Film SLRs before DSLRs (for a n00b)

[luminosity]

Cumbersome?

My N80 is just over 500g and is very light. My F5 could be considered bulky, but that's just how it is. The N80, though, is light and easy to use.

 

[Edge100]

I admit my error!

Thank goodness. My life is finally meaningful.

As I owned up to before: my first piece of advice wasn't the best or most nuanced, but then I corroborated on it later. I did not, however, commit an ad populum fallacy (unless you intentionally misread my post to impose one onto it).

Yes, you did.

As for the college stuff, I am a member of a little club called Phi Beta Kappa, the particular chapter being that of one of the top country clubs in the country. I'm not an anti-intellectual; I just know what a load of trash the American education system is. After all, it seems to have let you pass through despite an obvious lack of intelligence and common sense. In real life you get a D.

Why do you assume I'm American or a product of the American education system? How arrogant of you.

 

[Edge100]

I admit my error!

I should have recognized from your first post there was no reasoning with you.

I suppose this means that your little rant about my posts being "rife with misinformation" and that I "should be embarrassed about most of what [I've] written here" was just so much twaddle. Quel surprise...

 

[HBOC]

I feel bad for everyone that gave good advice, but has to read through all this non-sense. 4 pages?

 

[leighonigar]

If I get time this evening I'm going to read what you both post'd and produce some kind of diagram of agreements and points of madness. Perhaps a venn diagram...

 

[Edge100]

I feel bad for everyone that gave good advice, but has to read through all this non-sense. 4 pages?

I know; it could have been over if someone just stopped talking nonsense...like he promised to do...two pages ago.

 

[Policar]

There was lots of good advice here (some of it courtesy me!) until you butted your head in; I don't know why this isn't obvious to you. The thread deteriorated fast as soon as you posted.

You're playing a really childish game: saying increasingly dumb, uninformed things and taunting me to reply, then falling back on your one valid argument: that I said I wouldn't reply because it's a huge waste of time arguing with you...and yet...for some reason...I'm compelled to...

It's the same thing over and over from you. If I pick apart all your faulty logic you call me out on falling back on my promise not to bother; if I don't, you follow through with a mix of more inane ******** and personal insults. It's crazy. I already explained to you why appealing to public opinion does not in and of itself constitute the ad populum fallacy (it's only a fallacy if there's a gap in logic). I already explained why suggesting to a 14 year old beginner that he should buy a trove of prime lenses is stupid. Plenty of people explained the faulty logic behind your cost analysis. I didn't bother explaining to you that your camera doesn't have a true spot meter, but then someone else did.

For the sake of everyone else, I am going to shut up now and avoid this sub forum until this guy gets banned. Sorry to everyone else for my part in this nonsense. As I said, I admit my mistake of engaging with this troll.

 

[Edge100]

Plenty of people explained the faulty logic behind your cost analysis.

No; plenty of people rationally discussed my cost analysis, and I defended my position, which was, simply, that the low cost of a film SLR does not make up for the cost of film and processing, and that digital is vastly cheaper, given even a modest amount of shooting.

I didn't bother explaining to you that your camera doesn't have a true spot meter, but then someone else did.

Sorry, was this the thing that was "rife with misinformation" and that which I should be "embarassed" about? It was a mistake which I was happy to acknowledge when it was pointed out to me (and it was a silly one at that, for reasons I have already stated).

For the sake of everyone else, I am going to shut up now and avoid this sub forum until this guy gets banned. Sorry to everyone else for my part in this nonsense. As I said, I admit my mistake of engaging with this troll.

What should I be banned for? I have directly engaged specific questions; I have offered my opinion on relevant issues; I have defended that opinion against a barrage of insults and ridiculously childish fallacies. What, exactly, constitutes grounds for banning me?

 

[El Cabong]

I stopped paying attention to this thread a while ago, when it was still civil, until now.

It's like a little kid that grew up to be a raging meth addict.

And like an addict, it just won't quit.

 

[ChrisA]

to be honest, film is expensive and not that practical anymore......

That is what some people will tall you. But lets work ou the TOTAL cost of using an SLR system.

You can buy a good film SLR and lens for $100. Back when I was 13 I'd buy 100 feet of black and white film and respool it onto reusable 35mm cartridges. I'd process the film in a daylight tank in the kitchen (no need for a darkroom) With the tank and a supply of cartridges you would have about $150 invested. Film costs about $25 for 750 exposures Processing brings the price up to about $35 or maybe $40. Prices havenot changed much in 30 years. Even as a kid on a kid's budget I could always afford to buy another 100 foot roll of film (cost was $16 back them and I could get about 20, 36-exposure rolls for one 100 foot spool) The cost has not doubled in all that time.

OK, most consummers today want color snapshots of their vacation and kids birthday but if you are seriuos about photography a black and white film based SLR and four 100 spools of file for 3,000 frames costs less then you'd pay for one decent lens for your DSLR. Plus it is a lot of fun to shoot B&W film in a full manual, not battery required SLR.

Today you'd not use this as your oly camera but for the cheap price I'd say go for it.

All that said, if you are going to shoot film I'd go for 4x5 sheet film. 35mm film is to much like digital SLR. 4x5 is very different. Yes it cost a buck a frame but you only shoot a few frames a week and likely not every week. The quality you can get is stunning.

I did shoot slides resently. No those are not super cheap but I put them in a projector. Today everyone is used to digital images and we give up quite a bit for the low cost and fast turn around. When yu show people 35mm slides shot on Velvia they are just blown away at the depth of the color and the brightness of the image. BUt it's not cheap. I have to shoot an entire roll of film to get maybe two images that I think are worth projecting. But as an art form it is not expensive. what would the paint cost for one oil painting? I can shoot a 35mm slide show for maybe $100 not a big deal if you do one a year.

So buy a film camera and budget $100 per year for film. Not a lot of money.

 

[acearchie]

Good point ChrisA!

Something else I left out of my long post which seems to have been made redundant with all the squabbling occurring before and after it!

An advantage of film is that you can be without power for much longer than a digital camera. World travellers would be able to shoot hundreds of rolls of films whereas with a digital finding power may be difficult.

The Hasselblad I use has a battery but the 35mm I use can be used in full manual without power. Sure, if your eyes aren’t up to much you’ll need a light meter but the model I have can go for over 100 hours of constant use on one battery charge. Considering I only use it for a few seconds at a time this will easily last my. My dad even has an old light meter which draws its power from the light meaning that you would need no power at all!

 

[DavidChavez]

Policar and Edge100 should get into a FaceTime conversation.

Beside this two guys that are really trying to conceal their affection for each other, thanks for all the other people who gave me their opinions.

Now when I pick up a digital camera I can switch it straight over to Manual knowing full well the fundamental aspects of ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, Metering Systems and (after some other research) focus variations. Nearly all of these aspects were learnt through having to use the Film camera.

Exactly, thats what I mean. It's like "should I learn first on a acoustic guitar instead of an electric?". Thanks acearchie.
BTW, did you like my photos?

*I read your post again and realize you no longer have your point and shoot. I wouldnt be against buying another point and shoot. If you want a slr level camera, I would check out so-called mirrorless digital cameras which allow swapping lens like normal slr's but only much smaller.

I thought that before. My first option (and the reason why I started looking deeper on pro photography) is the Lumix GF1, the world's most amazing and beautiful Micro 4/3 camera. I love it because (the main feature) its interchangeable lens and its pocket size. My question was if this was a good beginner camera, or just a hobby for experimented photographers. Because it's not a "real DSLR", due to its mirrorless system or Micro 4/3.

Should I learn on this one? Just because it doesn't have mirror?
And it its not exactly a bargain, little bit more than 800 bucks for the body itself and a pancake lens or an 14-45mm, and Micro 4/3 are a little bit more expensive than 'normal' ones. Beside that you'll have to drop another 200 for the electronic viewfinder and the colors I want are not currently selling in the US. If I buy it from Europe or Japan, I'll have some awful restrictions.
So, the interchangeable lenses are the best feature, but they'll don't fit my pocket if I have large ones. With 800 bucks I can get the newest red Pentax K-r (I like the colors, the price, and the entry level DSLR target). When I'll have to use each one?

PD: Policar and Edge100, I know a lot of good places where people goes to talk and drink coffee, do I get you an appointment? There's also lot of photography seminars where civilized people goes to talk, debate about photography issues and drink something. Sure you'll get a lot of fun there.

 

[acearchie]

Exactly, thats what I mean. It's like "should I learn first on a acoustic guitar instead of an electric?". Thanks acearchie.
BTW, did you like my photos?

Haven’t seen a link to your photo’s yet! Please provide!

... and the colors I want are not currently selling in the US....
... With 800 bucks I can get the newest red Pentax K-r (I like the colors, the price, and the entry level DSLR target).

I really think that colour shouldn’t be such of an issue. What you should be taking (i.e. pictures) should be the art. Not the thing that you are holding. Having a brightly coloured camera might also point it out more easily to thieves!

Think about lens choices too as a red and black lens may not work so nicely together when you decide to upgrade!

 

[DavidChavez]

Haven’t seen a link to your photo’s yet! Please provide!

I provide them on the first message. Anyway, here's the link. So far this is my favourite, due the 'camera' I was using and never expected the photo to be like that. This is the city where I live, Guanajuato (I always thought that is Europe trapped inside a little Mexican town ), another view. You should see the complete gallery. I still got many photos trapped on my computer.

I really think that colour shouldn’t be such of an issue. What you should be taking (i.e. pictures) should be the art. Not the thing that you are holding. Having a brightly coloured camera might also point it out more easily to thieves! Think about lens choices too as a red and black lens may not work so nicely together when you decide to upgrade!

I also thought that, but with a prominent future as a Industrial Designer I think the camera I'll carry must be nice.
If I buy the Pentax it wont be my camera forever, the category itself says "entry lever DSLR" so I'll switch one day to a D90 or 70D (again, Nikon VS Canon war).
So colors are not exactly the main feature, although is one thing I consider before buy. With the GF1 I settle with black, because I wont my videos be shorter than 30 minutes and the main language, some sort of Japanese, be unchangeable. Thieves are blossoming nowadays here, where I live, but at least they'll know I have good taste

 

[capple]

As far as I know, GF1 and other entry level slr cameras have pretty much the same amount of functions, so you dont need to worry about it.

This is your hobby. There is nothing wrong with considering camera design. you have no idea how many people upgrade their cameras just to look 'professional.'

 

[ChrisA]

I really think that colour shouldn’t be such of an issue. What you should be taking (i.e. pictures) should be the art. Not the thing that you are holding. Having a brightly coloured camera might also point it out more easily to thieves!

The reason cameras are (or should be) black is because in many shooting situations, especially macro photography the color from the camera can be reflected back onto the subject and effect the shot. Try an experiment and hold some bright rad card next to a white wall and you see the wall turn a little bit red. If direct sunlight is falling on the red card the effect is dramatic. Of course if you never place the camera very close to the subject this matters a lot less or not at all. But over the lifetime of the camera you likely will take some close shots

You absolutely wan the camera to be a null neutral color

 

[ChrisA]

If I buy the Pentax it wont be my camera forever, the category itself says "entry lever DSLR" so I'll switch one day to a D90 or 70D (again, Nikon VS Canon war).

That is an expensive plan. If you own a Pentax body you will buy Pentax mount lenses for it and Pentax dedicated flash. Then when you change to Nikon or Canon all those lenses become un-usable. The thing to remember is that MOST of your money will be in the lenses and flash, bodys are cheap. You'd be best to at least try and select a brand you can live with, don't plan on a switch.

If money is an issue buy a used SLR of the brand you like. Something like a Nikon D50 can be had with kit lens for about $300. The neat thing about that model is that it works with very old Nikon lenses. I bought a 1970's vintage Nikon 135mm f2.8 lens for $95. This the a very nice lens, an f//2.8 for under $100. I'm sure there are good used Pentax and Canon deals too.

 

[chrono1081]

Definitely only use film after youve already learned how to be a good photographer witha DSLR. Theres nothing better for learning than a DSLR and probably nothing worse than a regular SLR. Film is a horrible horrible horrible way to learn photography, it makes it so much more difficult and delays your improvement by a great deal, not to mention its very expensive. I cant tell you how much I hated film when going through photography class, the amount of progress I and my classmates made during the semester was absolutely pathetic compared to other classes. Digital on the other hand allows you to experiment and learn as much as you want at a fast rate, its the perfect learning tool.

Film should be reserved as an "advanced" form of photography, beginners should stay away.

I agree 100% with this. Photography classes don't get it. I sucked at film (I thought I was good at the time ) until I switched to digital. After really truly learning on digital I stuck with it but when I had to shoot film either out of curiosity and experimentation or for classes I was a million times better at it and shot it with the same consistency as with digital while the other people in the class were getting super frustrated due to blown exposures, out of focus shots, and such. It was a shame seeing them waste their money over and over again.

 

[chrono1081]

That is an expensive plan. If you own a Pentax body you will buy Pentax mount lenses for it and Pentax dedicated flash. Then when you change to Nikon or Canon all those lenses become un-usable. The thing to remember is that MOST of your money will be in the lenses and flash, bodys are cheap. You'd be best to at least try and select a brand you can live with, don't plan on a switch.

If money is an issue buy a used SLR of the brand you like. Something like a Nikon D50 can be had with kit lens for about $300. The neat thing about that model is that it works with very old Nikon lenses. I bought a 1970's vintage Nikon 135mm f2.8 lens for $95. This the a very nice lens, an f//2.8 for under $100. I'm sure there are good used Pentax and Canon deals too.

+1

A camera is a definite investment and you will invest a lot of money over time if its something you enjoy.

You will see all of these places online say "Canon is better, or Nikon is better, blah blah" but in reality most of these people who claim such things simply don't have the skills to make any camera sing. There is also the endless excuses of why they need a particular body (I shoot sports, or weddings, or blah blah).

In the end go to the store and see which model YOU like. I myself prefer Canon's button layout and I like their lenses. Friends of mine are Nikon shooters and like Nikons button layout (this is important) and their lenses.

You'll end up spending more on lenses than camera bodies anyway since you will keep the lenses much longer anyway.

 

[DavidChavez]

More money.

Again, money is an issue. I knew that a camera will be with me almost all my life, but I didn't know that even a entry level camera would be the same.

Just as Mac-, Windows-, and Linux-based PCs can only use software compatible with one particular operating system, camera bodies and lenses typically work the same way: Nikon D-SLRs work with Nikon-branded lenses, Canon with Canon lenses, and so on. (There are some exceptions, however, including adapters and brands like Olympus that make lenses to work with Panasonic cameras.) But typically, within a brand, the lens mount on the entire camera line (from entry-level to professional models) is the same, meaning you can swap lenses between cameras at will—even traditional film-based SLRs. Link

Also knew about lens adapters, but this are as expensive as big lenses. I'll can use the lenses compatible with the GF1 (in case I get it) with th K-r? In case I get my finally dream film SLR, I guess lenses that work with DSLRs will work with that one too.

The reason cameras are (or should be) black is because in many shooting situations, especially macro photography the color from the camera can be reflected back onto the subject and effect the shot. Try an experiment and hold some bright rad card next to a white wall and you see the wall turn a little bit red. If direct sunlight is falling on the red card the effect is dramatic. Of course if you never place the camera very close to the subject this matters a lot less or not at all. But over the lifetime of the camera you likely will take some close shots

Ohhhh, I didn't know that. In that case the best colour option is a white (even the red way more sexy, though Pentax must have thought about it), because white can reflect light more properly than yellow or red.

 

[gnd]

In case I get my finally dream film SLR, I guess lenses that work with DSLRs will work with that one too.

Not necessarily. Lenses that work for film have to cover the whole area of the film (full frame or 35mm image circle). Lenses that are made for digital SLR cameras need to cover the whole sensor. The problem is, there are sensors, that are smaller than film. In fact, 90% of all digital SLR cameras out there have sensors, that are smaller than film. Currently digital SLR cameras, that have sensors the same size as 35mm film are all 2.000$ (and more) new.
The opposite way it will mostly work. If it works on film SLR camera it will probably work on digital SLR camera. Unless the film SLR camera is really old (before 1987 for Canon, before 1959 for Nikon or before 1975 for Pentax), then you'll either need an adapter or it won't work at all.

 

[steve-p]

I don't feel nostalgic for film at all. I remember coming back from overseas trips with 20 rolls that needed D&P and all the hassle involved. I remember when bracketing cost money, and you couldn't see anything about the pictures you had taken until you got home. I remember learning photography on fully manual cameras where if you didn't get the exposure right, you mostly lost the shot entirely unless you could salvage something from the negative. Having said that, I also remember having my own darkroom which (apart from the mundane processing of large batches) was quite good fun. Nowadays though, I wouldn't even consider it. For me personally, film is dead and has been for years.

 

[snberk103]

Your best place for advice about buying a camera is a good pro camera store. The people there are in the business of matching a someone looking for a camera with the right equipment. Asking bunch of photographers for camera recommendations will get you predictable results - generally they will advise you to get the system they are using.

A good store will allow you handle the cameras. They will ask you what you intend to do with it (action, weddings, landscapes, etc). They will also 'rent' you a couple of cameras to try out, and if you end up buying a camera credit the rental towards the purchase price (in other words, if you buy from them it will cost you nothing extra to rent the cameras to trial them first to see if they work for you). Buying a camera for professional use is an extremely personal thing.

In time, your biggest investment is probably going to be lenses, so think about what you will be doing with the camera in 2, 4 or 6 years as well.

Good Luck

 

[ppc_michael]

A lot of great discussion going on here! I don't think I'm saying anything new, but I feel compelled to post anyway, since I deal with this stuff a lot.

There is no right answer. If you like the look of film, you should pursue film. If you like the look of digital, you should pursue digital.

I started out on digital and quickly learned that, to me, the difference between my student-y looking photos and professional photos were that mine were from a digital source, "theirs" were from film.

So I switched over to film (slowly, first 135 then 120) and I've never looked back. You can develop all your film yourself (B&W, C41, E6) and have complete control over the image. Then scan it as 32-bits and have basically the same control as you would a digital RAW for digital post.

So for me, I love film with a digital post workflow (though most of the time no digital post is needed). I think it's the best of both worlds.

But if you like digital, shoot digital. Photography is an art, so you should use the medium that you find best produces the result you are after.

For specifically learning photography, digital is, to me, marginally easier because you immediately see the result of your experiment and can adjust. But film really isn't at all hard to get the basics of exposure right, so I don't think digital gives you a huge advantage.

 

[steve-p]

For specifically learning photography, digital is, to me, marginally easier because you immediately see the result of your experiment and can adjust. But film really isn't at all hard to get the basics of exposure right, so I don't think digital gives you a huge advantage.

I don't know, I can see arguments both ways. It's true that you can see instant results with digital, and you can take hundreds of pictures in a short space of time, but is that the advantage that it seems to be when you are starting out?

I remember when I started out I would go out on a Sunday with a couple of rolls of B&W film just to take pictures for the sake of it. With a fairly limited number of frames available, thought needs to go into every single one. Subject and shot selection, composition, exposure, focus, depth of field etc. Once you press the shutter, that's it, you're going to move on to the next shot, so better hope everything was as good as you could possibly get it at the time. When you develop the film, you have the opportunity to review your work at a reasonable size rather than on a 3" screen. Naturally, you find you get a few things wrong, but that's how you learn (hopefully).

On the other hand, there's nothing stopping someone with a digital camera restricting themselves to say 50 shots and turning off the preview on the camera to simulate the restrictions that film forces on you. Perhaps what I am arguing is that having hundreds or thousands of frames available at no cost can reduce the care that goes into each, which matters when learning.