Beginner :)

[j3ffff]

Hi everyone!

My name is Jeff and I am 19 years old. I recently just got into photography and I don't know much about camera's and such. I was wondering, what is a good beginner camera for me to mess around with and still be able to take decent pictures. The price doesn't really matter, but I don't want to get something that is top of the line because I am still fairly new at this. Also, should I get a digital camera or one that uses film. Thanks!

-Jeff

 

[nealjpage]

I like film. I learned all I know from different pages I found on the net and from a few books I checked out from the school libarary. (might explain how my pictures turn out LOL). Give 'er a chance with film. Good luck.

 

[PlasticSpanner]

Get digital because you can take loads of shots and it won't matter if only 10% work out!


Get film because it's "real" photography (ducks! ) and you'll concentrate more on getting the shot right rather than pay to process a whole film of tat!

 

[Dweller]

I think thats a valid point about film making you slow down and concentrate more on getting the shot right.

I started on a cheap used SLR film camera and thats where I still am now. After a year and a half I am looking seriously at a digital SLR but either way you go look for something that can be used in a totally manual mode. This will allow you to learn the benefits and drawbacks of different shutter speeds and aperatures. Also with film you will learn firsthand about different film speeds.

There are others here with a LOT more experience than I have but I was where you are at 2 years ago and have picked up a whole lot by using an old film camera that I will be able to carry forward to a Digital SLR when the time comes. I honestly expect that when it is all said and done I will be back on film someday, but for now where I am with my learning I think its time for a digital.

 

[ksmattfish]

You can get a good, used 35mm film SLR for under $100, and then save up for a DSLR.

 

[airgunr]

I would decide on a SLR system to go with. Nikon and Canon are the most popular but the others are perfectly good as well. I would look into either Nikon or Canon as they have the most selection of lenses available and after market accessories.

When you buy a SLR camera, film or digital, you are buying a system. The least expensive part is the camera body it'self. You'll put much more into the various lenses so look for compatablity.

Not being as familiar with Canon I would suggest something like a Nikon D70s or even a D50 if you want to go digital. If you want to start with film look for a F100 or even a F3 or F4. You can find good deals on them new and used and they are built like a tank.

I'm sure someone will be able to suggest the equivilents in Canon.

I prefer film and a good scanner but digital has a lot going for it as well.

 

[j3ffff]

Thanks a lot guys. Right now I am thinking about getting a used SLR, but I still don't know if I should get a digital or a film...

 

[FuddyDuddy]

Hello,

What sort of pictures do you want to take? A 35mm SLR may not be the way to go. For example. if you want to do something like street photography it might be worth looking at a rangefinder. Or if yo want to do something like formal portraiture, medium format might be better.

The 35mm SLR teamaker is not your only option!

Good luck whatever you decide,

F. Duddy

 

[j3ffff]

I just want to get a feel for taking pictures and something to mess around with. What others would you recommend FuddyDuddy?

 

[damian5000]

I recommend digital... Digital is instantly correctable, instantly printable from your PC, and you can mess around and experiment a whole lot more with different shutter speeds/apertures/ISO's and see your results right away. The big question is how much money do you want to spend... $200 or $2000? From $200-600 you won't see a big difference in quality of the shot, but you will be getting more features (burst shooting/bracket shooting/Image stabilization/Zoom/Better Auto-Focus assist/More powerful flash/higher MP etc...) And are you planning on printing big? You'll want higher MP (5mp or better if you might be printing BIGGER than 8"x10" and want really good results). If you want to spend in the $750+ range look at the DSLR's.

if you didn't notice... My vote is for digital..

- Damian

 

[j3ffff]

My budget is $500. I am not really focused on printing anything, just taking pictures and seeing what I can do on Photoshop. I want to do this as a hobby whenever I have spare time, so I don't want to spend a great deal of money. Thanks for all the input guys!

 

[nealjpage]

Looks like you answered your own question. If you wanna do Photoshop, go with digital. Otherwise you'll have to get your film processed (unless you want to try B&W on your own) then scan the slides.

Film is a bit harder for me because I always forget to take notes on how I did what I did. One of these days...

 

[vonDrehle]

I would go digital. While I do like my film camera I wish I had asked for a digital slr. By now with the price of film and development I could have easily paid off a more expensive digital camera. It is normally $10 a roll for me. Average $7 for prints, which I don't use, and $3 for photo CD. Also if you want a large resolution image it will cost you an arm and a leg if you use a 1 hour photo place like me.

But if you decide to use film I really like my Canon EOS Elan 7ne. It was is my first SLR and after 1-2 months I could do about everything with the camera. It is very beginner friendly. A good book never hurts either.

 

[Unimaxium]

I would go film. I think with all the automation in digital cameras it's too easy and tempting to become reliant on the auto-exposure and auto-focus which are easily available to you with any digi. To really learn for the first time I think a manual film camera is the best place to start. And a great beginner SLR is the Pentax K1000. It's fully manual, so it'll really force you to learn how to focus and expose well. And it's fairly cheap -- you should be able to get a good one with a lens for around $70-120. Then if you want you can move up to digital later without having spent a whole lot of your budget on the film camera.

 

[jadin]

I'm a digital geek. While I understand the advantages of learning the ins and outs of photography faster with film, I strongly feel that they can be learned equally as well with digital. It's just that most people choose to rely on the automation digital often provides. If you understand what the camera is doing automatically for you, and decide to learn those steps, rather than let the camera do it for you, there is no reason for film to hold any value over digital (especially from a learner's aspect).

Everything I've learned of photography has been through a digital camera. If there's something I haven't learned I'd love to know it. I think the biggest difference is what took me 500 shots to learn on digital, took other people 50 to learn from film. While they learned it much sooner, I still learned it. And for a significantly cheaper price tag when all is said and done.

That's my two cents anyway.