f100 film or 20d digital?

[carles_ravent_s]

I want start taking good pictures more seriously than now. To do it,

I would like to buy a new camera. What do u recomend me? Digital or

35mm Film? Thanks

[jim_zwig]

Nikon and Canon lens are not exchangable. Which lens system do you prefer?

[anupam]

OK. Not only digital vs. film but Nikon vs. Canon! So before things explode here let me just say that while I have mulled over switching to digital at a lower price point - N80 to D70 - what put me off was the cost/longevity factor. No matter what film camera you buy be it a used FG for $50 or an F6 for $2500, you can expect to use it for a long time. No digital camera from today will look attractive in 5 or maybe even 2 years. For me, its just not feasable to pour $1500 to $2000 into such a toy. Of course, if you have the money - this is not an issue, but I'd buy the F100, or something cheaper (maybe the N80) and wait until digital more or less stabilizes or prices come down to the point where they are disposable in two years.

 

Now I will step back and watch from the sidelines.

 

-Anupam.

[gary_woodard]

I would consider a Nikon film camera, Nikon because it has always been an outstanding product, and film because spending your life downloading, images, software, software updates, firmware etc. seems rather time consuming for the results, digital is still finding its feet no matter what the ads say. Get an f100 and some provia and have at it.

[mendonphoto]

Borrow a good film SLR and a DSLR. Use both for a day and then decide which one you want.

 

Seriously. There's no better way to know. You're going to get pretty strong opinions both ways, but they don't matter for you.

[jim_zwig]

5 years from now? The saving of film, processing, and trip to your local developer will buy you another DSLR.

[bob_shop]

"The saving of film, processing, and trip to your local developer will buy you another DSLR"

 

If you use a truckload of film.

[jeff_lu]

what do you use now? what kind of pictures do you wish to take?

[carles_ravent_s]

portraits

[carles_ravent_s]

what about a fm3a?

[markci]

You certainly don't need anything as fancy as an F100 for portraits. Get any old beat-up Nikon SLR. Then you can afford a D70 too and play with both film and digital.

[markci]

Or alternately, use what you should really be using for portraits -- medium format. There are plenty of cheap systems out there, especially now.

[loreneidahl]

Start with a film body. This is based on your desire for regimented study of photgraphic priciples and the creation of a final image. I also assume that this means to some extent Black and White and darkroom disciplines.

 

I am a big fan of digital, I take about 2K-3K pictures a week. However I am not like most shooters here. (this week I shoot about 3500 images). My digital camera pay for themselves in months not years)

 

So start with film then move into digital as your need to. You'll learn more about the craft of photography from image visualization to image realization by starting with film.

 

Yes you get immediate feedback on digital. However what you get is immediate feedback on a 2" montior that leaves alot to be said for tonal ranges. contrast nuances, textures and other sublties that dont show up untill you make the final print.

 

When I am shooting with digital I dont look at every image I take, I would miss shots. I look at the shots after the event. After awhile you will know if the shot turned out -so why constantly look.

 

 

One of the primary reasons as I see it to start with film first is that film gives your a better camera body compared to digital at the $1500 price point. A film body for $1500 gives you a lot of control and quality that you dont get in a $1500 digital.

 

If you plan to shoot a lot and are desiring to learn photoshop to process your images then consider digital as a backup body.

 

The Canon 20d and the Nikon F100 are both excellant bodies. I would reccomend though that you stick with either Canon or Nikon but not both.

 

A D70 and a Nikon N90s would give you an excellant film body and a good entry digital for about $1400 ( the N90s would be used from KEH)

[klix]

<i><b>Borrow</b> a good film SLR and a DSLR. Use both for <b>a day</b> and then decide which one you want. </i>

<p><p>

DITTO, except change "borrow" to RENT and "a day" to "a week" for EACH camera: Nikon FSLR, DSLR, Canon FSLR, DSLR.

[raczoliver]

I think a DSLR pays for itself only if otherwise you'd shoot 10 rolls of film per day. For portraits, I'd also consider a medium format gear at the first place. If not, 80% of the F100's features are absolutely useless for your purposes, unless you want to chase running kids (in that case, only 50%). You can get a very good second hand manual focus SLR for $300-400. Consider how much film you would use, and calculate how that compares to a 20D, which you'd dump in 3 years anyway, while a robust manual camera can be used for 20 years. DSLR's were invented for those who shoot a lot.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Buy the F100 with the AFS 24-85 f3.5-4.5 and a used SB-26 flash. All these items except the flash have rebates now and I just bought an F100 after rebates at $780, the lens will run just under $300 and the used Sb-26 maybe $150. Great outfit see www.bythom.com for reviews. In 3 years you will be able to switch to digital and get a much better body that won't be outdated so soon since by then the technology will have stabilized. With purchasing a photoprinter, Photoshop and other software and flash cards and the steep depreciation of dslr I can't see saving money unless you take 20,000 shots or more in that time frame.

[dave_cheng1]

"I take about 2K-3K pictures a week"

 

Well, that's 400 pictures a day. I wonder if you ever run photoshop

for many of them. If you do you would not have the time. If you don't

then most of the pictures are only good for taking up your hard disk

space. If you don't store them (in the HD) then shooting so many of

them a day is no different from shooting a few dozens a day.

 

I would probably take all the time I need for every shot I take

even with a DSLR. I won't end up with too many images but they will

be worth the time later for photoshop. In this case a film SLR

makes more sense in terms of cost.

 

I have been there, actually I am still there. Half a dozen 72GB HD

on my PC is a pain when I need to find an image that I only remember archived in the digital sea full of one and zero some time ago.

[markci]

*** I think a DSLR pays for itself only if otherwise you'd shoot 10 rolls of film per day. ***

 

What sort of math is this? At that rate it would pay for itself in a couple of weeks.

[sam_portera]

2k-3k per week???

 

Shotgun approach, mug shots, or what?

[david_mason1]

Digital and film P&S cameras probably have the same longevity. Ditto SLRs whether digital or contemporary highly automated film type. None of the above are really repairable.

 

Provided I could afford it, I would actually be inclined to go with digital. Whatever the present shortcomings, it's the way of the future. Imagine where you would be today if you had asked the analogous question about recorded music ten years ago and had gone with analog? Chances are you would be regretting it.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Portraits? The medium format answer is spot on. You'll have much better control over depth of field (do a search of the term Bokeh). As to which medium format camera - do you like rectangular or square photos? IF rectangular, you could buy a Mamiya 645 and a few lenses for less than the price of a DSLR body.

[dark_star1]

Something about costs. It strongly depends on results you want to obtain. Talking about perfect quality 8 x 10 in. colour prints, developing film and enlarging on Kodak Supra III paper in RA-4 Tetenal or Paterson process is considerably less expensive than printing on TDK ink jest photo paper 283 g/m2 (I repeat: the same quality)

[daniel_taylor]

My thoughts on some of the arguments people present against digital...

 

* People who claim that a DSLR only pays for itself if you're a pro shooting "10 rolls a day" don't understand that when you buy a DSLR, the time you spend shooting and the number of shots you take both go up drastically. They also don't seem to understand that growth in photography has always been connected to practice. This is true of any art or craft. Writers write every day to keep their skills up. Serious musicians practice until dawn. Painters clutter their homes with half-finished canvases. And the accomplished photographers I can think of all shoot like crazy.

 

Film is not going to teach you more about photography. *Shooting pictures* will teach you more about photography. You can practice a lot on either. But for most people the film workflow is a drag on how much they shoot. Digital offers a major advantage in terms of enabling you to practice whenever, where ever, without any concern for cost.

 

* It's a contradiction to say that a DSLR will be "obsolete" in a few years while a film body will work for 20 years. DSLR's are mature feature wise, which means the only thing that will truly "obsolete" a modern DSLR and push its owner to upgrade is a major improvement in image quality. But image quality is already on par with 35mm (I would argue its much better). Any leap in DSLR image quality that makes current DSLR's worthless will also make 35mm, and 35mm bodies, worthless. If such a leap is coming soon, it spells doom for the 35mm format. (FWIW I think DSLR image quality is mature as well. Improvements will be incremental.)

 

* Computers, photoshop, hard drives, printers, etc. These things give you total control over the creative process. You would need a well equipped darkroom, and *much more time* to learn how to use it, to have the same in the film world.

 

When people complain about these things, they're comparing the digital workflow to dropping film off at a lab, not to a personal darkroom. It's an unfair comparison. If you trust a lab with your prints then you're not going to learn as much or be able to do as much creatively. And if that's not important to you, then you can take a CF card to the lab just as easily. And there's still a digital advantage because a) your DSLR will white balance better than the automated machines at labs can; and b) labs are now geared for digital input and printing.

 

So what should you choose? For portraits I would say start with a 10D or 20D, a 50 f/1.4 (the 50 f/1.8 has terrible bokeh, unfortunately), a flash, and perhaps some lighting equipment.

 

And shoot as much as you can every week. Every day if possible.

[Jochen_S]

You want to do portraits. For whom? - take this question serious! If you take them to improve your skills: get digital! - Why? instant feedback! you can look if you've got the shot. You needn't arrange an other session and in- or de-crese the fillflash... / Easy retouching you can soften wrinkles of the skin but keep mouth and eyes sharp for example. / Easyer workflow especially with the model / subject. If you take pictures of people you should share them with them. It's much easyer to burn a CD than do a few copys of the frames you like best and having the disapointed model looking on the contact sheet begging for others and asking for a few extra copys for aunt Betty after you did the second bulk of darkroom work... Today many young people seem to prefer JPGs over prints. And having some drugstore prints of your data is cheaper than having film processed and printed if you are going to throw away only 50% - by the way: I'd call 3 keepers among 36 frames great. Will digital age faster than film? - I doubt. O.K. my Pentax DSLR is less than a 10D, but who really cares? It's no 1st generation digital p&s, it is a usable SLR and delivers enough data to print 8x10". Fast film is worse and my strobes are slower than 5 frame bursts. Yes, I'm considering switching to the yet only announced Nikon D2, but well, I'd like to print in DIN A3. The Pentax will remain cariable, good enough for family pictures, web shots and so on and it's able to proove my consumer zooms being anything but sharp, so why should I dump it? Stop hunting for "perfect"; try to gain good enough. I don't believe there will ever be some Computer Monitor able to show all my 6MPix together. If you believe there's no DSLR able to deliver enough Pix for the Pictures you're dreaming of, forget completely about 35mm film.

Yes, b&w film portraits are nice. But I'd prefer a cheap MF gear, let's say Pentacon six with some 120mm Biometar for this, if I have a darkroom.

The 20D should print quite large if you use it on low ISO and even larger than 35mm film on high ISO. Concert photographers already claimed the 10D to deliver greater results than film with little available light. So go digital and keep what you have or add a cheap film body to your new great lenses.

[._._z]

Reread Daniel's post above. Shooting more teaches you more, and you'll shoot more,

more quickly and more affordably (with quicker feedback) by shooting digital.