Film SLRs before DSLRs (for a n00b)

[Doylem]

Fascinating that the film v digital debate can generate so much heat. The moment I went digital - it must be nearly four years ago - my Nikon FE SLRs became expensive paperweights. I have no desire to return to the palaver of film developing and printing and waiting hours or days (or maybe a couple of weeks with send-away Kodachrome) to see how the pix turned out. It's digital all the way now...

You can learn the basics of photography with either film or digital, but I can't see any logical reason to invest in film cameras, and maybe a darkroom set-up, only to go digital in a year or two. There may always been a niche market for the kind of qualify you get get out of a 5x4 or 10x8in view camera; for smaller formats digital overtook film a few years back.

Digital hasn't stopped people taking bad pictures; there are more bad pix produced every day than at any time in the 150-year history of photography. Encouraged by camera manufacturers, lot of people are fixated with their gear. Cameras become almost like fetish objects. When I run photo workshops, a lot of participants spend their time fiddling with their cameras... which means that they barely see the landscape they are trying to photograph. And they don't understand how their cameras work, which means that every new feature and programme just adds another layer of incomprehension. The cameras are too complicated (for what is actually a fairly simple job), and the manuals are no better.

I try to get workshop participants to simplify the whole process, to get back to the basics of photography, but those camera adverts - new! improved!! more features!!! - are far more persuasive...

 

[funkboy]

Film is great.

But not so great for learning quickly, & learning from your mistakes.

It sounds to me like the people telling you that you can do more stuff with film are comparing film SLRs with digital point-&-shoots.

If you really want to learn how photography works & how to get the results you're looking for from a bunch of odd-looking numbers, you need a camera with a lot of manual controls. Preferably, two control dials (usually one on the front/top very close to the shutter button & another on the back under your thumb) and a dedicated "mode" dial (that's the thing on top with the P/A/S/M or P/Av/Tv/M indicators on it). It's also important to be able to quickly & precisely focus the lens manually, and easily choose the focal length you want if the camera has a zoom lens.

Obviously it costs money to add nice tactile controls to cameras & takes up a lot of space on the camera body as well, so camera companies don't add them to cameras that they're trying to sell to people that they think won't use them anyway. As a result, on inexpensive compact cameras most of the parameters that need to be adjusted in order to get the result you want are buried in a menu somewhere or require pushing several buttons. More like using a computer than using a camera, really.

SLR cameras and relatively few high-end point-&-shoots have enough manual controls that you don't have to fiddle with the camera in order to set the parameters you want; you just twist a dial that's already under your fingers, & shoot. Higher-end cameras like these are also more responsive, have (much) better image quality, and allow much greater control over depth of field than inexpensive compacts (as a result of having better lenses & sensors that are much closer to the size of a frame of film than the sensors on compact cameras).

The arguments behind picking a good digital camera for learning photography are simple:

- you can shoot a lot and it doesn't cost you anything, so practicing is free.

- memory cards are a whole lot smaller than film canisters, so you can pretty much take as many exposures as you want without worrying about running out of film. Inexpensive modern memory cards store thousands of images. (Just keep a few spare batteries with you, & keep them warm .

- there is no waiting between the time you take the shot & the time you see your results, so the feedback is instantaneous

- the parameters used to take each image are recorded with the image, so you know what you were doing at the time you took it when you go back & look at it later. Almost all film cameras can't record this information on the film, so if you really want to learn you have to write down the exposure parameters for each frame & check them after it's been developed.

If you want to learn more about how to pick a camera & get started, the tutorials over on
the Luminous Landscape are what I learned from when I was in pretty much the same position you were seven years ago.

Good luck.

 

[steve-p]

Digital hasn't stopped people taking bad pictures; there are more bad pix produced every day than at any time in the 150-year history of photography. Encouraged by camera manufacturers, lot of people are fixated with their gear. Cameras become almost like fetish objects. When I run photo workshops, a lot of participants spend their time fiddling with their cameras... which means that they barely see the landscape they are trying to photograph. And they don't understand how their cameras work, which means that every new feature and programme just adds another layer of incomprehension. The cameras are too complicated (for what is actually a fairly simple job), and the manuals are no better.

I try to get workshop participants to simplify the whole process, to get back to the basics of photography, but those camera adverts - new! improved!! more features!!! - are far more persuasive...

The irony is that much of the complication on modern DSLRs is just fluff, except to sell cameras to people who might be put off if they didn't have fancy modes for landscape, portrait etc. If they understood what the modes were doing for them, they would realise they could do it themselves, and that photography worked perfectly well long before any automation was even possible. I doubt many people would buy a new fully manual camera nowadays, but TV and AV are sufficient if you understand the fundamental relationships between aperture, shutter speed, depth of focus, camera shake at different focal lengths etc.

 

[funkboy]

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.

The GF1 is a great choice.

• Manual controls? check.
• Decent size sensor? check.
• Good lens options? check.
• Interchangable lenses? check.
• Small enough to carry with you anywhere? check.
• Generally a well thought-out, well made camera? check.
• Subject of lust by photographers everywhere? check.

A shooting buddy of mine got a Canon 30D and a bag full of lenses shortly after that camera came out, has been on several photography trips, and generally uses his camera whenever he can.

Ever since he got the GF1 he's barely touched the 30D, and the GF1 is in his going-to-work bag every day. And he only has the 20mm prime for it. The 30D still comes on trips with him, but otherwise it still pretty much stays at home. The only way you could pry the GF1 from his cold, dead hands would be to give him a GF2 .

 

[DavidChavez]

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.

Thanks, that cleared my mind a lot. And I see you are a Pentaxian (I thought that Canonians and Nikonians were the only tribes out there, just like PCrs and Mac fans , just kidding) so I guess you have tried the K-x, is colour a problem for macros? (red is my favourite)

If you really want to learn how photography works & how to get the results you're looking for from a bunch of odd-looking numbers, you need a camera with a lot of manual controls. Preferably, two control dials (usually one on the front/top very close to the shutter button & another on the back under your thumb) and a dedicated "mode" dial (that's the thing on top with the P/A/S/M or P/Av/Tv/M indicators on it). It's also important to be able to quickly & precisely focus the lens manually, and easily choose the focal length you want if the camera has a zoom lens.

Yeah, I think most DSLRs have a lot of manual controls. But now people is more silly (or they just don't bother to learn) that companies release more "easy" cameras. My aunt bought a Sony CiberShot W350 and we went to a party last night, she was attempting to take some pictures in the dark but the camera didn't flashed, because the stupid iA mode didn't think it was appropriate. I don't doubt this CiberShot's picture quality is awesome, but the "easy mode" just made the camera way more difficult to use and get the right scene mode.
That's why I'm a little afraid of modern digital cameras, either compact ones or DSLRs. Even the Lumix GF1 and Pentax K-x have "iA super easy" mode, so shame.

That's why I'm asking about film, because everything is manual, you have absolutely control over the camera and if you blow one shot is all your fault. So simple as that.

A shooting buddy of mine got a Canon 30D and a bag full of lenses shortly after that camera came out, has been on several photography trips, and generally uses his camera whenever he can.

Ever since he got the GF1 he's barely touched the 30D, and the GF1 is in his going-to-work bag every day. And he only has the 20mm prime for it. The 30D still comes on trips with him, but otherwise it still pretty much stays at home. The only way you could pry the GF1 from his cold, dead hands would be to give him a GF2 .

Yes, I can't question GF1's high quality, I love rounded edges and clean surfaces, present in all Apple products, but the GF1's is just techno-sexy. Tough its high price ($800 or more, the newly K-r is around $600) and theoretically new technology I want it so bad.
But I still thinking is not a "real DSLR", is more like a hobby.

BTW, have you seen the Leicas? they're so ******** beautiful, but so ******** expensive!.
I don't know, the GF1 reminded me the Leicas.

 

[MacNoobie]

If you want that nostalgia then grab your iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 and grab the hipstamatic, easily easily has revived my lusting for film and keeping with digital.

 

[snberk103]

....
That's why I'm asking about film, because everything is manual, you have absolutely control over the camera and if you blow one shot is all your fault. So simple as that.
...

I applaud your motive to learn photography by doing it the hard way - that is the manual way..... and good luck on that. But... 'Film' does not necessarily mean 'manual', and 'digital' does not mean 'automatic'. There are some film cameras that are fully automatic, and are impossible to use in 'manual mode' (or make it so cumbersome to use it's as good as not having it at all).

Though it is certainly true that cheap film SLR is more likely to be only manual, and a cheap DSLR is more likely to be fully automatic.

However, if you want to control your camera, then set it on 'Manual' - though personally I like using the Av and Tv settings.

Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.

 

[DavidChavez]

If you want that nostalgia then grab your iPhone 3GS or iPhone 4 and grab the hipstamatic, easily easily has revived my lusting for film and keeping with digital.

HA!, never heard about Hipstamatic, it's nice. I also like the name

I applaud your motive to learn photography by doing it the hard way - that is the manual way..... and good luck on that. But... 'Film' does not necessarily mean 'manual', and 'digital' does not mean 'automatic'. There are some film cameras that are fully automatic, and are impossible to use in 'manual mode' (or make it so cumbersome to use it's as good as not having it at all).

Though it is certainly true that cheap film SLR is more likely to be only manual, and a cheap DSLR is more likely to be fully automatic.

However, if you want to control your camera, then set it on 'Manual' - though personally I like using the Av and Tv settings.

Anyway, just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks, didn't know about "automatic film cameras". Hope modern DSLRs still have all full manual controls.
The same night my aunt (with the CyberShot w350) and I went onto that party I was hanging out with a Canon PowerShot I5IS (love the way companies name their cameras with 'shot'). But I hated, it has a nice 12x zoom but I couldn't do anything. I couldn't set the ISO on dark night mode as I wanted so I had to pop-out the flash every time I had to shot something, which was very annoying. It seems the iA mode is for stupid people who doesn't care about the quality of the picture or they just don't bother on anything. Sad.
Anyway, there's people for everything...

 

[hexhead]

Get a Nikon D40. Really hard to go wrong with it.

Check this out ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

 

[gnd]

Thanks, that cleared my mind a lot. And I see you are a Pentaxian (I thought that Canonians and Nikonians were the only tribes out there, just like PCrs and Mac fans , just kidding) so I guess you have tried the K-x, is colour a problem for macros? (red is my favourite)

No, I haven't tried the K-x myself. I doubt the color would be a problem for macros unless you are really really close. But when you are that close you need to stop down the lens anyway which means you need to introduce your own light (which would be shining away from the camera anyway) ... But once you get that serious you will want to upgrade your camera for other reasons, not color.

 

[flosseR]

Get a Nikon D40. Really hard to go wrong with it.

Check this out ...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

ROFL!!!! hahahahha...

 

[funkboy]

Yes, I can't question GF1's high quality, I love rounded edges and clean surfaces, present in all Apple products, but the GF1's is just techno-sexy. Tough its high price ($800 or more, the newly K-r is around $600) and theoretically new technology I want it so bad.
But I still thinking is not a "real DSLR", is more like a hobby.

The GF1 may have a somewhat smaller sensor and somewhat slower autofocus than a "real" DSLR, but unless you're shooting action sports where you need crazy good AF tracking I think the difference won't be a problem, and the image quality really is as good as what was available from the best "prosumer" DSLRs not very long ago. Michael Reichmann uses one as a backup for his Leica M9.

BTW, have you seen the Leicas? they're so ******** beautiful, but so ******** expensive!. I don't know, the GF1 reminded me the Leicas.

...exactly the reason why Panasonic can charge a premium and still sell them like crazy a year after release <grin>.

My only gripe with the Panasonic cameras is their lack of in-body stabilization, making the Oly bodies more interesting for adapting classic manual lenses.

Personally I'd love for Voigtländer/Epson to update the "accessable to mere mortals" digital rangefinder to something modern, but I don't think it's gonna happen (I don't think there was enough demand for the original R-D1 outside Japan to continue the project).

My other wishlist camera is a Canon "retro" camera; basically a digital AE-1 styled (& sized!) body with EF mount. (uhm, not this) The Nikon Q system may turn out to have similar styling with a mirrorless design.

Just speculation here, but I think the question Canon is asking themselves is "how small is small enough"? I would guess that there was a raging debate within Canon marketing & engineering whether they should go the EVIL route or try to make an EOS camera as small as possible...

 

[DavidChavez]

OK, ready for my final statement.

Thank you guys for all your answers, now I'm putting my thoughts back on track again so I can finally make my last statement.

No, I haven't tried the K-x myself. I doubt the color would be a problem for macros unless you are really really close. But when you are that close you need to stop down the lens anyway which means you need to introduce your own light (which would be shining away from the camera anyway) ... But once you get that serious you will want to upgrade your camera for other reasons, not color.

OK, that's good. I think Pentax should think about the color on this situations. So red Pentax K-r, here I go for you And I'm going for the K-r and its colors because I'm young and not pro, so I want to project a relaxed image.

The GF1 may have a somewhat smaller sensor and somewhat slower autofocus than a "real" DSLR, but unless you're shooting action sports where you need crazy good AF tracking I think the difference won't be a problem, and the image quality really is as good as what was available from the best "prosumer" DSLRs not very long ago. Michael Reichmann uses one as a backup for his Leica M9.

But I'll have a dilemma every time I'll go out, if whether I carry my "real DSLR" or my beautiful GF1. But that goes by me.
And yep, someday I'll have a Leica, no matter if it's the last thing I do

My only gripe with the Panasonic cameras is their lack of in-body stabilization, making the Oly bodies more interesting for adapting classic manual lenses.

Personally I'd love for Voigtländer/Epson to update the "accessable to mere mortals" digital range finder to something modern, but I don't think it's gonna happen (I don't think there was enough demand for the original R-D1 outside Japan to continue the project).

Yeah, dream is free. I read on the Panasonic website that the GF1 have a Mega O.I.S. and the lenses have stabilization or something, but I guess in not all the lenses. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And a "masses" digital ragefinder camera? Uf, you dream a lot But I actually don't see this possible (as least soon), even if manufacturers try to cut the prices to extreme. But I think this kind of camera would enter to the Leicas class. Again, dream is free (though a digital ragefinder Micro 4/3 camera with a retro style would be the wet dream of many photographers)

My other wishlist camera is a Canon "retro" camera; basically a digital AE-1 styled (& sized!) body with EF mount. (uhm, not this) The Nikon Q system may turn out to have similar styling with a mirrorless design.

Just speculation here, but I think the question Canon is asking themselves is "how small is small enough"? I would guess that there was a raging debate within Canon marketing & engineering whether they should go the EVIL route or try to make an EOS camera as small as possible...

Ha! that would be cool! For what I read the Olympus EP1 is not at the standard heights, and I don't like it neither. So this Canon would give war, even I sort of have a resentement with Canon since I used the uncontrollable PowerShot ISi5, but I can't argue Canon's image quality.

And I don't think Canon and/or Nikon turn to Micro 4/3-Mirrorless soon, neither for another class of cameras or their new DSLRs. They're seeing how good the model is working for then make a decision.
But I neither think they're going with Micro 4/3, they probably will do as Samsung and Sony and introduce their own mirrorless system.
And if so, Canon/Nikon mirrorless cameras wont replace EOSs, well, not soon.

 

[DavidChavez]

BTW, I found this article about a New York-based artist called iO Tillett Wright who takes photographs but all in films. Totally recommended, BTW the blog is NSFW but the article doesn't have any forbidden thing.

http://www.eastvillageboys.com/2010/09/14/io-tillet-wright-sneak-attack/