Buying my first SLR camera

[danny_low]

<p><em>"Most of your old film cameras have the depth of field gauge right there on the barrel of the lens. Don't see that on too many digital cameras."</em><br>

<em> </em> <br>

<strong><em>Whoa! Misleading information!</em></strong></p>

<p> First, Nikon, Pentax and some other DSLRs will use the old "film" lenses from their SLRs on their DSLRs. The whole point of a SLR or DSLR camera system is the ability to use different lenses on them. So if there are any benefits to a "film" lens, you can probably use that lens on your DSLR if you buy the right brand.</p>

<p>Second, depth of field scales were a feature of prime lenses. "Digital" prime lenses still have them. The dof scales were omitted on all 2 touch zooms and sometimes in 1 touch zooms. This is true even back in the days of "film" lenses. </p>

<p>Third, the distinction between "film" and "digital" is mostly technical and usually has no practical effect. That is why old "film" lenses can be used in DSLRs. However there is one practical difference. Lens making technology has greatly improved since the days of film. Aspheric lens elements, APO glass and other technology that make for a better lens are now found in consumer level lenses. In the days of film they were only found in high end pro lenses. So a modern "digital" lens is probably going to be much better than an old equivalent "film" lens.</p>

<p>The bottom line is, for a beginner starting out with a clean slate, it is far better to go with "digital" lenses. They will be of better quality and used ones can be found for the budget minded. The only reason to go with a "film" lens is if you find an old classic in really good condition at a very low price.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Anita, don't know if you'll ever want to come back here because you've touched off another skirmish on one of photography's 'holy wars'.</p>

<p>There are lots of reasons that someone decides to favor film or digital for learning or otherwise. Perhaps what you should take out of this is that it really doesn't matter what you pick. For educational purposes you probably want to get something where you can set everything manually-this disqualifies many digital point & shoots, and most compact film cameras as well. However *most* SLR cameras do allow for full-manual shooting. Each has advantages and disadvantages but in technology-oriented discussions, a lot of noise will be made out of little differences. </p>

<p>My advice, get a cheap, working SLR, take a bunch of pictures with it. Most importantly, pay close attention to what the camera is telling you, and what you're telling the camera to do, possibly taking notes about what you do, taking note of shutter, aperture, focal length, etc., anything you think is relevant. What <em><strong>you </strong></em>learn using whichever camera you choose will make <em><strong>you </strong></em>much more qualified to pick <em><strong>your </strong></em>next camera than anything that has been said here so far. You'll learn what you like & don't like, and you'll be able to ask much more specific questions--that have much more direct answers.</p>

<p>There will be a vast preference on a site like this for the *best* cameras, but in truth, most are very serviceable. You mostly just want to avoid the lowest spec models that are somewhat crippled with automatic-only operation. The OM-10 might not be the best choice for this reason--I believe it may have required some sort of adapter to allow setting shutter speed manually. I don't know whether the camera you were considering is so-equipped.</p>

<p>Some of the preceding arguments favor the old film cameras because they tend to be less complicated to use. There is some truth to this in the sense that the cameras usually have fewer controls, fewer things to deal with at the time of shooting. I think whether the increasingly electronic & button-driven interface of more recent cameras (autofocus film or digital) is a distraction or a boon depends largely (again) on you. Some people are comfortable operating electronics--they can read the owners manual and grasp the operational philosophy implemented by the camera designers. Others have to work a bit harder at it. A lot of people are really bothered with having to hold a button down while simultaneously spinning a dial, and insist on having dedicated controls for everything. </p>

<p>Similarly, some people have greater tolerance for equipment size & weight--while the older cameras tended to have a lot more metal and a lot less plastic, they also generally weighed considerably more, and in some cases were larger too. Some will insist on the heavier, ostensibly more durable choice, while others want something small and light enough that they feel it can go with them anywhere. As an ixus owner I'm pretty sure you can appreciate that.</p>

 

[john_tran14]

<blockquote>

<p>Danny said: the distinction between "film" and "digital" (lenses) ... has no practical effect.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a matter of fact, only few people would classify Digital vs Film lenses, unless one thinks Digital means DX and Film means FX lenses; just like Nikon called their film cameras F2, F3, F60, F80, F100 and their digital cameras D2, D3, D60, D80, D100</p>

<p>"Practically", most beginners who buy an entry level DSLR like the D40, D40X, D60, D3000, D5000, are stuck with the kit lenses. These "digital" DX lenses are all cheap plastic (even the mount is plastic) and mostly outsourced and made in China which are of course very slow lenses. Their "photography" would then suffer for a year or two with these bad DX lenses until they cant stand it anymore and get a prime FX 50mm F1.7 lens which was usually the cheapest kit lens for the lowest end film SLR. At this time, they often are very disappointed to find out that their entry level cameras lack the necessary mechanism to focus these 50mm F1.7 lenses. Since they are so disappointed and they cry so much, Nikon released a "practically" equivalent lens for these cameras. Unfortunately, this lens is very expensive</p>

<p>Now they know that they would have to sacrifice a lot: No autofocus, no metering, no information displayed ... but still rather use an old lens from the "film era" like the M42 screw mount Takumar lenses, AI lenses... Adapters are now selling everywhere to use these "film" lenses on the DSLR. These adapters are made by big companies, small companies, or just a man on the street; camera dealers and stores also jump in the adapter making business. Web sites are explaining how to modify the mount of a film lens to use on a DSLR. No film SLR users would buy a lens that is designed for DSLR to use on his film SLR.</p>

<p>Some people would love to compare the prices and quality of a lens in the older time with one in this time. It would be fair to compare only those that are still selling new and not discontinued yet. For example:<br>

Nikkor AF 50mm 1.8D 6 elements/ 5 groups $124.95<br>

Nikkor AI-S manual lens 50mm 1.8 8 elements/ 8 groups (unfortunately just discontinued)<br>

Nikkor AI (non Autofocus) "film" lens 50mm 1.4 7 elements/ 6 groups $469.95<br>

Nikkor AF-D "digital" lens 50mm 1.4 7 elements/ 6 groups $369.95</p>

[michael_dimarzio]

<p>There are a lot of thoughtful answers, from the ones I've read, they are all true in their concept.</p>

<p>But if you state that you want to go "professional", the choice of a camera would be much less important then the choice of an education.</p>

<p> </p>

[mdma]

<p>Whatever you end up buying, buy a good photography book and read it. I was a novice until I picked up a EOS 300 (film) SLR earlier this year. I took pictures with it, and learnt the basics. But I also learnt a fair bit from reading my dads old copy of "the complete kodak guide to photography". <br>

On Film vs Digital, I only started with film because the cameras were a fraction of the cost. While I like shooting real film alot, its really made me appreciate the advantages of digital. Thats just my $0.02.</p>

[photocomment]

<p>I must be honest, having the opportunity to play with and review cameras often, we are reaching a point where there really aren't that many bad cameras to buy out there. Yes CMOS sensors are a step in the right direction for low light I feel which rules out the very entry level model Nikon (D3000) or the entry level Sony (look at the Alpha 450 up) Whatever you buy though, make sure you get a fixed 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 sooner rather than later. That lens is in my view indispensable in almost any camera bag - particularly at the price they start at.</p>