going digi?

[captain-spanky]

Hello
I gots me a problem and i'm feeling a little frustrated...
Most of the pics i see on here are really sharp and amazing quality, however I've got a can-can eos 1000fn and a vivitar 28-200 lens and a couple of filters and i'm getting fed up with trying to get a decent print out of it... either i'm waaaay crap at photography and my eyes don't focus or possibly, i think it's down to the places which develop my pics... they end up just crap quality with bits of dust and fluff in the pics and shadows which aren't on the negatives... and when i try and scan them in, my scanner is sooooo old and crap the pics end up really speckly and a funny colour.
I'd like to go 'digital' as i know where i am then. I can print out the ones i want without losing loads of quality and play with the shots in photoshop to my heart's content.

Now, to do this i need to either get a new scanner that will scan negatives really well OR get a digital camera. Problem is, i haven't got much money...

Can you get digital cameras that use the same lenses as the film SLRs? and how much money are we talking about for a relatively decent (but cheap) body?

 

[voodoocat]

Hrmm.. the cheapest DSLR with interchangeable lenses is the 300D and it runs $899 for the body only. $1000 with the kit lens. I shoot with the D70 which is $999 for the body and $1300 with the 18-70 kit lens.

As far as keeping with film and going the scanner route... I would recommend the Minolta Scan Dual IV. 3200 dpi with a dynamic range of 4.8 (which is the highest dynamic range you can get) I would get a better lens than the vivitar if you're looking for quality.

 

[Big Mike]

I think that's the dilemma for quite a lot of us. Me included.

I want to go digital but I don't want get a cheap, crappy digi cam. But if I'm going to spend $300-$600, I might as well save that money and get a DSLR.

If you want to get a DSLR for your Canon lenses, you will have to spend some money. The cheapest is the D300 or Digital Rebel at $900 US ($999) with the wide kit lens. Next is the 10D which is $1400 US (I think).

There are similarly priced DSLRs from Nikon, Pentax etc.

Getting a good scanner might be a better option for you. You will be able to get very good digital files to work with for a lot less money than a DSLR but it takes time to scan lots of photos.

Also, try taking your film to a pro lab to be developed. You might be surprised how much of a difference it makes when the people printing your photos actually care about what they are doing.

 

[usayit]

Some boat here.

A few years ago, I had only my Elan IIe and a HP Photosmart S20 scanner ( not too many DSLRs in my price range back then ). I had a difficult time getting scans from negatives that satisfied me. I always ended up with specs and/or scratch negatives. Today, there are some really nice film scanners out there but you will end up spending as much as an entry level DSLR. After a while, I ended up requesting processing, scanning, and no prints when dropping off my 35mm film at my local shop. Much better quality and the cost was offsetted by not having prints done. I then would pick and choose which to enlarge if any.

Eventually, I ended up getting a use Canon D30 for under $600 about 8 months ago. Canon EF lenses are compatible on both the 35mm bodies and Digital SLRs made by canon. IIRC, Nikon and Pentax also share lenses amoung their DSLRs and SLRs. My advice to you is to pass up on the digital scanners and consider a good DSLRs. DSLRs have come down in price and most makers will share lenses with the 35mm bodies.