New Film/Digital Camera?

[Early]

I don't know that digital is more pleasurable than film. Easier maybe, and certainly cheaper when you consider all the rejects, but more pleasurable?

That Canon EF sounds like a fun camera. I probably would have kept my Canon outfit if I had that instead of the AE-1 Program.

 

[Seefutlung]

I don't know that digital is more pleasurable than film. Easier maybe, and certainly cheaper when you consider all the rejects, but more pleasurable?

That Canon EF sounds like a fun camera. I probably would have kept my Canon outfit if I had that instead of the AE-1 Program.

To clarify:

There isn't any real difference between digital and film when capturing the image(s) (except for the instant feedback offer in digital by chimping).

Post capture I find processing digital images more pleasurable than film. But that may just be me ... maybe spending nearly every working day for a decade in a darkroom has tainted my view ... but I enjoy working in the light, on the computer, watching TV or talking with friends/family far more pleasurable than holed up in a stinky solitary darkroom.

Gary

 

[compur]

^ Give me a stinky solitary darkroom every time. I love it!

 

[Battou]

That Canon EF sounds like a fun camera. I probably would have kept my Canon outfit if I had that instead of the AE-1 Program.

It's a very good camera, not your average Canon either, I can't tell you howmany times I have said it on this froum but, it does make the AE-1 look like scrap. With the Mirror lock the AE-1 lacks, It's awesome for super macro work (I can shoot a 6:1 macro at f/32 if I wanted to), it blows the AE-1 away as far as night shooting and there are a few other things as well. One of the draw backs I see some people take into concideration is size and weight, It's slightly larger and considerably heavier. Unlike the AE-1, it's metal as opposed to brass coated plastic and cloth.

AE-1 - 141 x 87 x 48 mm, 590 g
AE-1 P - 141 x 88 x 48 mm, 565 g
EF - 147 x 96 x 48 mm, 760 g

 

[urufan56]

Jumping ship from the Canon FD mount to the Canon EF mount in addition to the new body he already seeks is the glass, Now for wildlife, on a crop body digital he is looking at something in the aria of 200mm and for portrait stuff something around 50 to 100mm. A 70-200 would suffice for that, however should he stick to a film body that 70-200 will not work to satisfaction for wildlife, (trust me I tried, was very unhappy). You are looking at a minimum of 300mm. One would be hard pressed to find a 70-200 alone for under $300 let alone the big glass, requiring a long wait period before one of the desired photographic interests is in reach because he still has to get the body first. This brings up durability, I take good care of my cameras but despite that I firmly believe that no consumer level digital SLR would stand up to what I have put my my geat through in the field shooting wild life. Ice, snow, rocks, trees, water it has seen it all, For that kind of wether sealing and shock resistance you are looking at upper mid to high level bodies or additional covers. Switching to digital here one is sacrificing some of the the durability they are looking for. I'm not saying that consumer level cameras can't do it but one will miss shots worrying about how the camera will hold up or wile waiting for repairs. What I am saying is $300 is not going to get what is needed to suit the goals of the OP with modern equipment in one quick slash.

Why would you need 200mm for portrait photography? It would be mostly for friends and my Canon AE-1's 50mm lens seems to be fine for what I need. Also, I should of stated earlier, but I would be shooting more of landscape photography than nature, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you need a wider angle lens. Also, a question about the EF, is the body a rugged one? Thanks for all your comments!

 

[sultan]

Why would you need 200mm for portrait photography? It would be mostly for friends and my Canon AE-1's 50mm lens seems to be fine for what I need. Also, I should of stated earlier, but I would be shooting more of landscape photography than nature, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you need a wider angle lens. Also, a question about the EF, is the body a rugged one? Thanks for all your comments!

...and for portrait stuff something around 50 to 100mm

Read before you post about the portrait focal length

Landscape photography can be done with a variety of lenses, from 13 to 100mm in focal length. One generally would not use a 200+ mm lens for landcsacpes. I don't know much about the EF itself though (I'm a Pentax guy) so I can't help you there though.

 

[Cat nt Tat's Dusky]

Like you I have an AE-1 also. I found a place in Rhode Island that'll do a complete go-through of it for like a hundred bucks. If I wanted to keep manual film, I'd be hunting down an A-1.

Buddy of mine moved to Arizona, and gave me a 70-300 Sigma lens thinking it would fit my AE-1. Well as you know EOS lenses won't fit the FD mount. I found a Canon Rebel 2000 at B&H used for a really good price!! Auto focus film camera, plus since it uses the EOS mount if and when I go digital these lenses will bolt right on.

www.slr35.com is the guy in RI that does the repairs.

 

[Battou]

Why would you need 200mm for portrait photography? It would be mostly for friends and my Canon AE-1's 50mm lens seems to be fine for what I need. Also, I should of stated earlier, but I would be shooting more of landscape photography than nature, and correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't you need a wider angle lens. Also, a question about the EF, is the body a rugged one? Thanks for all your comments!

You misread, the 70-200 was stated in regard to jumping from the FD lens mount to the EF lens mount (EOS). On a crop body digital camera the EF 70-200 gets positive reviews for both portrait work and wildlife. Basically on a digital crop body one lens would cover both, however on a film body it would not.

Yes, you prolly should have mentioned leaning more toward landscape than nature, granted nature can cover both but generally the term nature clicks to animals first. And yes widerangle lenses are common place in landscape work however a 400mm+ is not unheard of, infact I shot a handful of sunrise skylines with a 400mm last week, but I digress.

The Canon EF body, Yes, As I mentioned in the previous post it is an all metal primarily mechanical camera. Though I have never dropped mine I have bumped and banged it many times on rocks, trees, car doors, windows, tables and a few other things and it has not even taken a dent. Also the Camera has been transported to and from work unsecured in my brief case on many occations as well as unsecured transport in my camera bag with lenses as well as my taxing of the mount by carying on with weight of my 400mm lens. As well as being out and in use in the rain sleet and snow.

Additionally it has what is prolly one of the most relyable shutters ever made. Vertical-travel metal curtain "Copal Square".

After a several hundred rolls of film this is what mine looks like now, I appologize for the sloppieness of the pictures, they where quickly taken after I started this post.