noob here -- be kind -- SLR or DSLR

[Bokeh]

I'll consider the D70, money really isn't a problem,

If money isn't too much of a problem, the 20d is a far, far superiour camer, and it's also a Canon. It's only about $500 more than the d70. One thing I would recommend you decide on carefully is wheter you want to go Canon or nikon. Canon and nikon go back and forth like ford and chevy but, currently, Canon is on top, esp. with regard to lenses (IS, L series etc)

 

[Youngun]

Well if you are just getting into photographer. I think getting a DSLR of the 20D's caliber is a long stretch. Let's keep it in perspective. Start small, go big. If you choose to go the Canon route, you can pick up a film SLR, get enjoyment out of that, then upgrade.

 

[Bokeh]

Youngun, he mentioned looking at gettnig a D70 - it's almost as much as a 20d, relatively speaking. IMHO he mainly needs to decide on Canon/nikon at this point.

 

[Youngun]

Yes, and I think that getting a D70 right off the bat would be a jump too. The Nikon/Canon (assuming we're excluding other brands) decision is a big one, as you're buying a system. It has to be very personal, as there are so many factors going into it: features, flash, upgrades, lenses, excessories, local dealers, the list goes on and on. It's been my experience (from a Fuji digi cam and nikon slr) that the learning process on film and digital is totally different. Digital allows for much experimentation and trial and error, however in my opinion in requires less understanding of photographic planning, knowledge, and skill. I'm certainly not trying to bring digital down as a powerful photographic tool. I'm talking about the learning process. I imagine that if I gave some of my all-digital friends an extremely capable film SLR, they would produce poor pictures (as I certainly did when I first started shooting film after shooting digital!). So my point is this: Decide what you want out of photography, as in the end it's not about megapixels or shutter speeds but the challenge and enjoyment.

 

[V12]

yea, and most SLR cameras don't seem to depricate that much, so even if i use it for 2 years, the lens' are my main expensive component, and if i stick with nikon i should be able to keep on using them.

it is a faster and cheaper learning expierce in the long run with digital though.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I'll consider the D70, money really isn't a problem,

If money isn't too much of a problem, the 20d is a far, far superiour camer, and it's also a Canon. It's only about $500 more than the d70. One thing I would recommend you decide on carefully is wheter you want to go Canon or nikon. Canon and nikon go back and forth like ford and chevy but, currently, Canon is on top, esp. with regard to lenses (IS, L series etc)

Yeah, Nikon gets ahead for about a month, then Canon is on top again for 3 years

I'd recommend 20D too. No such thing as "too much of a camera"... as you shoot, you'll learn to use it properly.

I imagine that if I gave some of my all-digital friends an extremely capable film SLR, they would produce poor pictures (as I certainly did when I first started shooting film after shooting digital!)

I bet if you were shooting film and then switched to digital, you'd produce just a poor pictures.

Cheers

 

[Youngun]

I bet if you were shooting film and then switched to digital, you'd produce just a poor pictures.

I don't see why...

 

[markc]

I imagine that if I gave some of my all-digital friends an extremely capable film SLR, they would produce poor pictures

I guess it depends on what you mean by "poor". Are they taking good pictures now? It would take a little getting used to, but digital has less latitude than negative film; it's more like shooting slides. Someone moving from film to digital has to be aware of that, but going from digital to film gives a person more leeway.

I moved from my A2e to my 10D without an issue, and I don't see why going the other way would be a problem. The same goes for switching amongst point-and-shoots. A person might find themselves lost going from a cheap digital to a full-fledged film pro camera, but they probably would switching to a 20D, too.

And composition is composition, no matter the format. That skill applies to whatever equipement you are using.

 

[tmpadmin]

I've been throwing this question around myself for months now. I have a Nikon and Minolta 35mm SLR and a Maymia medium format that have been sitting in a box for years, a 2.0 MP Fuji and a 2.1MP HP. While I know the film cameras are far superior to the "disposable" Fuji and HP I won't use them. I'm cheap and can't justify the cost of film and processing. I'm driving myself nuts with these POS clickers but can't bring myself to go back to film. Shot a roll, take for processing, scan, edit, print. Too much time. I can't wait until I scrape up the money to get a good digital – before you say it, I can’t bring myself to sell them either.

But I see the point of those telling you to buy a film camera. They are far less expensive and will hurt less if your hobby doesn't last. But then that might be the reason it won't last - the hassle! When you are just starting out or really all the time I feel, the more shots you take the more likely you are to hit that one. While more experienced photographers will hit more often those just learning need to experiment and what better way than to take as many photos as possible? I think the amount you want to take would quickly add up to the difference between digital and film. Photography is digital based now so even if you do go film it's gonna be in digital format sooner or later.

I'm going to equate this to my recent purchase of a washing machine. My old one died (motor went). Should I sink the couple hundred in a new motor to have something else go on it? Or should I spend the money on a new one and get several years out of it? My point, I think, is if you go film and love it, you're going to go digital anyway so you just spend a good amount of money on a film camera that you could have used toward the digital. If you get digital now I think you will enjoy it more with instant results and not worrying about film or processing costs.

 

[danalec99]

The majority of the facts that you guys meantioned are what i originally said in the photography section of a mac forum, and i was reconmmend to get a film camera because i am only a amatuer. They were calling the rebel a point and click photograpy machine and that the art is lost in it.

I wonder if the cavemen were the "real" artists!

Finger, charchol, brush, pencil, digital camera, large format camera, water colors etc are all simply means to express what you have in your mind. Follow your heart.

If your friends has a digital SLR, see if you can borrow it from him/her for a couple of hours.
You can rent an analogue SLR from Adorama. They are situated on 42 West 18th Street (6th floor) Between 5th & 6th Ave.'s
Phone: (212) 627-8487
Fax: (212) 929-9013
eMail: [email protected]
::EDIT:: Yes, they do rent digital cameras. But the reason why I did not suggest that is because for that rental rate you could buy an analogue SLR.

Good luck! :thumbsup:

 

[Magoo]

tmpadmin what kind of mamiya? wanna sell it? I refuse to use digital. To me it takes the romance out of photography. I like the idea of having to be careful of what you shoot, make sure all is metered correctly having only one chance and the anticipation of how it develops. To me snapping off photos, if you don't like it you can do it over again instant gratification isn't for me at this point. I love all my film cameras and always interested in collecting more!!!!

Magoo