Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Digital...or film?
- Thread starter Fuzzy Orange
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah my bad. i recomend staying with either nikon or canon brand lenses if u can. i have 1 3rd party lens, while im not disappointed in its performance, the value of ur kit will be greatly improved if its all the same brand, plus it helps when you have warranty issues (sometimes u can convince them to service something evn when its out of warranty when u got a whole slew of gear - kinda proves ur loyalty), plus in the event you need to sell its much easier
seenew said:
Nearly 100 years ago, when film first came out, people claimed that it would be the end of painting.
You think that that's lame, only because you don't see its immediate application.
I see that as a very good thing, because it helps you understand the origins of the lexicon as well as give you depth and a broader background on the art of capturing light. Can you please name the School?
FWIW, one thing that happens all too frequency is that each new generation takes for granted the 'wonders' of the prior generation.
For example, today is my father's birthday. In his lifetime, he has:
- gone from riding in a 'Jenny' Biplane to Boeing 777 Trans-Continental Jets
- gone driving a Model A Ford to driving (my) Porsche 911.
- using Human Operator based 'Party Line' telephones to tiny Cellphones
- listening to AM Radio to watching HDTV Color TV
- spinning Celluloid 78 Records (predated Vinyl 33's and 45's) to iPods
And insofar as photography...
The one on the left says September on its developing, although the note on the back says June 1960. Back in those days, film developing was relatively expensive, so you wouldn't simply finish off a roll of 12 or 24 just to rush down to get it developed. So not only was it in Black & White, but it took 3 months to finish the roll and be able to afford to get it developed.
The one on the right is a downsample of a digital photo I took last summer of the same guy, with his girlfriend of 50+ years. Despite the photo being taken overseas (Paris, obviously), within 3 days, it had been brought back to the USA, processed and on a webserver for worldwide distribution. Plus its in color.
My generation goes "WOW!" at this technological process in just our lifetime.
But Tomorrow's generation will take color digital camera cellphones with worldwide distribution at the push of a button ... for granted.
In the meantime, my Mom's still trying to get used to her digital camera...and is seriously thinking of going back to film because she doesn't like the workflow and lack of 100% hardcopy prints.
-hh
Isn't the D80 supposed to feel like the D50? How does the D50 feel? Does it feel equally as big as the EOS 20/30D?
seenew said:
Not so.....as as been mentioned, Canon changed mounts in the 1980's so people who have lenses from back then cannot use them on current Canon digital cameras. In contrast, Nikon has not changed its F-mount and so Nikon photographers can use lenses that are 30 or more years old -- including some rare and valuable lenses or unique ones. I've got a couple of interesting older lenses, including a Kiron Lester Dine 105mm macro that is sharp as a tack, and Nikon's legendary Noct. With my D200 there is a way to set the metering for non-cpu lenses so I can still get decent exposure without guesswork. Working with older manual lenses on a Nikon is not a problem and there are certainly plenty from which to choose!
As for the "best selection of lenses...." I am not all that familiar with Canon's lineup but it looks to me as though they offer several lenses within the same range at different price points. So they might have 4 lenses that are 70-200mm, for instance: some with, some without image stabilization, whatever. Nikon actually offers more lenses when you look at things that way, and Nikon has in its lineup special lenses for specific purposes. Does Canon offer perspective correction lenses, for instance? I notice that one of Canon's new lenses is a f/1.2..... Is this the first they're offering this range? Nikon has had f/1.2 for years. Does Canon have a 200mm f/2 lens? What about lighting? Does Canon have anything which can compare with Nikon's incredible "creative lighting system?" Or its R1C1 setup for macro photography? Nikon's catalog of lenses and accessories is pretty darned impressive and I would daresay that if one were compare lens-by-lens that in the end it would be Nikon who turns out to offer "the best selection" because of the broadness and depth of its catalog.
Not quite. This doesn't need to turn into a Canon/Nikon debate, but I wanted to point out that Canon has offered fast lenses:Clix Pix said:
200mm f/1.8 (not currently offered)
85mm f/1.2
50mm f/1.2 (new)
50mm f/1.0 (not currently offered)
Thanks, Carleton! As I had mentioned, I'm not really that familiar with the Canon line so wasn't sure what they offer currently or have had in the past in the way of fast glass. Interesting that they've got an 85mm f/1.2.... wow!
Didn't mean to sound as though I were heading into a "Nikon vs Canon" debate -- really, I'm not into doing that because each person has to make the choice for himself/herself which system they want to go with and for each of us there will be different priorities and different reasons. I was mainly pointing out the lens situation because someone had commented that Canon "has the best choices in lenses" or something like that, and t'aint necessarily so!
Bascially my point was that someone going into film could pick up a nice 35mm Nikon SLR or rangefinder and still pop some of the oldies but goodies on it as well as put those same lenses on their brand-new Nikon DSLR.....
Didn't mean to sound as though I were heading into a "Nikon vs Canon" debate -- really, I'm not into doing that because each person has to make the choice for himself/herself which system they want to go with and for each of us there will be different priorities and different reasons. I was mainly pointing out the lens situation because someone had commented that Canon "has the best choices in lenses" or something like that, and t'aint necessarily so!
Bascially my point was that someone going into film could pick up a nice 35mm Nikon SLR or rangefinder and still pop some of the oldies but goodies on it as well as put those same lenses on their brand-new Nikon DSLR.....
No worries, I have much respect for you and your postings here. I stumbled on Canon equipment but have followed Nikon pretty closely as well. In my opinion, the two platforms are about equal, each with standout lenses at various focal lengths.
Start with Digital First, then film.
I've been shooting in film longer than I have in digital.
I agree with an earlier poster that starting with Digital first then trying out film is best. It is always good practice to go back to earlier forms of art/photography to enchance your technique and mental processes of taking pictures.
On a light technical note, film has more color/light depth than consumer digital sensors. With film, you can get more light quality in shadows and highlights. With photo editors, you can modify the images for great depth depending on your technical skill for optimum quality.
Everytime I compare my digital photos to my film photos of similar objects/places, I find that all my film images have greater depth.
Aside from that, digital is the way to go, but never forget about film. Film will continue to be used for a long while just as people still paint with paints, draw with pencils, making prints out of limestone slabs, etc.
Oh, and you won't have to wait in line at Wal Mart to get your photos, do darkroom work, expose yourself to harmful chemicals, and spend money on supplies. I like doing that work to some extent though!
If you have the cash, also make good prints of your images. I do make prints of my digital images for sale/friends, but they mostly reside on my harddrive, where all my film has darkroom prints/1hr prints as copies. My boyfriend hasn't made any prints of his photos even though he has so many amazing pictures.
^_^
I've been shooting in film longer than I have in digital.
I agree with an earlier poster that starting with Digital first then trying out film is best. It is always good practice to go back to earlier forms of art/photography to enchance your technique and mental processes of taking pictures.
On a light technical note, film has more color/light depth than consumer digital sensors. With film, you can get more light quality in shadows and highlights. With photo editors, you can modify the images for great depth depending on your technical skill for optimum quality.
Everytime I compare my digital photos to my film photos of similar objects/places, I find that all my film images have greater depth.
Aside from that, digital is the way to go, but never forget about film. Film will continue to be used for a long while just as people still paint with paints, draw with pencils, making prints out of limestone slabs, etc.
Oh, and you won't have to wait in line at Wal Mart to get your photos, do darkroom work, expose yourself to harmful chemicals, and spend money on supplies. I like doing that work to some extent though!
If you have the cash, also make good prints of your images. I do make prints of my digital images for sale/friends, but they mostly reside on my harddrive, where all my film has darkroom prints/1hr prints as copies. My boyfriend hasn't made any prints of his photos even though he has so many amazing pictures.
^_^
Fuzzy Orange said:
well i own a D50 and i have beat the hell out of it with about 8-9,000 clicks on the shutter.
i have fell with it, dropped it, and it works great. I love it.
all the damage was done on my last trip to canada poor guy
-hh said:Nearly 100 years ago, when film first came out, people claimed that it would be the end of painting.
You think that that's lame, only because you don't see its immediate application.
I see that as a very good thing, because it helps you understand the origins of the lexicon as well as give you depth and a broader background on the art of capturing light. Can you please name the School?
FWIW, one thing that happens all too frequency is that each new generation takes for granted the 'wonders' of the prior generation.
For example, today is my father's birthday. In his lifetime, he has:
- gone from riding in a 'Jenny' Biplane to Boeing 777 Trans-Continental Jets
- gone driving a Model A Ford to driving (my) Porsche 911.
- using Human Operator based 'Party Line' telephones to tiny Cellphones
- listening to AM Radio to watching HDTV Color TV
- spinning Celluloid 78 Records (predated Vinyl 33's and 45's) to iPods
And insofar as photography...
- to -
The one on the left says September on its developing, although the note on the back says June 1960. Back in those days, film developing was relatively expensive, so you wouldn't simply finish off a roll of 12 or 24 just to rush down to get it developed. So not only was it in Black & White, but it took 3 months to finish the roll and be able to afford to get it developed.
The one on the right is a downsample of a digital photo I took last summer of the same guy, with his girlfriend of 50+ years. Despite the photo being taken overseas (Paris, obviously), within 3 days, it had been brought back to the USA, processed and on a webserver for worldwide distribution. Plus its in color.
My generation goes "WOW!" at this technological process in just our lifetime.
But Tomorrow's generation will take color digital camera cellphones with worldwide distribution at the push of a button ... for granted.
In the meantime, my Mom's still trying to get used to her digital camera...and is seriously thinking of going back to film because she doesn't like the workflow and lack of 100% hardcopy prints.
-hh
Nicely said. I just finished my dissertation, founded by your first comments about the apparent 'death of painting'! Film will never die in my opinion. And i think, in terms of which the original poster should opt for, go for a fully manual film camera. It will FORCE you to learn aperture and exposure, and WILL punish you for mistakes.
Before upgrading to my current D70s, i started off with a 25yo Olympus OM-1, which i love dearly. Sounds a but wierd, but its a joy to behold - a truely stunning piece of equipment...and still beats the quality of the D70s hands down!
First and foremost, do not listen to anyone that says Nikon or Canon is better. There are advantages to both systems, and no matter what anyone on the forum says, they are not going to give you an unbiased opinion.
You will be more than happy with either system. When I was getting into photography what I did was talk to people that I knew, in the same town and found out what they used. I ended up going with the same brand as most of of the people in my circle of friends. This has a couple advantages, these people can help you learn your system and you can swap gear.
I'm now a professional photographer, I swap gear with people I know all the time. For my type of shooting I rarely need a 400mm f/2.8 lens so I don't own one, but I have a buddy that has one which I have borrowed on occasion. On the other hand I have a Sigma 8mm Circular fisheye lens, which is a relatively expensive limited use lens. I've had some friends say they should get that lens...I flat out told them that it would be a waste of money as it sees such little use and they can just call me and use the one that I have.
Just get out there and try playing with similar priced models of both brands, play with some lenses that you may purchase etc. Heck if you're in Texas holler at me and you can play with some of my stuff.
As far as the film v. digital. I would purchase a digital first and then look for a used film body as prices have dropped like crazy on good pro level used 35mm film cameras. I once saw an EOS 3 in good shape sell for $215.
You will be more than happy with either system. When I was getting into photography what I did was talk to people that I knew, in the same town and found out what they used. I ended up going with the same brand as most of of the people in my circle of friends. This has a couple advantages, these people can help you learn your system and you can swap gear.
I'm now a professional photographer, I swap gear with people I know all the time. For my type of shooting I rarely need a 400mm f/2.8 lens so I don't own one, but I have a buddy that has one which I have borrowed on occasion. On the other hand I have a Sigma 8mm Circular fisheye lens, which is a relatively expensive limited use lens. I've had some friends say they should get that lens...I flat out told them that it would be a waste of money as it sees such little use and they can just call me and use the one that I have.
Just get out there and try playing with similar priced models of both brands, play with some lenses that you may purchase etc. Heck if you're in Texas holler at me and you can play with some of my stuff.
As far as the film v. digital. I would purchase a digital first and then look for a used film body as prices have dropped like crazy on good pro level used 35mm film cameras. I once saw an EOS 3 in good shape sell for $215.
Digital rocks.
1. Always see every shot(I swear the 1hour photo used to keep the best ones for themselves)
2. Never run out of film
3. Delete poor shots instead of developing them.
4. Keep private pics private.
1. Always see every shot(I swear the 1hour photo used to keep the best ones for themselves)
2. Never run out of film
3. Delete poor shots instead of developing them.
4. Keep private pics private.
seenew said:
Perhaps a better example might be the phonograph record (LP). LPs were thought to have been wiped out by a meteor named CD, but a small and persistent ecosystem kept them alive. Today, a meteor called MP3 is wiping out the CD, but in its wake the LP is making a comeback. In particular, sales of LP singles in Europe outpaced sales of CD singles. My own Rega Planar 3 turntable continues to produce wonderfully rich and natural music without the "sterility" of digital.-hh said:
A small group of diehards will keep film alive, and if new emulsions are developed that have dramatically better sensitivity and grain density, there might even be a small resurgence.
maxi said:
HOLGA! You wont regret it. Just make sure to tape it up for light leaks. Images are great, and the camera is definitely on the cheap side, being made out of plastic and all.
just IMO.
I have Nikon stuff, a D70 and a N80. Love both, got some kodak color slide film in my N80 right now.... I should go shoot.
B
-hh said:
The school I'm going to is the Savannah College of Art and Design (http://scad.edu).
Don't get me wrong, I don't take technological advancements for granted! I'm fascinated by technology in history! It's just, if someone these days is starting to get into photography, you cannot say digital wouldn't be the easiest route. As some others have said, it could help you get a grasp on the technical aspects of the camera (shutter, aperture, ISO, focal length, etc), and then you can go back and study film without having to worry about wasting so much money on developing shots that all turn out horribly.
The part I'm most upset about when it comes to being forced to learn film is not the fact that I'll have to learn it; it's that I'll have to pay for the chemicals and materials, and a 35mm body, which I really don't plan to use after the class is over. Hundreds or thousands of dollars of essentially (to me) useless materials. I can't afford it!
That's where my future $60,000 of debt comes in...
(I have to get a $15,000 loan per year for four years to cover the rest of the $40,000/yr that my scholarship doesn't cover. I was awarded their top scholarship, yet it doesn't even take care of HALF the cost!
)seenew said:The school I'm going to is the Savannah College of Art and Design (http://scad.edu).
Don't get me wrong, I don't take technological advancements for granted! I'm fascinated by technology in history! It's just, if someone these days is starting to get into photography, you cannot say digital wouldn't be the easiest route. As some others have said, it could help you get a grasp on the technical aspects of the camera (shutter, aperture, ISO, focal length, etc), and then you can go back and study film without having to worry about wasting so much money on developing shots that all turn out horribly.
The part I'm most upset about when it comes to being forced to learn film is not the fact that I'll have to learn it; it's that I'll have to pay for the chemicals and materials, and a 35mm body, which I really don't plan to use after the class is over. Hundreds or thousands of dollars of essentially (to me) useless materials. I can't afford it!
That's where my future $60,000 of debt comes in...
(I have to get a $15,000 loan per year for four years to cover the rest of the $40,000/yr that my scholarship doesn't cover. I was awarded their top scholarship, yet it doesn't even take care of HALF the cost!
Oh, I completely see your point. When I start on my MFA in photography this fall, I have to take a remedial course (freshman intro to photography) due to a complete lack of academic courses in photography. So basically I have to break out my SLR that's probably older than me, and also invest in the chemicals needed for darkroom work. But honestly, I'm looking forward to it. The department head joked to me that I get to learn how to develop my film, and then I get to never do it again.
But the experience, regardless if you do it that way again, should be good. It'll help in the thinking process of photography, and also enable you to truly "create" some art through meticulous work just for one image.
And yes, I'm going to school on loans, too.
You're already quite good. What more can they teach you?seenew said:The part I'm most upset about when it comes to being forced to learn film is not the fact that I'll have to learn it; it's that I'll have to pay for the chemicals and materials, and a 35mm body, which I really don't plan to use after the class is over. Hundreds or thousands of dollars of essentially (to me) useless materials. I can't afford it!
That's where my future $60,000 of debt comes in...
(I have to get a $15,000 loan per year for four years to cover the rest of the $40,000/yr that my scholarship doesn't cover. I was awarded their top scholarship, yet it doesn't even take care of HALF the cost!
As a youngster I taught myself to program computers. By the time I graduated high school I was quite good at it, but it was entirely from self-study. I then faced a choice: Should I enroll as a comp-sci major in college or choose something else? After briefly thinking about it I decided to major in EE instead. Why, I told myself, should I go to college to learn something I already know? So I went to college to learn something else.
Because sometimes the easy way is neither the most rewarding nor educational way. DSLRs are more complicated than P&S's, film is more complicated than digital, a stick shift is more complicated than an automatic, a phonograph is more complicated (for the user) than a CD, C++ is more complicated than BASIC, etc. While I do agree that in many ways our lives are getting harder and we should find ways to simplify, I nevertheless like having choices.dextertangocci said:uhhhhm, what's film?
Seriously, what is the point of film? Digital is just sooooo much easier