Lets not get hasty now...

[nicolerenee]

All old threads not withstanding, I have a problem...

I asked a question not long ago about how I could get better pictures with the

ps digital camera I've got and recieved some really helpfull answers so I'm

hoping you all will help me with the next step.

 

I cant wait to move on from my little Sony with a 12mm (frusterating!) lens to

something BIGGER and BETTER that wont frusterate me so bad but Im not sure

where to move on TO. I've heard lots of good things about the Cannon Rebal but

I cant decided whether to go for a digital or a film (no experience with film

at ALL) and if I should even change it up yet.

 

I dont want to open up that pandora's box of which is BETTER, strictly

speaking, but which will be more a more affordable purchase in the long run

i.e. the ability to edit a digital photo on my laptop but the COST of the

camera itself vs. a cheaper film camera but the cost of film and processing

over the long run. And am I loosing any control over my photo's by entrusting

them to someone else....

 

Should I just shut up and keep shooting and reading and hoping an answer will

work itself out? Geeze, I feel lost.

[Matt Laur]

Nicole: Given your relative newness to photography in general, I think there's a lot to be said for being able to shoot and immediately see how what you're learning is being applied to the output. In other words, digital is your friend. The film and lab costs will, if you shoot as much as most people who are really trying to learn, going to quickly cover the ground between the cost of the film SLR and the DSLR. But even if that break-even is a long time coming, the value of being able to immediately see and react to changes you're getting as you work with focal lengths, apertures, shutter speed, flash position, depth of field... that's priceless when you're anxious to improve.

[pjmeade]

Hello Nicole, I agree with Matt. I think digital is the way to go. Your portfolio shows you have a very good eye of composition, so using digital will enable you to learn about photographing your vision more quickly.

 

Best wishes. Pete

[sknowles]

Nicole, neither film or digital are better, just different tools which produces different

results doing the same thing. I added digital system late last year and found it's

worthwhile for a number of reasons, but I still shoot film because I like the work and the

results. Personally I would recommend a decent DSLR for the capabilities and flexibilities,

but you can do well with a PS digital camera too.

 

I once read a story where a famous French fashion photography began his photography

classes handing each student the cheapest PS camera and a week to use it and bring back

results. He said if you're a good photographer, you can use any camera to use it to your

fullest talents.

 

Good luck and keep us posted.

[nigel d]

I will go a completely different route. Given your relative novelty to photography, your money might best be spent on photography classes right now.

[nicolerenee]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think it will be a little while before I can take any classes as I've got a fiesty 3 year old boy running around. I'm sure I'll be able to work a schedual around it eventually with my MGIB but unfortunately it will have to wait. But I figure I might as well learn as much as possible while I can. Books are my friend. Any recomendations?

[znabal]

Nicole, no one really covered the "costs" for you...

Lenses are a wash, you'll use them with film or digital.

At the low end (for example) the difference between a digital Rebel (XTi) and

film Rebel (K2) is about $550, add to that about $80 for a couple of 2 Gb CF cards. Slide film and mailers (Fuji Sensia) cost about $10 per roll, so for the immediate price difference you could shoot 63 rolls of film (2268 photos) before you "equaled" the cost of the digital camera.

 

But there are other "costs" involved that are harder to quantify...will the digital camera "force" you to buy a new computer, new editing software and more storage? Will the film camera cause you to buy, or pay for scanning (and buy a better computer, editing software, more storage?:) Opportunity costs...what else could you do with the money in the meantime? What photos might you get with digital that you wouldn't with film because you'd be more willing to shoot? Because you can change ISO on the fly? What is it worth to have access to your photos immediately vice waiting for processing? What's it worth to have the media (film) BE the storage? What's it worth to be easily sortable, viewable, emailable etc? Do you like the "look" of film? Do you like seeing your slides on a light table? I'm sure I'm missing other "costs".

 

Here's how some of that worked out for me...I was shooting a little over 1000 exposures year with my EOS-3, the other day was my 5D's 1st "birthday" and I'm slightly over 3900 exposures with it. Some of that is messing around with multiple exposures for HDR, some of it is because I can take a photo and email it off, but most is because my approach to photography has changed. I'm more willing to get out the tripod and go out and about for shorter periods, it just seems like less of a hassle. I now have a list of nearby subjects with time of day, weather and other considerations and sometimes I will look at the list and say, hey that's only 10 minutes away and the conditions are right. I did that with film, but never just for one subject (I'll end up taking multiple photos, but in the end I'm always going for just that ONE). Anyway, between all the memory cards and other things, even at 4000 or so exposures a year, it is going to be a long, long time before I "save" all the money I spent on stuff related to my digital camera :) good luck - jeffl

[nicolerenee]

Wow, thanks for all that input :)

Im really one for "culling the herd" so it's fine for me to work with just the basics for a while as long as the basics are decent (my little camera just aint cutting it) and I trash more than 3/4 of what I shoot almost immediately and then evaluate what I have on a regular basis and get rid of anything that doesnt have staying power.

 

As far as which step to move on TO, I'm feeling like digital might be less of a hassel between my house and the developers, plus my scanner is pretty small (one of those printer/scanner/copier things...and HP photosmart my granny got me for my birthday) and that might cause quite a problem with film...ah...what a hassel.

[dbcooper]

FWIW, IMO digital has obsoleted the 35mm film format. If you think digital is expensive, price out some of the better medium format gear.

[nicolerenee]

What is medium format gear?

[stembaughphotography]

Hi Nicole,

Medium format is basically a larger negative. 2 1/4" x 2 1/4".(usually 120 roll film) The larger the negative the more detail. Landcsape photographers usually medium or large format cameras. Large format use sheet film, larger negative, more detail. And the medium format and large format camares are still expensive. A common brand name is Hassleblad.

[emre]

Either that was a Freudian slip, or it's a British/American thing. It's Hasselblad.

[stembaughphotography]

Thank you, I stand corrected.