Entering into photography...asking assistance

[thomas_sullivan]

confusing aint it!?

 

Knowing what I know now, if I was starting all over again I would buy the 300D (actually, I would buy the 10D, but going with your choice) AND a used Elan II (KEH happens to list one in excellent condition right now for $149)...I would not buy the 300D kit lens however (as it don't work with the Elan), I'd buy the 17-40 f/4 and the 50mm f/1.8, both relatively inexpensive lenses that perform probably better than they really should, for the price. Between the two cams you would have an effective range from 17mm to 80mm (taking into consideration both film and digital effective/actual focal lengths). You can add the telephotos later, but I rarely use them my self past 135mm....but then I don't do nature animal photography either (which, along with sports is about the only place monster telephotos are needed.....just my opinion)

 

Why both film and digital.......they both have their pros and cons...and in today's world, that is also part of the photography learning experience, in my view. A very general conclusion on my part is that digital is better for color, and film is better for Black & White (if you do your own developing with it). Of course, that is all based on two months of experience with a P&S digital..........no, I have not taken the DSLR plunge yet. Why?....I think the prices vice options is still too high.......I want a 10D for the price of a 300D ;o)

 

anyhow, just my opinion to add to the confusion.

 

However, Jeff Spirer is right..............any cam will take pictures, it is the photographer that really matters. You would not believe how many of my w/nw postings are done with an Olympus Stylus Epic

[xlazox]

I truly appreciate the feedback I've received here. Many wonderful minds with many wonderful words of wisdom.

 

I guess the reason I made my initial post was with the understanding that I could get myself into a film camera today...and then move to digital in a few months if my skills AND interest in photography grew accordingly. I have reviewed many of the photos shared publicly by individuals that have responded to my post. The Art of photography has been captured by soo many different people of various levels of experience, and those types of expression are what I would like to move towards.

 

My interest was first discovered after purchasing a more basic digital camera (3.1mp), and finding myself rediculously limited in my options with this camera. Digital is nice. Very convenient. But perhaps I don't necessarily need the convenience at first. Perhaps I need to learn the patience involved as well. Then, if/when I feel my skills have elevated and I have learned what I am doing (better than I do now) I can move into the digital realm. All that would really be required is the digital body for the most part (working on my lens collection in the mean time)...and I'd have a perfectly fine film body to back my digital up.

 

Am I off-base in this thinking?

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

Lazo, it is your money, and your choice, however now I understand where your desires are coming from I'd definitely recommend the 300d.

 

As many here have said, the digital learning curve with "free" d&p is much faster than with film. When I started out I shot hundreds of rolls of film over a very short time, at a cost of hundreds of pounds (it'd be thousands in todays money).

 

I then spent many years without flexing my photographic muscle. I started shooting seriously again about 2 years ago, and since going digital, photography has improved tremendously.

 

As long as you're prepared to study your images, the digital world will teach you quicker.

[lotsawa]

Lazo, your line of thinking seems ok to me, especially if you have already some experience with your digital p&s, but ...

 

I really don't see why it should be worthwile to do the detour with a film body first. I don't see such a big difference between DSLR and non-D SLR in composition and using of the camera, so I don't know what a film body can do for you that a digital body can't (its probably a greater step from non-SLR to SLR in general than from a film SLR to DSLR). Anyway the analogue way will most probably reach a dead end quite soon for you. On the other hand, in the digital world you have to learn a lot of other things, therefore it maybe worthwile to use your time, money and energy resources there instead of learning all the things about films, development etc. that you'll not use any longer in some time.

 

Also, if you want to have your films digitized for use in the digital world (web etc.), you should think if you have to invest in a (film) scanner, and all that stuff in the line from analogue to digital will add to your cost and time unnecessarily. If you go strictly digital (SLR), you don't have to bother about all these things whereas the actual experience of shooting pictures with the (SLR) camera remains the same. But maybe I'm wrong, just a consideration :)

[jim_larson1]

Gosh - I am amazed in this long thread no one has asked the obvious question:

 

***WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO WITH THE PICTURES?***

 

If you want pictures on a computer, you want digital. If you want photos in an album, you want film.

 

Either film or digital can produce the occassional email or 8x10 on the wall. But for the *MAJORITY* of the shots, digital cameras will produce digital images and film cameras will produce printed photographs. Yes, digital will produce quicker results. Yes, film does have more dynamic range.

 

Regarding the cheap (and expensive) P&S cameras: They will teach you composition, and are very portable. NONE will teach you about lighting, aperture and flash photography (the sensors are too small and the flashes are too weak). You need a SLR for that.

 

Both digital and film will bankrupt you. Neither is cheap. The only thing that differs is the path you take to bankruptcy.

[andrew_lau4]

wow i wish i had 10,000 dollars of EOS equipment,

all i have is my a2, 2 lenses, vertical grip, 2 flashes and some little stuff, and i used to think that was a lot of equipment

[mack_bray]

Lazo,

 

Jump into the new century. Learning is a great opportunity and from this newbie, I look at it as a great challenge and learning experience. There are great forums like this to ask questions and get answers quickly.

I just found a website with lessons that I'm learning from, Canon Digital Learning Center @ photoworkshop.com.

Plus, my Rebel is still in route. I don't even have it yet!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you really think about going the digital SLR route...do it. The money one can spend in slowly getting to one place can be extremely high.

Heck, I know I'm going to being asking elementary questions.

 

I saw somewhere that there isn't any stupid questions

only stupid people asking them.

 

Well, I'm going to be in the stupid category for a long time but I'm looking forward to it.

 

Looking forward for you to be asking the same type questions along with me.

 

Cheers and go for it!!!!!!!!!!

 

Mack

[bv photography]

Lazo,

poslusaj me, get a digital SLR immediately. The amount of time and money spent in learning to take photos will soon be offset by advantages of digital. I have Digital Rebel, a very nice entry DSLR camera. You will soon learn a great deal of photography by experimenting with its creative controls. Invest more money into lenses that once you outgrow the Drebel can keep for better DSLRs from Canon down the road.

Good luck and SRECNO!

Bojan

[lotsawa]

>If you want pictures on a computer, you want digital. If you want photos in an album, you want film.<

 

IMO, that's no longer true for digital. Making prints from digital is as much a normal and easy thing as prints from a negativ film: You just give the flash card or a CD to the shop or you send them via Internet to the printing lab. The difference/advantage is: You can edit your images before, if you like.

 

On the other side: If you want your film pictures digital, you need to scan them or have them scanned by the lab, which adds more costs and may reduce image quality. And if you ever want prints from slides, it can become a real problem.

 

Printing from film already becomes even more expensive than printing from a digital file, which is understandable, considering all the extra work that is necessary to develop the film etc.

 

Printed images from digital come out very nice. Plus: no scratches, no dust, and the ability to view and edit the image before, so no waste of resources and money for the development of those images that are garbage (and you will probably always have a lot of garbage).

 

I own quite a decent film scanner (Microtek Artixscan 4000), but now that I am scanning my older slides (some about 15-20 years old), I must say there is no comparison with the 300Ds images: Sometimes colors have faded, lots of dust etc., although I've stored them in closed boxes. Plus, scanning some hundred slides takes lots of time, and a decent film scanner is still quite expensive.

 

So my position is: Even if you like primarily prints for your photo album, and especially you want more than a snapshot here and there (and that's probably the case if you are going to buy a SLR), decide to go for digital and you won't regret it.

 

Even for "slideshows", you don't need slides necessarily, since you can rent a nice beamer and attach it to your (laptop) computer. I agree though that its still quite expensive, but if you count all the rolls of slide films that you shoot during a trip (plus development), the extra costs for the equipment will be compensated to a great deal.

 

What I mean: Digital has made such a progress during the last years, that its quality has become even better than film in many respects, plus you have all the other advantages and flexibility, and it has become affordable to the average user, so that I see no real reason why you should buy a film camera.

 

(BTW, I still own one film cam, a Yashica T3, which I can take everywhere, leave it in the car, carry it on the mountain bike etc. Even if its stolen or damaged, the loss will be small. It was about 60 Euros on ebay. So its kind of a backup to my D300, but I rarely use it. Some day, when I can afford it, I will probably buy a Ixus 400 or something similar to carry with me.)

[poul]

get yourself used canon d60 - they go for what, half a price of dRebel? any lenses you buy for it will stay with you when/if you upgrade.

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

<i>

Richard, if you "feel my photography has improved SIGNIFICANTLY in the last few years" due to the advantages of the digital world, why do you recommend to start photography with a *film* body? It has been *your* personal experience to learn it, but do you think its really necessary? </i>

<br><br>

1) Because of the financial outlay. $200 vs $1000. If the beginner goes off photography they haven't lost lots of money.<br><br>

2) Because I feel if you *start off* with digital, you don't think and learn about composition as much. Just my personal opinion.

[lotsawa]

Richard, thanks for clarifying.

 

1) Budget may is an issue, but you have to take in account a lot of factor. As far as equipment is concerned, you also need lenses. Because of the 1.x crop factor, you may need different lenses for the 35mm SLR and the DSLR. For example, with my 35 mm FD system I used the 85/1.8 a lot for portraits. Now I find the same EF lens with my D300 too long indoors, so I mostly use the 50/1.4 for the same purpose. Also, a nice cheap zoom like the 35-105/3.5-4.5 or even the 28-105/3.5-4.5 has become of a different use with the 300D because you lost on the wide angle side. So you have to be careful, in the end you may end up with things that you don't really don't need later.

 

2) I could argue that learning composition is much easier with a digital camera because you see your results immediately, plus you have the histogram which helps a lot to learn if your image is over/underexposed right after you shot it. And since as a beginner you tend to shoot a lot of garbage, it will be much cheaper and less waste of resources if you don't have to develop and print all this stuff. And even with digital being so easy and there are no additional costs even if you shoot hundreds of pictures that go right to the trash, you still have to learn to be mindful during the shot as much as with the film body, because if you don't get the frame right at the right time, you won't get it at all.

 

Just a few thoughts ... Thanks a lot :-)

[lotsawa]

I forgot one main advantage of learning photography with digital: the EXIF infos. I never succeeded in writing down the parameters of a shot with the analog equipment. Just hopeless -- when the film had been developed after a couple of days, those details were already gone from my memory ... Very annoying if you try to learn the right f-stop, shutter speed and so forth in different situations with different lenses etc. You will probably waste a lot of film.

[pbizarro]

1. Learn the basics, visit exhibits, read good books. Try to adress what subject matter interests you the most. If it is "general", basically any camera system will do it for you. If you require more specialized material, then only a few systems will provide it for you.

 

2. The big part of success in you photography comes from getting involved, knowing your subject in and out. Study it, be persistent, know what to expect under different lighting conditions. Remember, most times it is very important to know when NOT to take the photo!

 

3. In the past, discussions on what to get to begin photographing would revolve around brand X vs. brand Y. These days it is also around SLR vs. DSLR. I find this terribly amusing. The argument of money saving does not convince me. Apart from professional photographers that need the quick turn around time "shoot, sell, upload", I really 't see the money saving bit from not using film. You will still need a computer, and you will still spend a lot of time using it. Not to mention that for the price of one 10D you could get the 1V.

 

4. It is true that with a DSLR you can fill up a card with hundreds of shots of the same subject, in a kind of hit and miss approach. But think about it, are you really learning from such an exercise? Personally, I learn more from inspecting slides in a light table than by comparing specs in a EXIF file. Why? Because I know that if I am shooting landscapes my lens is set up at f/11 or f/16; or if I am shooting street scenes my lens will be at f/8. Again, know your subject, and use the tools accordingly.

 

5. I am not against digital, it's only that the DSLR workflow as of today does not suit me. Not to mention B&W. I shoot only slides and B&W, I scan them to have a digital backup. And then I print the best ones, if I want.

[michael focus97.com lee]

So many knowledgeable responses....

 

I *started out* about 5 years ago with film, and after a couple of slow years, I *went* digital. The amount of learning I underwent after the transition was immense! I will argue that *everything* you will eventually learn with film, you will learn more quickly with digital. Lighting, composition, technique, ..., none of it will need to wait for some lab to return the results. You will see it, and adjust if needed. The EXIF data will prove invaluable, also -- I agree with an earlier post in that I, too, was horrible at logging the settings for particular shots. Digital does it for you, and does so by logging more data on the shot than I would ever have the patience to do manually!

 

I agree that a DSLR will be great, but you do not need it unless you're sure you'll stick with photography. I don't know how certain you are that you'll stick with this, but if you're trying to find out, get the latest 8MP Canon P&S. It's got great features, good quality, and the 7X zoom will give you lots of practice with composition!

 

I can't emphasize enough how much digital made me love photography so much more! No, you don't have to have the best monitor, lens, laptop, blah, blah... Decent stuff will be enough.

 

Good luck with your decision!

[digitmstr]

if you decide to start with a film camera I would then suggest an "old" *all manual* model. There are many out there in great shape that can be had for a pittance. (Canon, Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, etc...). By using all manual systems you will learn quickly and clearly the relation between shutter, aperture, metering, DOF, etc...

 

In addition, as you learn more about photography, lenses, flashes, etc...you will then be able to make a more educated decision for your "expert" system and won't have spent much money at all on your startup system. After all, you should be planning on spending more on film since the more you shoot the more you learn. Books and theories are good starting point but, nothing beats practice and experimentation.

[jim_larson1]

<q><i>IMO, that's no longer true for digital. Making prints from digital is as much a normal and easy thing as prints from a negativ film: You just give the flash card or a CD to the shop or you send them via Internet to the printing lab. The difference/advantage is: You can edit your images before, if you like.

<p>

[snip]<p>

Printed images from digital come out very nice. Plus: no scratches, no dust, and the ability to view and edit the image before, so no waste of resources and money for the development of those images that are garbage (and you will probably always have a lot of garbage).

</q></I><p>

I most humbly disagree on two fronts.

<p>

First, digital does not match film quality. The dynamic range by all accounts is lower for digital than for film. Resolution may be there, but dynamic range is not.

<p>

Second, what my limited experience suggests is that people fall into two basic camps: Digital types who tweak everything and print only a few choice shots or non-digital types who print everything and tweak nothing. Some of the non-digital types won't even cull images prior to printing. This is a gross over generalization that nonetheless may be more true than you think.

<p>

So, if you intend to print most of your shots, I would tend to say that digital is probably the wrong way to go.