Digital vs. Film SLR

**DrumDawg** · 01-23-2008, 07:52 PM

I really am interested in photography (I like to hike, wanna combine the two, to live the dream of moment capturing).

Any thoughts on digital vs. film SLR camera (pretty much starting from ground zero; I own a regular old digital camera, but is not good enough for what I want to do).

**-Devil-** · 01-23-2008, 08:40 PM

well i compare most digital SLR's to medium format film camera ... when it comes to overall size and detail that can be captured ...

each has its place tho ... i grew up on 35mm film cameras .. but digital is a lot more convient .. and so far i haven't found something that i can't do with my digital that i could do with my old 35

**Rei** · 01-29-2008, 10:19 AM

Get a Digital SLR that comes with a nice lens, and make sure that the lens is compatible with older 35mm mounts, and you can always have the best of both worlds.

The body is just a black box, the lens is where the magic happens.

**elhanan** · 01-31-2008, 02:24 AM

If you like to hike and want to get the best landscapes, then large format is the best format, although it is getting harder and harder to find a decent place to get your film developed. A used Hasselblad 500c or 500cm is also a great camera for landscapes, you can pick one up from KEH.com for about $800 - $1,300. If you do decide to go digital though I like the nikons mainly because the glass is fantastic. Canon makes really horrible lenses unless you're willing to drop serious money on lenses (meaning a lot more than your camera body).

**Sabledog** · 01-31-2008, 03:35 AM

There is some tone quality difference between film and digital, it seems that film has more texture, contrast subtleties while digital is overall more consistent and possibly more vibrant. Of course film, sensor, lens, subject, lighting etc all play a part. For the convenience and instant "development" of digital, I think it's a hands down choice anymore.

I believe that the power of the SLR is the ability to improve on lens choice. I am always surprised when people choose a dSLR with no intent on getting a good lens or using it's features. Any of the lower level kits will give an ok lens; better, faster lenses (2.8, 1.4 etc) plays a major part on improving the quality. Depending on how you will use the camera, a non-slr with a very good lens may be better for you. For lens choice and a system approach to the camera, SLR or Dslr is the way to go.

I've been using a Sony F828 (28-200 equivalent f/2-2.8 Zeiss lens) for several years and it does a great job. I am excited by the prospect of getting a Canon 5d sometime this year. What this gives me that my current one doesn't? the ability to use wide (20mm, 17mm lenses-it's full frame so there is no conversion factor), adapters for manual lenses where I can use my 35mm Zeiss lenses and macro bellows, and flash input for strobe lighting.

Good Canon lenses are phenomenal and the bodies can adapt to almost any older 35mm lens (full manual-manual focus, manual aperture stopdown). This is a GREAT way to get lenses inexpensively if you are comfortable with the limitations. For macro, it's perfect!

So, it all depends.

**Winzzy** · 02-06-2008, 03:13 PM

digitals are good for most thing but in low light environments or long exposures at night the noise ruins the picture..

They come a long way and are infinantly easier to process than film, but it still has shortcomings...

**rickw** · 02-06-2008, 04:30 PM

If you are back packing, weight becomes important. Based on that, I would stay away from an SLR. When I was back packing I carried an Olympus 35RC (35mm). It was about the size of a pack of cigarettes and less than a pound in weight. Going over 12000 ft passes, every pound counts.

**Edcculus** · 02-11-2008, 08:43 AM

I've backpacked with a regular film SLR. Not much fun. I just made my first digital camera purchase (ever). When I was trying to figure out what to get, it all came down to lifestyle. I'm a college student who is very active outdoors (especially backpacking). I really enjoy the freedom of SLR's and dSLR's. When it came down to it, I wanted something a little more compact to fit my activities. I settled on the Canon G9. A decent enough camera that gives me full manual options, and simple P&S options when my friends want to use it. Its a little bulky, but overall much lighter to backpack with than a SLR.

**tm3** · 02-15-2008, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by DrumDawg

I really am interested in photography (I like to hike, wanna combine the two, to live the dream of moment capturing).

Any thoughts on digital vs. film SLR camera (pretty much starting from ground zero; I own a regular old digital camera, but is not good enough for what I want to do).

sounds like you are somewhat towards the beginner end of the curve, which is where i place myself even though i have been snapping pictures for a long time.

imo with that in mind a big advantage of digital is the immediate feedback you get about exposure, composition, etc.

i have a nikon D40 (not 40x) that i consider an incredible camera for the money. the big advantage of a digital SLR like this compared to a nonSLR is the lack of noise in low light photos. the D40 does well out to ISO 1600.

the biggest disadvantage relative to a film SLR imo is the lack of wide angle lenses. getting to 28mm equivalent is no problem but wider than that gets pricey.

you can pick up film cameras now for really low prices and if you only are going to shoot a few rolls of film each year that might be a good bet. but, with digital you shoot a lot more. i bought my D40 just before a vacation last summer and took maybe 700 photos on a 10 day trip.

**Rei** · 02-18-2008, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by tm3

i have a nikon D40 (not 40x) that i consider an incredible camera for the money.

I agree. In fact, I would say that the D40 easily wins the prize for the best bang for the buck camera on the market.

In fact, I would rather have the D40 over the D40x any day of the week. Money should be spent on lighting (strobes and flashes), then lenses, then bodies to get the best image quality out of your money. Because the D40 syncs at 1/500, it does better with lighting than the D40x. This is my experience, and YMMV as always.

**joke1176** · 02-18-2008, 05:49 PM

I have a D70s and it is AWESOME. Versatile, fast and not that expensive for what you get. If you plan on using it frequently, it pays for itself in film savings.

**stupidyank** · 02-26-2008, 05:44 AM

I have a Many Many nikons, a few Hasselblads, a bronica, and more kit than can fit in three very large camera bags. (I shoot Professionally). Personally I would say that shooting with a digital is more rewarding, results are seen quicker and you can figure out what you are doing wrong immediately. There is a reason why professionals pay 40 to 50 dollars a box for 10 sheets of polaroid film to see instant results.

As far as traditional system cameras are concerned there really are only two manufacturers that I would consider unless you just like spending LOTS of money on cameras (starting at probably about $1500) those are Nikon and Canon

I personally would recommend Canon. Canon makes many more digital imaging devices, Video recorders, copiers, smaller cameras etc. Thus they have more experience with digital sensor equipment than Nikon. They also seem to innovate and roll out new cameras and technology more quickly than Nikon. (perhaps a negative as your camera will depreciate more quickly) I have also noticed that with Nikons my images always look quite under saturated (colors are not as vibrant) in contrast to Canon images that seem to be very well saturated immediately upon import into whatever program I use. In my opinion You'll have to do less manipulation of the images after you have shot them if you go with canon.

Plus Canon cameras are typically lighter than nikons.

Hope that helps!

**Rei** · 02-26-2008, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by stupidyank

I have also noticed that with Nikons my images always look quite under saturated (colors are not as vibrant) in contrast to Canon images that seem to be very well saturated immediately upon import into whatever program I use. In my opinion You'll have to do less manipulation of the images after you have shot them if you go with canon.

This is a common complaint, and the reason behind it is that Nikon encrypts the white balance data to lock out 3rd party software.

Adobe has said that they can read the encrypted files, but if they enable features in their programs to support using the white balance data from the raw file, then they open themselves up to a lawsuit because of the DMCA.

Some pro shooters that I know have been moving away from Nikon because their workflow includes Lightroom, Aperture, Express Digital Darkroom, or Bridge instead of the Nikon software.

For some people this is a deal killer.

**stupidyank** · 02-26-2008, 12:59 PM

Yup,

RAW format is Proprietary I believe even on Canon. And the Nikon software is atrocious.

**Rei** · 02-26-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by stupidyank

Yup,

RAW format is Proprietary I believe even on Canon. And the Nikon software is atrocious.

True. But the difference is in the law. The canon raw format is not encrypted. The nikon raw white balance data is encrypted while the rest of the file is not encrypted. The Canon and Nikon raw formats have been reverse engineered by all of the major companies that make imaging software, (ExpressDigital, Adobe, Apple, etc) and they have also broken the encryption.

However, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal (in the USA) to sell software that circumvents encryption. It isn't that the nikon formats can't be read. It is the fact that anyone that publishes software than can decrypt the white balance data is breaking the law.

So... if you are using a third party application to convert nikon raw images, it can't utilize the white balance data during the conversion without breaking the law. So, most third party applications don't.

**robertw** · 02-28-2008, 07:03 PM

When I go outdoors with my family, Usually I like to take my canon sd700is. It's a great camera for capturing the moment quickly. I have a Rebel XT, and a 5d. Still, unless I know that I am going out specifically to take pictures, the pocket camera is my main choice. However, when I know that I want to take a SLR camera with me, I'll usually consider the issue of weight. The Rebel is a light camera which makes hauling it around nice. If weight is of no factor, it's the 5d every time.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying Canon is better or worse the Nikon. Personally, I think they both make wonderful cameras and lenses. I use canon simply for the reason that my father and brother use canon. A long time ago, somebody told me, 'it doesn't really matter which camera you buy. They all have the ability to take good pictures. However, you should get the camera that your friends (who actually like you) have. The reason for this is simple, They are the ones who you will be able to talk with when you have questions. And if you have similar gear, you can borrow from each other'

I'm not a professional by any means. I just like to take pictures. So, take what I say with a grain of salt, realizing that I have good intentions, but what I say may be of no value to your situation.

Robert

**Rei** · 02-29-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by robertw

When I go outdoors with my family, Usually I like to take my canon sd700is. It's a great camera for capturing the moment quickly. I have a Rebel XT, and a 5d. Still, unless I know that I am going out specifically to take pictures, the pocket camera is my main choice. However, when I know that I want to take a SLR camera with me, I'll usually consider the issue of weight. The Rebel is a light camera which makes hauling it around nice. If weight is of no factor, it's the 5d every time.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying Canon is better or worse the Nikon. Personally, I think they both make wonderful cameras and lenses. I use canon simply for the reason that my father and brother use canon. A long time ago, somebody told me, 'it doesn't really matter which camera you buy. They all have the ability to take good pictures. However, you should get the camera that your friends (who actually like you) have. The reason for this is simple, They are the ones who you will be able to talk with when you have questions. And if you have similar gear, you can borrow from each other'

I'm not a professional by any means. I just like to take pictures. So, take what I say with a grain of salt, realizing that I have good intentions, but what I say may be of no value to your situation.

Robert

I agree with this post.

Also, given the same glass and strobes, I would pick the XT over the 5D because it weighs less, and I don't mind putting it in harms way as much.

I stopped worrying about megapixels when I started working on a fuji frontier. In the manual for the machine the highest required resolution is 1536x1024 for even the largest print. Anything larger will get downsampled anyway.

It is always good advice to tell people that the person taking the photo is MUCH more important than the equipment used to take the photo.

**Digit01** · 03-03-2008, 09:40 PM

I'll chime in really quick. I have a Canon Digital Rebel (one of the very first models) and must say that I still love this camera! I still take it out in many different environments and get great pictures. I never print anything bigger than 8x10 which this camera handles easily. I can print bigger but do need to.

The great thing about digital is that you can take many picture and don't have to pay for all the development.

**AlanP** · 03-05-2008, 02:44 PM

I'll trhow in my two cents two. This christmas, I bought myself a DSLR b/c we were having a baby on DEC 29th, i grew up and there are hardly no pictures of me growing up..I don't want that to happen to my son. I bought a Pentax K10D I think after the rebate, i payed $600 for the camera. I couldn't be more happy. It's also the cheapest body you can get that is weather proof. The kit lens is fairly good or so i've read. And you can pretty much use any pentax (k-mount) lens ever made. Now if i just had time to play around with it.......I guess i thought i'de have some free time after the baby got here. Oh well. It's a process

**SMG** · 03-05-2008, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rei

So... if you are using a third party application to convert nikon raw images, it can't utilize the white balance data during the conversion without breaking the law. So, most third party applications don't.

Then why can Bridge, Lightroom, Elements 5, PS 7 all change the white balance when I open up a .NEF file from my D80.

I have the Nikon software that came with my camera to open their RAW files, which are called .NEF and I never use it. I will either use Lightroom or Bridge to open and edit all the base parameters I want before exporting as a finished file, or opening in Photoshop to edit layers etc.

There is no reason to shy away from a Nikon system based on software. The only reason is what legacy lenses one owns. Other than that, it would be up to handling and cost. Otherwise, there is not alot of difference between the Canon and Nikon systems.

Image saturation is set very low on out of the box Nikons. If one changes the color space on a Nikon it becomes more saturated, much more like the image appears in real life. Nikon are known for setting the sharpness low on the D80 out of the box as well. If one spends some time doing research and reading the manual the Nikon can be set to be as punchy or more than the Canons in the same range.

Cheers,
Sean