deciding what to buy

[emichael]

I have been in photography class for the past year at my high

school. I have a very old 35mm Nikon my parents bought for me when

the class started. Recently my camera broke, and after recieving

various awards for my photographs my parents offered to buy me a new

camera as a graduation present. I am deciding if i should go

digital. It is so hard for me, because I absolutly love the

developing process. I need suggestions.

[jaxphotocat]

Emily,

 

I am a photography professor at a college and I can relate to your big decision. If you are

going to go to college and continue your photography then I would tell you that you

should go with another film camera.

 

Here is my logic. I know that digital is going to become the norm but it will be an ongoing

transition. The photography classes you take will almost certainly be film based. If you

start to gain an interest in the digital then you can still scan film and prints.

 

By the time you decide a digital camera is a must then you will not be punished for getting

it at a later time because prices and quality will only get better. If you buy into a good

brand like Nikon for your film camera(showing my bias here) then you will be able to later

add the same brand digital camera to your equipment array and share lenses and flashes,

etc.

 

Well, there is my two cents.

 

Mark Sablow

[mike_elek]

If you really like film processing (and the magic of seeing your own negatives), then you MUST buy another film camera. Digital is photography too, but there's nothing like pulling your negs from the can. You get a genuine feeling that you've created something in a way that digital can't reproduce. I still get a kick out of it.

 

And like the previous poster said, by the time you go digital, you won't pay a penalty. There will be even more choices available, and the technology will have matured a bit more and should be a bit less expensive.

 

The initial cost for a film camera is significantly less expensive than digital.

 

In your case, once you get the digital body, you'll probably need to get a new lens, most likely a new flash, possibly purchase or upgrade the computer and purchase and become proficient in an image editor, such as Photoshop (or a less costly alternative).

 

You'll also need at least one memory card (two would be better) and a card reader.

 

You could either buy an inket printer and then have to replace those very costly cartridges, or you can take your memory card or CD to the local shop and let them do the printing -- a much less expensive option.

 

Of course, on the other side, you still have to buy film, batteries and photo-processing chemicals. Those costs don't go away, but they're spread out.

[mesasone]

Mike, There is no difference in lense between DSLRs and film.

 

Well, thats not exactly true. There are some lense designed to be used with DSLRs and they provide to be really cheap, but great lense(I'm reffering to the Nikon DX line, anyway). They can be really cheap, because the smaller sensors of most DSLRs(non-full-framed) doesnt capture the edge of what would be image on film, so they can be dead on sharp in the center and a little sharp on the corners with out it showing up in the image. Infact, they dont even cover a full framed sensor or 35mm film, they produce a circle image that would resualt in a partially unexposed frame.

 

However, a lense designed to work with a film camera will work great with a DSLR. Infact, little imperfections in the corners such as focus disappear - but any problem in the center are going to be amplified.

 

That said, there is another issue to be aware with - crop factor. The Nikon D70 for instance has a 1.5x crop factor. The 1.5x crop factor creates an image that is essentially(key word) at one and a half times the focal length of the lense. 85mm essentially(again, a key word) becomes 128mm(127.5, actually). I say essentially, because all you're really doing is cropping out image - were it actually 128 in 35mm terms and used with a full frame sensor, there'd be much more detail. It's not much of an problem, but it is something to be aware of.

 

Anyhow, there are alot of considerations going to into film versus digital. Yes, they are both photography - but quite frankly, they're not the same type of photography. DSLRs absolutely outperform film in low light applications, and match in well light situations. Some say film resolves better, and they are in a sense right - but they look at from the wrong angle. The difference is neglible, I'd say.

 

Another consideration is your love for the developement process. Digital is instant gratification. Film is love and labour(emphasis on this later part). In my opinion, if you dont develope and/or print your own film, then there is no point of staying with film - unless you are a commericial photographer in a situation that simply requires film. The instant feedback is incredibly useful, and film + dev/print costs add up really quick, even for the casual shooter. However, the darkroom expeirence is irreplacable for some, myself included. I'm going digital, but I'm not giving up film - I love printing my images.

 

The digital darkroom does not have the same sort of nitty-gritty of the actual thing. Filters(or graded paper) need not apply. Limited dodging burning capabilities. The developement process is gone - not a loss for me, but some people do like it. There is no expeirmenting with different films - something I do however enjoy. In their place comes incredible control - beautiful, absolute, unadultered control. Right there at your finger tips. Digital Photography as fine art is just as much post processing as shooting.

 

These are all things to consider, and there are more too - this is just an overview. Also consider the price difference in a film camera versus a digital, or even just getting your camera fixed. Your parents may be surprised when they find out how expensive that entry level Canon 300D(I'm assuming you would stick with canon for lense compatiabilty) actually is.

 

I'm also getting a new camera as a graduation gift - a nikon D70 for me - and my relavtives were a bit taken aback by the price. Now I'm just getting cash towards it, but I will be getting 2000+. You may end up wanting to do the same if you go the digital route.

 

Now that I've wrote this essay, I must be getting back to my homework so I can actually graduate. Good luck on whatever route you decide to take.

[grant_.]

figure out what direction you wanna take with your photography, then decide what camera to get......if its photojournalism, a digital is a must. if its fine art, a digital is not a must, but a lot less work than film with the same results.

[mesasone]

Erm, correction. I thought you said you had a Canon AE-1, even though you never even mentioned owning one. Go figure.

 

Them. I guess you'd be looking at the D70 like me. Or, you could get your camera fixed(may not cost much) and buy a fixed lense Digital - there are some very nice ones out there at a decent price point. But Digital fixed vs DSLR is an entire different 'essay'. Ha.

[devin_serink]

If you've been shooting SLRs, moving to digital with a fixed lens will probably come along with some system shock. It's not easy for SLR shooters to get used to the slower response and increased noise. Depending on your budget however, this may be your only option in digital (in which case, consider staying with film).

 

Otherwise, as was mentioned, the choice to go digital is really more a choice of which darkroom you prefer (digital or traditional). Also keep in mind, that despite the cost of film/batteries/etc.. digital is never a money saver. Maybe it 5 years you'll see people switching over to digital for economic reasons, but right now it's for the instant gratification, and the advantages of the digital darkroom (without bothering with scanners and the like).

[poul]

if you are going to college to study photography, the lab will have darkroom, scanners, computers and whatnot - all for you for free. they only cost for you will be film. for digital, you will probably have to pay for memory, printer and ink yourself. great film bodies are now dirt cheap, and lenses are the same and will stay with you if you switch to digital later.

 

another thing i found is that it's much more productive to learn with film camera, as paradoxical as it sounds. with film, you value every shot, so you invest a lot of time and effort in proper framing, light measuring etc. with digital, you become sloppy, shots are disposable and correctable, it's a different mindset. of course this is not an issue for seasoned professional photographer, but it may be for a student.

 

i myself almost never shoot film anymore...

[jaxphotocat]

Emily,

 

I just thought I would add one more point that Poul has already mentioned above.

 

Where I teach at we provide students a traditional darkroom, and for digital, we have

computers with photoshop but most important we other a couple film scanners and

flatbed scanners.

 

I had one student who took Photo I (all film based) then I convinced her to take the

Computer Imaging course I teach. She was at first resisted the idea, but took the course.

Once she completed the course, she changed her mind about the digital but still loved the

traditional darkroom.

 

I then advised her that was fine but with her interests in doing professional work on the

side and having a family (husband and children) that she needed to further pursue the

digital path.

 

At first this meant a computer and film scanner (today the equivalent cost would be about

$1400 to $1500, eMac computer cost at about $750 to $900, Nikon film scanner at about

$550 to $600)..

 

This allowed her to use film and still take advantage of the digital. Later she added a

digital camera that would share lenses with her film camera.

 

 

I still say stick with film and grow into the digital.

 

Take care.

 

Mark Sablow

[mike_elek]

Camden, I know there isn't any optical difference (no major difference) between the lenses. However, if she's using a "very old 35mm Nikon," it may or may not be an autofocus lens.

 

If it's the older manual focus AI Nikkor or even pre-AI, then it makes no sense to stick with that lens. In that case, she should buy a new lens. If she's using an autofocus camera now, then she can keep the lens.

[phyrpowr]

I absolutely love my digital Canon 10D, but I'm advising a film camera for these reasons:

 

You can get a great used film camera (e.g., a Canon Elan II or A2) with mirror lock up , depth of field preview, and other valuable features, for knock down prices from a reputable camera store, with refund/exchange rights. A lot of bang for the buck. This also applies to a number of the new models, but I confess I haven't been keeping up like I used to

 

As above stated, a college will have all the darkroom gear you need, and digital stuff so you can experiment with scanning. Another expense taken care of. You probably can get student discounts on film, or mail order it

 

Any good lenses on your film camera will be good to great on a digital(those that crop anyway), and you can get real wide angle for a lot less on a film body(same crop factor considered)

 

Digital price-to-features ratios are still shaking out, and the "used" digital market should be great by the time you decide, should you do so, to switch. Ditto on computers, programs, peripheral gear, and there'll be plenty of nerds and geeks to help you translate the computerese and find the bargains

 

I think film is still the way to go for black and white, but then that might just be my lack of talent with Photoshop

[k._rivkin]

I'm sorry I was not a photogaphy student, so my advice carries much less weight then the ones you have over here.

 

Ok, let's go with film - first of all 90+% of professional 35mm is gone digital (if we count weddings, journalism and so on). So you will alredy get the feel of something that pays out there.

 

Second you can skip the stuff that get's less and less use (wet darkroom class. Certain color filters. Tungsten/daylight films. ) and get to use PhotoShop and alike programs that are replacing them. Scanning is another option, and it's really a good option, but it really does not give you anything above today's DSLR.

 

Third you can start doing really technically difficult images - there are things that unless you damn sure on how to do them is impossible to do in film (you don't see the results and can't correct your actions on the spot).

 

Fourth - film photography eats money like hell. 1 roll processing/printing is 10$ minimum. Ok, you will have a darkroom in college - but it can be black and white only (like where I live), and it costs time to print those things.

 

So you are looking for a constant flow of money coming out of your pocket - and over 1 year it can be 1000...2000$.

 

If you love developing process and you have a darkroom - it's easy to stay film. I just gave you my reasons for using digital. And yes, I do have a Hasselbladsky :) and it's really good.

[peter_phan]

Buy an inexpensive, maybe used, film SLR until you sort things out. Stick with either Canon or Nikon so you can easily migrate to digital later, with the most options in digital bodies. I went from a Canon film SLR (Elan IIe) to a Canon digital SLR (10D) about a year ago. And while I still have my film SLR, I don't remember the last time I shot a roll of film through it. I now love my 10D, but there is a learning curve transitioning from film to digital output. It can be a bit daunting at times, and it can distract you from photography if you're not careful. But the rewards and convenience are great. However, I am very glad I honed my skills with film.