is it still worth buying an slr camera?

[mintwin101]

I am also getting my first camera soon and am going to get a digital. Most of this is because of my budget. If i were to get a film camera not only would i have to pay for film but i would also have to pay for it to be developed. In the long run i see it as being more expensive. Plus i know that starting off im going to have to take a lot of pictures. Thats just the way i learn though.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Gee whiz I wish someone had told me that professional photographers no longer use film. I'll have to turn in my state license and all that other stuff I have.

 

[malkav41]

I have slr film cameras that start out in the mid 1960's all the way up to 2001. So to have someone tell me that film is pass'e, I just shake my head. Film has been around for 100+ years. It maybe slowing down in it's old age, but it is nowhere near dead yet.

Maybe once +16MP digital cameras are affordable to the masses in general then, maybe, just maybe, film might possibly be in some trouble. Maybe.

 

[selmerdave]

Just to clarify as it seems to be my words that are coming up a few times, I said that film is dead as the primary medium in the industry, meaning it is no longer (by a good margin now) the dominant part of the market either at the consumer or pro level. I was simply commenting on the industry and I think it's hard to dispute. Obviously film is still in wide use and probably has a larger portion of the market with respect to digital among pros compared to consumers, and I am an avid film user.

FWIW I think it's inevitable and probably not that far off that digital will reach very high resolution (20+ MB) considering that just two years ago 6MP was a pro camera and now there are several 12MP consumer cameras. I don't think that will change the relative use or validity of film as I don't think people who are using film now are doing so because of the resolution.

Dave

 

[blackdoglab]

In my mind, film and digital are two different mediums entirely. I've heard plenty of folks claim "digital is better" or "anything you can do with film you can do in photoshop" etc... and that really gets my goat because they're hardly even blood realatives. They can both be used to make images, but otherwise they might as well be from different planets. Personally I like the look of film over digital and the process of shooting and developing b&w in general.

It's no wonder that digital has come to the point where it has. It's a wonderful tool that opens up different possibilities. Further more, I think there are distinct personality types that are lead to either medium. With that said, I feel I have no true right to tell folks to only work with film. Likewise, I get annoyed by folks telling me I have to go digital. (fortunately this has never happened on tpf) My best advice is to play with both mediums until you find your happy place. You'll find that each has it's own distinct possibilities, and it's a wonderful thing that you have the opportunity to try both. Let's not kid ourselves. Film is in a different state than it was a few years ago, but it's still worth trying. Sometimes I feel like this is the new cold war and both sides have itchy trigger fingers.

 

[Alex_B]

I would get a film SLR if I were you. They are dead cheap compared with dSLRs. OK, you pay for each shot, true, so you will not take as many images per week as you would with a digital camera, but that is in some way an advantage.

I have seen many people just taking thousands of images digitally, and not improving a lot or learning alot since they had no reason to think first before they press the shutter release (as digital images do not cost you anything). Whereas with film you are more careful and automatically try more intensly to get the shots right.

The great advantage of digital, however, is the instant feedback you can get. So your learning curve could be steeper with digital for that reason. However, with a good lab around, getting feedback the day later is possible also for film.

 

[blackdoglab]

I scan my negs (i guess my gate swings both ways then) so when I take my color film to the one hour photo, I just get negs. It's cheaper than slides and faster too.

 

[Alex_B]

Just to clarify as it seems to be my words that are coming up a few times, I said that film is dead as the primary medium in the industry, meaning it is no longer (by a good margin now) the dominant part of the market either at the consumer or pro level.

I agree ... just as cars have taken over compared to horses. Still many people enjoy riding

FWIW I think it's inevitable and probably not that far off that digital will reach very high resolution (20+ MB) considering that just two years ago 6MP was a pro camera and now there are several 12MP consumer cameras.

MPs do not give you the effective resolution of the sensor. It only gives you the number of pixels. Unfortunately, today's sensors are not able to resolve (in terms of lines per inch) down to their theoretical pixel resolution. So what we need here is better image quality/resolution ... and not more MPs

Also, even in the pro segment of lenses you do not easily find lenses which give an optical resolution which matches anything beyond 12 MP.

But even with all said above, a digital 35mm sensor today gives a better resolution than 35mm fine grain pro film from my personal experience.

I don't think people who are using film now are doing so because of the resolution.

true

Oh, and this was not a rant, I just wanted to comment further

 

[blackdoglab]

One of my favorite things to do is buy expired film. You never know what color casts you'll get or what the saturation will be like... and that's the joy of it.

 

[jstuedle]

SO would you pick film over digital for a beginner?

As I have mentioned numerous times in other threads, I am convinced a beginner is better off starting with a manual film camera and a hand held meter to quickly grasp the fundamentals of photography and have them firmly embedded in your mind. I prefer SLR's over range finders in most instances.

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

Here's a vote for a used film SLR. You can use the money you save to buy a good P&S digital so you'll have the digital for the occasions when convenience is tantamount. When you want to take your time and develop your craft, use the film SLR.

It's like Dave said: they're different mediums. Sometimes an artist needs watercolors, sometimes airbrushes, sometimes pen and ink. Mixing mediums can make great results too.

 

[Mohain]

I picked up a second hand Canon EOS3 recently for £125. Awsome piece of kit! Problem is it makes my £800 30D look rather toy like now.

 

[Garbz]

As I have mentioned numerous times in other threads, I am convinced a beginner is better off starting with a manual film camera and a hand held meter to quickly grasp the fundamentals of photography and have them firmly embedded in your mind.

Yes people are more likely to stop and think and absorb information when they have to pay per photo. It gives people an incentive to learn to get it right.

 

[jwkwd]

I like threads like this. Every time I begin to think about looking into digital and see the "film is dead" posts, I go out and shoot some Velvia and look forward to waiting for the little box of slides to show up in the mail.

 

[Chronicle]

The only reason to develop your own film is to explore effects. I do agree with everything everyone has said.