Film or Digital?

lindsayk · Feb 20, 2011

I am a total newbie with photography. I'm going through some pretty significant changes in my life right now and I am finding myself drawn to photography as an outlet for my stress/frustration/sadness, etc.

So, I am wondering what would be the best camera for a beginner? Film? Digital? Any good recs for each? I am willing to spend around $500-$800 on a camera. I have heard that digital is "the way to go" but film is good for beginners. I have no clue..that's just what I heard.

Any help would be very much appreciated!

Canon AE-1 · Feb 20, 2011

I love film cameras, nothing beats them. However it is becoming very expensive. Digital is much cheaper in the long run and you instant
results. I think you can learn on both. If you screw up a film photo, it's over, the cost has been spent and wasted. However with digital,
if you take a bad shot, you can retake it with no loss. I love film but i have learned to enjoy my digital as well.

lindsayk · Feb 21, 2011

Thanks for that advice...you make a really great point...especially seeing as how patience is not my greatest strength

I was looking at a Canon AE-1 on ebay, but now I'm looking towards a Canon Rebel...it's just a lot of money so I definitely want to make sure I'm getting the best bang for my buck!

naaaach · Feb 21, 2011

Canon AE-1 said:
I love film cameras, nothing beats them. However it is becoming very expensive. Digital is much cheaper in the long run and you instant
results. I think you can learn on both. If you screw up a film photo, it's over, the cost has been spent and wasted. However with digital,
if you take a bad shot, you can retake it with no loss. I love film but i have learned to enjoy my digital as well.

I agree. But if you do have time (and the money), I'd suggest learning with film also. That's how I started out, and I think it was a great learning experience. I asked a few friends if I could experiment with film and develop my photos in the darkroom with all the chemicals and whatnot. It was a great experience, but I do agree that it is coming more expensive.

I'd say that film and digital go hand-in-hand when it comes to learning. Discover the basics with film, then apply that with digital. That's just my opinion though.

lindsayk · Feb 21, 2011

In regards to using a film camera, is it necessary to develop your own prints or can I have them processed somewhere? I don't think I would have anywhere near the time to develop them myself...let alone learn how to do that. lol

mfrankpdx · Feb 21, 2011

When you go digital, and you find yourself taking 400 pictures in a day, you'll be glad you didn't go film. Digital is probably the best way to learn. Once you become "experienced" you can move to film if you feel you have a reason, like if you want really high resolution landscapes.

lindsayk · Feb 21, 2011

mfrankpdx said:
When you go digital, and you find yourself taking 400 pictures in a day, you'll be glad you didn't go film. Digital is probably the best way to learn. Once you become "experienced" you can move to film if you feel you have a reason, like if you want really high resolution landscapes.

Thanks! Any recs for a good digital?

DxAxN · Feb 21, 2011

for me I like to go out shoot, come home and down load my master pieces... then I start hitting delete...delete... so digital for me

kinoflex · Feb 21, 2011

Reasonable digital camera $700. Reasonable film camera $45. To charge a digital camera battery $1. Typical digital camera shutter life 50K activations. Typical shots per charge 400. So charging costs over lifespan of camera ~ $1000. Film $5 per roll. Dev & scan $10 per roll. So each roll of film costs $15.

For the price of running the digital over its lifespan $1700, you could buy a film camera and shoot 110 rolls of film (3971 pictures). 50k digital activations is two or three years use. 110 rolls of film is about two years for a typical amateur. So i would say that you will shoot more with digital but the costs are not dramatically different as a hobby. The film camera i would expect to outlive the digital, so there's an extra $700 outlay after a few years to replace the digital. Not with the film camera. The cost of film equates to the need to replace a digital every few years.

There's also all the marketing pressure and peer pressure hype with "upgrading" digital cameras.

mfrankpdx · Feb 21, 2011

lindsayk said:
Thanks! Any recs for a good digital?

The Nikon D3100 is a great camera to start with.

enzodm · Feb 21, 2011

Any entry-level dSLR will be in you budget, and any will be good. Market leaders are Canon and Nikon. While I started with film many years ago, the practicity of looking at you results immediately and at almost no cost is a great advantage for beginners. However, film gives you more discipline, which is not bad.

Kinoflex: charge costs are way way less. In USA is 12 cent/KW on average; my Canon charger declares 8W; so with one dollar you do about 400 charges. On entry level Canon, shutter activations are about 100000 (film cameras have similar or lower figures, but is simply more difficult to reach them).

kinoflex · Feb 21, 2011

Thanks for the link. The average in the uk is about 10 cents apparently. Thats the figure..but no way could a person charge up the battery a couple of hundred times for just a £1 / $1.50 over here.

With the shutter life. I don't believe the "official" figure of 100k. Sorry that 's just my POV. An internet search will demonstrate many examples of e.g Canons DSLRs failing way below that figure..often between 30k and 70k. And Canon is just one of many makes and DSLRs are one of various types of digi.

There's no evidence that (older) film cameras shutters willl probably fail before a digital. Why should they? Many were made to a higher specification and continue to run for decades after manufacture. Digitals are mostly like plastic toy cameras in comparison. That's my considered opinion having experience of using both for a long time.

Like i wrote, £30/$45 would buy you a SLR over here (or on ebay) that is good to go and make higher resolution pictures than any 'prosumer' DSLR with a flat/dull modern AF lens. For $300 or $400 you can buy a e.g a Contax Rangfinder with optics and quality that surpasses top of the line DSLRs with fullframe. The limitations are lack of high ISO, lack of FPS. But who cares! How many 12,800 ISO shots can you link to that are really great, really memorable. Very few, if any. BResson had an RF and a 50mm. His photos live forever. The machine gun digi crowds 30k activations are 80% crap.

We agree to disagree.