SLR 35mm vs Digital camera

[paulo_oliveira2]

I'm going to by one new camera but I don't no if I'm going to by one

normal SLR camera like Nikon F80 or if is better to by one digital

camera like Nikon D100?

Can you tell me your sugestion?

 

My first sugestion is one Nikon F80 and 28-200 zoom.

 

Thanks in advance

[geddert]

this should answer your questions: <A href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a>... and until you know you are seriously into photography i don't recommend spending $2000 on a digital camera and memory cards. plus if that time comes you can always sell the F80.

[elliot]

There is a lot of information on here regarding equipment selection. I think the 28-200 is a bad pick, however. Take a look at a 50mm, and maybe the 28-105 if you're dead set on a zoom and refuse to consider primes. Also, like Matthew said, I would advise against purchasing something as expensive as the D100 for a starter camera unless you have money coming out of your ears or something. The N/F80 makes more sense.

[gavin martin]

It starts with a camera . . . then you start wanting all the filters & the new lenses . . . . Unless you are quite well off, buy the 35mm camera and spend some of the money you've saved on the extras you'll no doubt want a little later. You can always go digital further down the line when the camera prices fall to half of what they are now.

 

Gavin

[angel_o.]

The decision between the D100 and F80 depends on your personal needs.

<br><br>Since you're considering the F80, I assume that photography is not your main source of income. Therefore, considering the price of the D100, I would opt. for an F80 with a good and fast lens (a 28-200 zoom isn't the best choice for a film camera and it's even worse for a digital camera; if you like the "normal" focal length, the AF-D 50/1.8 is a great lens and it's cheap too), a Speedlight such as the SB-80DX/SB-28DX, a solid tripod and I would take out my wife for a splendid dinner... ;-)

[mendel_leisk]

Another vote for film camera, with 50mm fixed lens.

 

Rant: packaging slr's with a medium range zoom as "std" lens is a trend that came out of nowhere, caught on like wildfire, and is a colossally misguided waste of glass.

[efusco]

Most of this advice is worthless and misguided without a frame of reference such as an understanding of your goals and intend use of the camera. Personally, unless you just want a film camera for the sake of learning about photography or nostalgia or something I think a digital camera is a great place to start for the average family gathering/travler/snap shot shooter. There are several digital cameras that are in the 6MP range and are all in one camera/lens systems that still give you the flexibility to set your own exposure and shutter speed manually, many in the $600 price range(Fuji s602, Sony 717, etc) before memory cards. In the long haul you will save a lot of money and very well may have increased satisfaction since you'll be getting instant feedback as to the quality of your picture and can reshoot most shots until you 'get it right'--learning all the while what it takes to make a shot good.

 

But, as I said at the outset, we really can't advise you without some background info, and knowledge of what you want out of your new camera/lens. I will say that the D100 is a big leap for a starter camera and probably a collosal waste of money to learn on. Either learn on a film SLR or an all-in-one digital and when you're ready for a move up buy a current generation advance DSLR if that's what you need/want.

 

Please see the "Learn" section above, there is a ton of information about choosing a camera system/lenses, etc.

[ShunCheung]

It is impossible to give good advice until Paulo provides more background information. If money is not an issue, the D100 could be a great camera for a beginner, but a $1700 or so DSLR is not exactly affordable by everybody. And on top of that, you need a good computer, memory cards and more importantly, good lenses. IMO it is unwise to buy a cheap 28-200 and a relatively expensive camera. I don't care who makes that 28-200, including Nikon. A zoom lens with such an extreme range from wide to tele is not going to give you very good quality unless you are completely not demanding.

 

Generally speaking, you should spend more money in lenses than camera body. Zoom are fine nowadays, but I would stick with something like 24-85 or the entire zoom range is either in telephoto (e.g. 70-300) or entirely in wideangle (e.g. 18-35).

[gib]

I dont know the D100 and whether it has a shutter lag, what is shutter lag, well, with a film camera when you fire the shutter, the photo gets taken almost instantly. With digital cameras that I am aware of, there is a delay. I have many photos of my dogs walking halfway out of the frame, taken with my digital camera (Nikon Coolpix 5700 and Canon G2). I like manual focusing film cameras in some situations more than the high end digital p and s cameras I have mentioned. However, for many other situations these digicams are great.

 

Many threads and many opinions tend to steet people towards Nikon manual focus cameras like the FM2n (full manual camera) or even the FG which has some automation. Some people like AF lenses, others like manual focus lenses. To learn with a 50mm lens is sound advice.

 

What you learn with a basic manual SLR film camera you can apply to any future cameras you buy.

 

I am not sure I could get out my two digicam what I do without prior experience with manual 35mm format film cameras.

 

regards

Bill Gibson

[david_blackburn1]

i would agree with people warning you against the 28-200. get something with a smaller zoom range, or some primes. the 50/1.8 is a steal at 100 dollars. i would also probably advise against a d100 for learning purposes. if you already know how to take pictures, it might be ok. i calculated that a d100 would be cheaper than an f80 after about 100-200 rolls of film. thats really not that many. if you are trying to learn photography, you might want to consider an older manual body used somewhere. they can be had for fairly cheap.

[ellis_vener_photography]

film and digital cameras each have their setsof advantages & disadvantages. with

digital, the photographer becomes the darkroom -- which means atthe minimum a

significant investment in time spent processing the images (this can be a seemingly

infinite time sink), a never ending learning curve as you master new crafts & skills,

AND potentially significant additional capital investment -- upgrading computer

hardware including faster processors (which you may already have) more RAM,

storage space, monitor (& possibly printer) calibration & profiling tools, software, and

if you are going to print your images to share them - the printer, inks and paper.

<P>The benefit is that you will be completely in charge of the finished

product.<P>With film cameras, the down sides are:you spend continuosly for film &

processing and the making of the images is at least partially out of your control.

Another downside is that you need more filters (the only filter you really need with

digital cameras is a polarizer and possibly a graduated neutral density filter or two.)

<P>A third approach is go hybrid: shoot film & scan it. <P>Image quality and

"shutter lag time' are non issues. th D100 produces excellent iamges --as can the

F80. The biggest technical limitation to the quality of the images will be your lenses.

[grant_bridenbaugh1]

Regarding the above response,

 

<p><i>"Rant: packaging slr's with a medium range zoom as "std" lens is a trend that came out of nowhere, caught on like wildfire, and is a colossally misguided waste of glass.</i>

 

<p>I would have to disagree. (The very fact that it has "caught on like wildfire", as he said, suggests that the market disagrees as well.)

 

<p>It's not at all surprising, nor a waste, considering the wants/needs/demands of people buying their first SLR and considering what they're typically used to.

 

<p>Consider someone who just wants an upgrade in quality from their P/S, and the ability to begin experimenting with changing/controlling settings. Someone like me, a few years ago, when I broke my Olympus Stulus Zoom (38-140mm) and had to get a new camera. <u>If someone had told me then, that the only way I could adequately cover the same focal range with an SLR were with several primes (with accompanying costs and the 'hassle' of changing lenses constantly), I'd probably have me another P/S right now.</u> The 28-200 I bought with my N65 might be slow and poor compared to other SLR offerings, but it was an improvement (wider range and much faster) <u>compared to where I was coming from</u>.

 

<p>As I've grown to enjoy photography, I've upgraded my equipment where and when I've found it lacking. I wanted/needed sharper and faster lenses to do what I found myself wanting to do. Others may never want to do so; they may be content simply taking snapshots, and happy that their budget SLR and 28-xxx lens (f5.6) lets them 'get the shot' in situations where their previous P/S (double-figure f-stop when zoomed) never could. They may not even know why (what's an 'f-stop'?), and probably don't care. To each his own... :-)

[ky2]

Paulo, if you can afford the D100, get it with the 35/2. If this is your first SLR ever, then you're going to make the most progress in photography with a DSLR. You'll spend much more on film (I blew up almost $2000 on my first 2 years of photography on film and processing alone). There's no shutter lag, and no film camera can compete with this instant feedback.

[tom_mai1]

By mentioning the F80 and the D100, it's pretty obvious that you want a SLR or DSLR with a zoom. With one set up costs less than half of the other, I think you have to choose the format for yourself, taking into consideration that money for the D100 is no problem (there're plenty of informations in Photonet regarding both formats. Click LEARN and EQUIPMENT)

 

A 28-200 zoom (from any manufacturer) is convenient for daylight snapshots but I seriously doubt it can rival the 50 prime, 35-105 D, 24-85 G or 28-105 D Nikkors for sharpness and contrast (not to mention the 50's ability to tackle low light situation ... such as inside a museum). But if I was you and badly want a zoom, I would pick the 28-105 D Nikkor.

[Wayne Melia]

My suggestion is to embrace the 28-200 mm zoom concept in whatever media you choose. Yes, you will lose some detail. You will gain more than you lose by experimenting freely with:<br>

1. how things look with different perspective, and <br>

2. how things look with different cropping/exclusion.<br>

These are more important than detail.<br>

[ilkka_nissila]

A 28-200 zoom also doesn't let you shoot hand-held in lower light, and it doesn't allow much depth of field control, it doesn't allow shooting into the light with good results, .... the list goes on and on. I would say that I could make much better photographs with a 50/1.8 than a 28-200. And the only thing to be learned by trying out a 28-200 mm zoom is that it's something that you don't want to have.

[grant_bridenbaugh1]

<i>"...the only thing to be learned by trying out a 28-200 mm zoom is that it's something that you don't want to have."</i>

 

<p>Again -- this is an over-generalization. It all depends on what a given person wants to do, and where they want to 'go' with their photography.

 

<p>IMO, the casual snapshooter, who doesn't really aspire to be anything more than that, will get more aesthetically pleasing (to them) photos, of more different things, with a 28-200mm than they will with a 50mm.

[ShunCheung]

Obviously the cost of even a "lower end" DSLR is a major issue, but IMO for beginners, the D100 has number of advantages over some all-manaul film SLR: (1) instant feedback as Yaron already pointed out, (2) spot meter for learning exposure and (3) record of all exposure info in each image file, including aperture, shutter speed, focal length (if a zoom, the focal length it is set at), metering mode ...

 

The fact that you can see the result immediately gives you a chance to determine alternative approachs to improve your shot is excellent for beginners as well as experienced photographers.

[vince]

<p>I am wrestling with this very issue, except that I already own the N80 and an array of Nikon lenses. The film scanner I added to my system a few months ago had become Ellis' "time sink" and I now find myself spending about 3 hours per roll in scanning and Photoshopping. I save the keepers as JPEGs and print them on my local lab's Frontier. I love the control and results and I <i>finally</i> get on paper what I saw in my viewfinder.</p>

 

<p>I see the D100 as a huge time saver, not to mention the benefits of instant feedback and shooting more "practice" frames. Everytime I visit my Film vs. Digital spreadsheet, the only way it makes economic sense is to count my time as worth something. That's hard to do when it's your hobby. Any advice? Thanks.</p>

[todd_evans]

Once again the folks who have never used a late-generation 28-200mm zoom are recommending against them. Here's something you all should know - The Tamron 28-200mm XR lens (the newest one, NOT one of the old ones) is a REALLY GOOD LENS. My Tamron XR performs EXTREMELY well in many conditions - prints, slides, B&W, outdoors into the sun, indoors with flash, etc.

 

Paulo - If you get a new, late-generation 28-200 by either Tamron or Sigma (you can tell the newer models by the 62mm filter diameter), you won't be sorry. To answer your question, I think an F80 and the Tamron 28-200mm XR zoom is a great combination. That's what I use, and I have a few primes in my bag as well.

 

Not everyone wants to carry a heavy bag full of primes or pro zooms (myself included).

 

Todd

[ShunCheung]

Vince, the bad news is that the D100 might not save you time in front of the computer. Regardless of the source (i.e. scanned film or DSLR), digital image files need tuning in PhotoShop (or whatever your favorite photo editing software may be). Most DSLR owners I know, including me, have complained about it. Since there is no "film" cost, I tend to shoot more liberally and only work on the images I like, but editing is still very time consuming.

[Guest]

SLR + zoom kits are usually sold at a discount: compare the price of the kit against the price of the SLR body on its own, and the zoom, however poor, might be worth a few bucks for the experience of what different focal lengths can do.

 

If you're new to photography, a zoom is fun and will keep you interested where 50mm or 35mm alone might disappoint. After all, if I can't get everything I want in the frame with a 50mm lens, I have to move back: with a zoom, I'd just zoom. Easy, although not necessarily conducive to taking good photographs, by which I mean that you could see an object you like and immediately zoom to 180mm without exploring whether you'd get a better perspective moving forwards and using a shorter focal length.

 

That said, if you want to play around with shallow depth of field or do available-light photography (photos late in the evening or even at night, without flash and often without a tripod), the zoom will not be good.

 

You could get both. The 50mm/1.8 is dirt cheap, and half the price secondhand.

 

To my mind, the whole point of an SLR system is that it's superior to compact cameras in giving you complete control over what you can photograph and how you can photograph it. Zooms are available on compact cameras, but very few have lenses fast enough and shutter speeds long enough to let you take pictures without flash when the sun goes down.

[klix]

<i>"...the only thing to be learned by trying out a 28-200 mm zoom is that it's something that you don't want to have." </i><p><p>

I own a Nikon 28-200mm, and IMO opinion, it's a very good lens. Its main weaknesses are barrel distortion and light fall off (esp. wide open) around the 28-40mm range.<p><p>

<b>However, aren't the above weaknesses mitigated on a D100, since the 28-200mm would essentially be a 42-300mm?</b>

[angel_o.]

The problem with a 28-200 is that the optical flaws are 1.5x more noticeable on a D100 (even if it turned to be a 42-300). <br>

You could compare it to a stain on a tie, if you use a magnifying glass the stain is even more prominent... ;-))