paying money), and it?s very convenient to see playback on LCD and

laptop. But just consider its price. Electronic gears are always

overpriced and their prices are always dropping. I don?t want to see

the price dropping too much just after I buy it. Moreover, when I

realized that the quality of pictures taken by D70 with its kit lens

is worse than film SLRs at the similar price tag, I was disappointed.

The even worse things are its dim and small viewfinder, and small APS

CCD. I think it?s overpriced too much. And I think CCD size of

affordable digital SLRs will be the same as film SLRs years later. So

the DX lenses designed for digital SLRs will be obsolete then.

So the other choice is a film SLR. I prefer to N80. Yes, it does have

drawbacks. It doesn?t have mirror lock-up, and its vertical grip

doesn?t have shutter release. But it?s only about $300, what can I ask

for more? I am going to buy 2 prime lenses, 50/1.8D and 24/2.8D, which

is perfect for landscape. Probably next step 85/2.8D or 105/2.8D for

portraits. I won?t buy any zoom lenses, as I don?t like their weights

and distortions. The lenses I buy now can be used when full-size and

affordable digital SLR is available. Well, it?s a perfect plan so far.

However, as an amateur I want to put my pictures on webs and improve

my photography skills from other?s critiques. I need a scanner too.

But a quality scanner, which doesn?t sacrifice picture quality, is

even expensive than a digital camera. What about cheap ones? I buy

quality lenses to get quality pictures but sacrifice picture quality

due to a cheap scanner? It?s really bad.

Either $1,000 for N80, two prime lenses and a cheap scanner, or D70

with its kit lens at the same price. It makes me confused. I want to

listen to your advices. Thank you all!

 

Regards,

-Bo Chen

That's the going price for the digital SLRs. The market seems to have settled on a price of between $1,000 and $1,500 for entry level models. Either you decide to pay to play, or you don't.

 

Digital technology is evolving, so today's models will be usable a couple of years from now, even though they'll be outdated by then. What you pay today helps to finance development of future products (plus profits, of course).

 

If you don't want to pay film/processing costs any more, then digital makes sense. The current quality of digital seems to be good enough for most people.

 

Photography always has been quite costly as a hobby. I prefer not to buy the cheapest (referring to scanners and lenses) I can find, as durability and sometimes quality are not what I want them to be.

Why not go Canon and buy a EOS 30/Elan /E (or NE). I would say the N80 and the Elan are about equal, but you get things like mirror lockup and shutter release on the vertical grip! I LOVE this camera :) although i considered buying the Nikon counterpart also.

Most photographers will never need to capture more information than a good digital SLR captures.

 

Most of the professionals will know in advance if they do and will either use film, a "medium format" digital back, or a scanning back like the Betterlight.

 

However, every now and again some of us end up with a picture that we want to crop or enlarge beyond what we expected. This is where film and a good scanner have it all over digital.

 

The good scanner will give you as good an image as a high end digital camera, but if you do have that once in a lifetime shot where you need more detail, you can always take the negative and have it scanned on a drum scanner at 12000 dpi. You will then have way more detail and dynamic range than with even a high end SLR.

 

I have done my own tests and there are many more creditable sources out there that place 200 asa film at above 16 meg.

 

I guess it is like the old cowboy said when they ask him if he thought he needed to carry a gun. "No, but if I ever do, I'll need it like hell".

 

So the point is, you have to weigh the convenience of digital against the additional cost of film.

 

I suppose that you also have to ask yourself how many suprises you get when you get your film back. If you get a lot, then the instant feed back that you get from looking at the screen may outweigh the additional capibility of digital.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/april2002/swgitfield1.htm

 

Also keep in mind that normal color printing now throws away all the detail above 300 dpi so there is no reason to break the bank buying a scanner that scans 5000 dpi on 35mm unless you plan on making a lot of 16X20s.

Economic and practical necessity deemed it necessary that I go digital for business purposes. It is a PITA to have to go through countless menu choices each time a photo is attempted. Of cours I can set the 5050 for personal mode, but just a touch of the wrong button can upset the whole applecart. In over a years time I never printed anything larger than a 4x6 and I could probably have gotten by with a lot less than 5 megs. I should have settled for something that would replicate the method I use with my Leicas and saved a bundle instead of having a depreciated investment that after a year's use still requires a new tutorial every time it is used.

You can scan prints on a flatbed scanner for web use. Even a $100 scanner is good enough for that.

 

For modest volume shooters, a digital film scanner is nice. You can just pay film processing and then scan and print what you want. That helps control printing costs, but there is a capital investment involved. The Nikon Coolscan V or Minolta 5400 are about $600 and give you the flexibility of a digital darkroom. B&W, however, is better printed traditionally.

 

Good luck.

 

Robert

From the photo.net forums page:

 

Please choose the most appropriate forum for your post. Please do NOT post in multiple forums.

"But just consider its price. Electronic gears are always overpriced and their prices are always dropping."

 

Overpriced vs. what? The cost of film and development? The cost of lost shots due to mistakes you didn't realize until after the proofs came back? The cost of the 645 format gear you would need to match the quality?

 

"I don?t want to see the price dropping too much just after I buy it."

 

You do not buy electronic goods for their market value at a later date. You buy them for what they can do. If you want something that goes up in price, pick a good stock. Or land. Land is almost always good.

 

"Moreover, when I realized that the quality of pictures taken by D70 with its kit lens is worse than film SLRs at the similar price tag, I was disappointed."

 

If you have a drum scanner and shoot Velvia 50 you'll be able to keep up with the D70 using 35mm. Anything less and the D70 will simply bury 35mm. It's not even a contest once you hit ISO 400. It's not much of a contest at 200.

 

http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html

 

"The even worse things are its dim and small viewfinder, and small APS CCD."

 

The viewfinder is not as good as on a film SLR. That's a drawback of DSLR's with smaller sensors. The size of the sensor is both a drawback and an advantage. It makes good WA more difficult, but increases the reach of telephoto. To me the improved tele performance is worth it. Others may come to a different conclusion based on shooting style.

 

"I buy quality lenses to get quality pictures but sacrifice picture quality due to a cheap scanner?"

 

If quality concerns you that much, you need to go with a DSLR.

 

"It?s really bad. Either $1,000 for N80, two prime lenses and a cheap scanner, or D70 with its kit lens at the same price."

 

D70 any day of the week, twice on Sunday, and never look back.

"However, every now and again some of us end up with a picture that we want to crop or enlarge beyond what we expected. This is where film and a good scanner have it all over digital."

 

ROTFLMAO!

 

"The good scanner will give you as good an image as a high end digital camera, but if you do have that once in a lifetime shot where you need more detail, you can always take the negative and have it scanned on a drum scanner at 12000 dpi."

 

For what? More grain?

 

"I have done my own tests and there are many more creditable sources out there that place 200 asa film at above 16 meg."

 

There are no credible sources out there that place ISO 200 35mm film at 16 MP. Anyone who has actually carried out tests, as you only claim to do, would die laughing at that stupid statement. Even the film manufacturers would scoff at that. At 16 MP DSLR's and MF backs directly challenge 6x7 MF. 35mm isn't even in the race by that point.

 

Nothing is more credible than side-by-side images. See below:

 

10D vs. Film:

 

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

 

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/m_Aesthetics_Shootout/_Is_slide_better.html

 

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

 

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html

 

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/10d.html

 

D100 vs. Film:

 

http://www.borutfurlan.com/test_results.html

 

1Ds vs. Film:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_mf.html

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html

 

http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_prints.html

Daniel,

I never quite understand these shoot-outs between film and digital I see on the internet. It seems to me that the digital image is a first-generation output from a digital camera but at best, a second generation output from a film camera. Wouldn't it be more comparable to compare two prints from the two different media? I am not asking this in a defensive manner - I am genuinely curious.

Thanks,

Ashwin

"Daniel, I never quite understand these shoot-outs between film and digital I see on the internet."

 

For some reason Neal's BS irks me, so if I see it I fire back. Probably a bit childish, but then so is Neal bashing digital and waving a mathematically flawed paragraph from a single source to back his claims.

 

"It seems to me that the digital image is a first-generation output from a digital camera but at best, a second generation output from a film camera. Wouldn't it be more comparable to compare two prints from the two different media?"

 

A traditional wet print from film is also second generation as the image must pass through an enlarger lens. That's one of the inherent advantages of digital capture. Once captured, every single pixel can be precisely duplicated on paper with ease. With film it's nearly impossible to transfer the image to paper with 100% fidelity.

 

But more to your point: the D100 vs. film link above includes a traditional wet print. It didn't stand a chance against the D70 or drum scan. Not to say a wet print can't look good when viewed normally, but enlarged viewing clearly shows which is sharper and more detailed.

Thank all of you for your valuable advice. ;-)

As your advice above, I have 2 choices:

1. Buy D70 and enjoy its convenience.

2. Buy a cheap or used scanner for web and shoot with film camera.

 

Besides reading your advice here, I read a lot of reviews on the Net. I am surprised that so many people are satisfied at D70, even those who shoot film for years. Anyway, I have to agree with you that D70 is decent for an ameatur like me.

 

However, I understand that digital SLRs are still not as good as film SLRs and there's room to improve:

1.CCD size: though lots of reviews support its cropped CCD, and say that it's enough for a digital SLR, I still think that a full frame CCD will be better (refer to Bob Atkins' article about sensor size and picture quality here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/). And it is because that the full frame CCD is too expensive. Canon has a full frame CMOS in 1Ds Mark II, which is very expensive compared to Nikon F6, the flagship film SLR of Nikon. I guess if Nikon had a DSLR with full frame CCD, it would have been more expensive than Canon 1Ds Mark II. That's the reason that Nikon doesn't have a full frame CCD DSLR on the market right now. As time goes, I believe that there will be affordable full frame CCD DSLR on the market. Nikon won't stick to the shrinked CCD forever.

 

2.DX lenses: comes shrinked CCD, there comes DX lenses. Anyway, I don't see enough DX lenses available. Wide angle lenses are pains of DSLR due to the shrinked CCD. The 12-24 lens is around $1000! And all of them are among "G" series, which is not as good as other series, I think.

 

3.Dim viewfinder: As the maximun apeture of the kit lens is only 3.5, and the shrinked CCD, it's not surprised to see a dim viewfinder. Anyway, it works. That's fine.

 

Well, I understand that it's the cost if I want the convenience of digital SLR. Technology evolves. I understand as well what I pay will help technology evolvement.

 

Christian, I prefer to Nikon N80 as it has spot metering, which Canon EOS 30 doesn't have.

Robert, can you suggest some flatbed scanner under $200?

Jeffrey, I posted my post to Nikon forum as well as this forum as I want advice from Nikon users as well as general users on this forum. Anyway, thank you for recapping the rule of photo.net.

Daniel, thank you for the comparison of D100 vs. film. Can it be said that D70 is as good as D100?

 

Regards,

-Bo Chen

Bo Chen.

 

No offence but you sound like you are reading way too much into the details and missing the big picture. You mention you are an amature, but you keep mentioning what you like and dont like. You mention sensor size and weight and distortion as bad things about digital. There are two sides to all arguements so I will give you the other side:

 

Sensor size - Who cares. The D70 comes with a GREAT 18-70 lens. This gives you 28-105mm with is plenty, plus you can still get a 50 prime for the really low light stuff.

 

Weight - You're gonna find that digital and film all weigh the same

 

Distortion - All lenses have distortion. Sure primes are better but with computer programs like the type from DO labs the difference is minimal.

 

 

Personally I think that digital SLR's are WAY better than film SLRs. I dont have to worry about what film type I have loaded so I am always ready for a shot. If I am worried about getting a shot I can shoot RAW mode, or try a few extra angles without worrying about wasting film. Also electronic gear is not overpriced. It is priced base on supply and demand, just like Film gear.

 

There is a reason why most professionals now shoto digital. Now I realize the benifits of film, as an amature looking to learn I reccomend digital.

Wow. Lots of opinions. Before you get totally blown away by all this techno speak, figure out what you want to do with a camera. What do you plan to take pictures of, where do you want to take pictures and what do you want to do with them? Do you wish to take photographs or do you wish to play with cameras - there is a huge difference!

 

The crusaders for digital/silver are never going to beat or change each other. Digital will prevail by default in the end - thats just the way the World is going.

 

The choice is yours to make - buy a Canon T90 for next to nothing and shoot 35mm with one of the best "pro" cameras ever made. Or you can buy a N90S and do pretty much the same using a semi-pro Nikon that is still very relevant today. You can go and buy any number of new digital models - D30, D70, etc but you are going to have to take a lot of shots to pay back the capital cost against the cost of the processing. The more you use it the cheaper it gets. Or you can elect to adopt a "hybrid" system where you stay with the older cameras (at bargain prices) and then only pay to develop the film (negligable here at around $2) and scan the stuff you like using a middle of the pack neg scanner.

 

I currently favour this approach. Not because it is the "right" approach but because it just happens to fit my current circumstances. The only reason I dont use a D70 is because I cannot justify the purchase of one right now - I have tons of old stuff that is still doing the Job and I have a huge investment in older glass - Nikon AF and Canon FD. The glass is critical! The camera remains a fancy light tight box!

 

My best portraits are still out of a Mamiya C220 only because of the good lens and nice big fat negative! You cannot really tell the difference between the images produced by the Canon or Nikon using comparable lenses and I am pretty sure that a D70 will be much the same - If someone would give me one to test I could confirm this!:-)

 

My point/s are - there is no "right" answer. You must focus on the objective rather than the tools and that each person has different circumstances, requirements and style. You can cast around for opinion and then consider your options but I would be very hesitant to take any of the responses (including this one) as the "correct" and authoratitive answer!!

 

Good luck!

Lee