Switching from 35 mm to Digital

I have been wanting to switch from using a 35mm to digital but I have a problem

in switching because I use an old Canon EF camera. I learned all manual and I

don't feel comfortable going almost all to automatic controls on the camera. I

have been looking at both the 30D and the Digital Rebel models because they are

with in my financial range. Which is going to offer the most manual control out

of the two? I would really like to hear from those who have made the switch

from all manual to the newer controls but also from anyone else who knows about

these cameras.

Dont do it. stick with film.

haha jk digi guys, dont attack me.

 

(you dont have to use all the automatic functions on the camera you choose. keep shooting all manual if you like!)

 

I would personaly go with the 30D strictly because of size and durability.(i asume the 30d is more weather sealed, ect....)

 

good luck on your decision!

"Which is going to offer the most manual control out of the two? "

 

Both offers complete manual controllability. You'll probably prefer the tactile feel and ergonomics of the 30D, but the XTi is more current and better in some respects.

 

"...I use an old Canon EF camera. "

 

Do you really mean the manual focus-only FD mount? The EF film cameras (I've an EOS A2) don't feel much different from their DSLR counterpart.

Ryan, like you I grew up in photography with manual controls but the transition to digital SLR was really easy. I can't tell you about specific Canon products (I'm a Nikon guy) but I do know the Canon DSLR's offer manual options.

 

For example, I can go to all manual by flipping a switch. If I prefer, I can change to select AF or only aperature/shutter speed and the camera body will select the other. Mine, like the Canons, also offers many other 'Preselect' settings but I very rarely use them. It's just me, I like having the control to set a shot the way I want.

 

Just an aside, I selected my Nikon body based on what I was used to holding. The digital equivalent was remarkably similar. Stop in a store and try out the feel of some of the Canons. When you find one that feels right, you will know it will do everything your old film camera does, and then some.

Thank you for your comments and Yes, I do mean the old FD mounts. I have found memories of the lens and my dad teaching me how to use his camera.

As indicated, both models allow about the same degree of manual operation. Important thing is not just to look but actually to handle both bodies because the Rebel line feels too small to many users -- although its perfect for my hands and needs.

Since you're using FD series Canon equipment and moving to any of the Canon digital

SLRs means all new lenses anyway, you might as well expand your search to include all the

other DSLR cameras on the market. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, and Pentax

all produce very good DSLRs at a variety of price points with a range of feature sets.

 

All the DSLRs available today permit 100% manual control of focusing and exposure as

well as automatic control. Find somewhere you can handle a few and pick the one that fits

your hands, ideas and price point best.

 

Godfrey

As a former Canon FD/FL camera user (I still have a TX with a FD 1.8/50mm

and a FL 1.8/85 in my closet) I would recommend looking seriously at Nikon

 

Their bodies still have the feel and heft of an old-fashioned film camera

compared to the newer Canon EF bodies (unless of course you're used to a

T90)

 

But then again, despite having become a Nikon user, I won't ever say Canon

makes bad cameras (although for me the dropping of the FL/FD lens mount

was the reason to switch)

Ryan,

 

I recently went through a similar decision coming from a Nikon manual focus film gear background. It was a tossup between the Rebel XTi and Nikon D80 with the D80 winning out.

 

The XTi viewfinder was the deciding factor. I simply found it too small and squinty after shooting with film gear for the past 40 years. I also didn't like the single command dial on the XTi.

 

I don't suggest that you switch brands, but the 30D just seems like a more usable camera. The viewfinders are worlds apart and the second command dial makes a lot of difference if you shoot in manual.

 

Rich

Two points ...it is silly to ignore advances in technology and not use the automation which can work as well and faster than we humans can think and leave us to concentrate on non-technical aspects of photography.

 

Secondly the 'natural' progression is not neccessarilly SLR to DSLR but there is the modern option of the pro-sumer camera, with full manual over-ride. Particularly since you have FD lens with very limited use on any digital ... keep them for if you ever shoot film once you have turned to digital.

While a couple of years ago, there were some pretty good higher-end fixed lens digital

cameras that could take the place of a DSLR at substantially reduced cost (like the Canon

Pro-1 and G6, Konica Minolta A2, Sony F828 and R1, etc), things are getting a bit thin on

the ground for such things.

 

The fixed lens Fujis and Panasonic ultrazooms remain appealing, but with the price of

lower-end DSLR bodies getting into the $400-500 class, the advantages of a large sensor

and lens interchangeability usually overwhelms the convenience of an 'all in one' fixed lens

camera.

 

The Sony R1 was the last fixed-lens prosumer camera I have used and it is delightful,

produces amazing pictures. But it doesn't hold up against the responsiveness and ease of

use of my DSLR cameras and has become something of a specialist-use only camera now.

 

Godfrey

I would say 30D is the way to go there. The function of full automatic, partial automatic and full manual will be availlable to you as with you 35mm.

 

Stick with Canon so that you can use your old 35mm lenses.

You could stick with film like Ian said, and buy a Nikon film scanner. How do 20 megapixel files scanned at 4000dpi sound from 35mm?

>>How do 20 megapixel files scanned at 4000dpi sound from 35mm?<<

 

Like a lot of work... I'd rather be shooting than scanning, that's for sure.

Ryan, you lit a spark when you brought up switching to digital. I'm a retired news photog. Started with a 4x5 Graphic, went down to a 2 1/4 square then to Nikons and Leicas. Retired in 1992 at the young age of 55, 2 years before my paper went to digital cameras. I missed that. Took me 10 years before I bought my first digital. Believe it or not, I bought a Kodak Z7590 and love it. Lens goes from 38mm to 380mm and I can operate it like a film camera on manual. Only $250. Love it and having a ball. Just bought a .07 Kodak wide angle lens attachment and it' sharp as a tack. Willard

>>How do 20 megapixel files scanned at 4000dpi sound from 35mm?<<

 

I take it you've never returned from a job and been up all night scanning? :-)

Film scanning is a royal pain. The CS5000 with the whole roll adapter is about as fast as you're gonna get for under $2k.

Ryan, there are so many benefits of a DSLR, anyone, including me, could see the attraction to get one. By adapting to the newer technology, you may even free creative capabilities that were hindered by the mechanisms of manual focus and metered photography. It is good to "keep up" and understand the latest technologies expecially those that are so pervasive that they may affect your ability to take advantage of other advances in less creative communication fields like getting a boarding pass for a flight from a touch screen computer or one day being facile with video phones.

 

However, this new learning and exploration need not become a replacement for the techniques and approach to photography, which may have yielded a different kind of result than you will achieve with the newest digital appliances. I would even say that you should not allow the idea of "keeping current" to shape your expectations of your results or the photographic experience of achieving those results. Telephones are essential to us, but they are not an equal substitute for a visit although after 100 years of use, many of us allow ourselves to believe they are adequate for keeping in touch with people that live only 1 hour away. In my opinion, most current fully automated cameras do not offer manual control that is as intuitive as that to which you are accustomed. This is subjective. Only you can decide whether the currently available dslrs offer you an equal experience and better results in all the types of photography you have enjoyed. Good luck and have fun.

"Telephones are essential to us, but they are not an equal substitute for a visit although after 100 years of use, many of us allow ourselves to believe they are adequate for keeping in touch with people that live only 1 hour away."

 

Off-topic but in the same spirit:

 

A recent local news item noted an exec banned use of email one day a week for his company, forcing people to call each other. Turns out two employees who corresponded regularly each thought the other was in the west coast office across the country when in fact they about 100 feet from each other :-)

 

It is now an email-free office.

Reading and remembering instructions from a 212 page DSLR

operating manual can be a pain as well, but still not as bad as

scanning a ton of film.