Should I get a 35mm SLR?

[neeyo]

Hello everyone... long time reader, new poster... etc...

Anyway, before I bore everyone, I'd love to get a DSLR right now, but while I could afford it, I don't really use my cameras that much to justify spending $1000 on a DRebel and 2-3 lenses.

However, since the lenses are all the same EF mount (in my case w/Canon), would it be logical of me to pick up a nice 35mm SLR (which is around $100-$150 for anything like a Rebel 2000, K2, G2, etc) and the same lenses I would have gotten with a DSLR (sigma 30ish-80 and 75-300) to at least get into the SLR world?

I'd be saving hundreds of dollars and would just use a local lab to transfer the neg's to cd, so I'd still have "digital" images to work with. And then, when/if I can justify it, I replace my 35mm body with a nice new DSLR and the lenses get to stay...

I have an A80 as my digicam, and while it's great, getting low-dof pics is near impossible. I love portraits... of people, things, whatever. Vast mountain landscapes are not my thing. Trying to get anything near bokeh or just having a background seperate from the subject on the A80 is extreeeemely difficult.

So... would this make sense to any of you? Or any other pointers or tips for me?

 

[Esher]

I am one of those that use both digital and 35mm. I can't seem to let one or the other go since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

If you are wanting to work with digital files one problem you MAY run in to is that many places that scan film to cd's do so at a low resolution. Those who do scan at a higher resolution often charge a hefty price. Shooting film really didn't become cost effective for me until I purchased my own film scanner.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Nice plan. Totally understandable.

Has one flow though. It defeats the purpose because the lenses you listed are crap:

sigma 30ish-80 and 75-300

1) By the time you actually get a DSLR, they may not be compatible anymore. (If they're sigma)
2) They are slow (let in small amounts of light) and soft. Bad build. Bad quality.
3) Zooms are bad when starting with SLR photography.

You want lenses which won't dissapoint you on a 11 megapixel Rebel XT II.

So my advice would be to invest in something more valuable than those 2 lenses.

I'd get:
1) Rebel body without kit lens.
2) 50/1.8 = 70 bucks and excellent piece of glass
Get to know that. You can do A LOT with that setup.

Then get:
35 f/2 = 200 bucks
85 f/1.8 = 300 bucks
decent tripod = 300-400 bucks
an external flash = 300?

Those things you are going to love loooong time. And they are gonna last, because they give quality results.

Consumer zooms you'll end up dissatisfied with. If you want something long, get 70-200 f/4 L. The build quality and image quality is well worth 500 bucks.

And you'll be able to sell any item off my list without much loss. (except a tripod maybe, so buy that used )

Just a few cents from someone who's been there, done that and has pictures to prove it.

 

[danalec99]

I'd get:
1) Rebel body without kit lens.
2) 50/1.8 = 70 bucks and excellent piece of glass

I second this suggestion. You will love the glass!

 

[lathamemmons]

i have a eos gii and a canon 28 to 90 and a canon 75 to 300
and i must say i love my camera and i am by no means dissatisfied with my zoom
im talking it kiks but

 

[DocFrankenstein]

i have a eos gii and a canon 28 to 90 and a canon 75 to 300
and i must say i love my camera and i am by no means dissatisfied with my zoom

It depends on the standards and expectations.

If you haven't used any other lenses other than these 2, then you can't compare.

Then even if you did, with film you wouldn't see a whole lot of difference, unless you make large enlargements with an OPTICAL enlarger.

Most of the consumer photo shops just scan and reprint negatives today. So you don't get the full quality in your picture.

If you tried putting those lenses on a digital back, you'd be dissapointed.

 

[mikerfns]

Hello everyone... long time reader, new poster... etc...

Anyway, before I bore everyone, I'd love to get a DSLR right now, but while I could afford it, I don't really use my cameras that much to justify spending $1000 on a DRebel and 2-3 lenses.

However, since the lenses are all the same EF mount (in my case w/Canon), would it be logical of me to pick up a nice 35mm SLR ...

So... would this make sense to any of you? Or any other pointers or tips for me?

Sure it does. Get a 35mm SLR, you can always sell it later or trade it in on a DSLR if you decide to go that route. But get some decent lenses to go with it, a cheap 28~80 Sigma or similar isn't going to cut it. I'm sure the Canon users here can recommend an economical, but good, Canon EF zoom to get you started.

Mike

 

[tamerlin]

My 70-200mm f/4 L is my most-used Canon lens -- especially for portraits. It sells
new for around $500 (at least, that's what I paid for it around a year ago). Used, you
can probably get it pretty inexpensively, and being a Canon L lens, it is an excellent
lens. The only downside to it is that it's only an f/4, so you would definitely want to
add a flash to it eventually.

Esher, if you don't mind my asking (I just added a 35mm film camera to my digital
setup ), do you need to send your film to a lab for processing before you run the
negs/slides through a film scanner?

 

[Big Mike]

do you need to send your film to a lab for processing before you run the
negs/slides through a film scanner?

Yes. Film has to be developed before it can be scanned.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes. Film has to be developed before it can be scanned.

But if it's black and white, you only need a 10$ "developing canister?" and only 3 chemicals with a straightforward process.

You'll want to send in slides though.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Yes. Film has to be developed before it can be scanned.

But if it's black and white, you only need a 10$ "developing canister?" and only 3 chemicals with a straightforward process.

You'll want to send in slides though.

And that 70-200 f/4 lens is extremely sharp. You won't find it used for less than 450 though.

Good luck.

 

[elsaspet]

No. Don't do it. Save an get the right choice. I bought my Canon Elan 7NE in Decemeber and just sold it back to the store this March for a second 20D. (My husband uses the other.)

It's a pay now or pay later option. When I shoot film, I normally shoot 100+ images for a shoot. Developement costs run anywhere from 40-70 bucks depending on film.

With the 20D I can take a thousand images and delete the stuff I don't like. I can adjust the lighting, I can see what's not working....instantly.

And not only that. When I bring the images into into CS, the film images are totally pixalated whereas the 20D images are not. I know film is supposed to be better and I bought into that too until I used both cameras side by side.

The new Digitals killed film. Period.

 

[Bosscat]

The new Digitals killed film. Period.

Even the best digital is no comparsion to a 35mm slide IMHO. Anyone can fire away with a digital and hope for the best, and correct their mistakes later. Slides teach you everything you need to know. Long live slide film.

 

[tempra]

Quality of lens is more or less everything whether you are shooting film or digital IMO, I had an EF 35-80 that I bought second hand for £20, I thought that I was taking bad shots and that I hadn't set things up right, they were washed out and grainy.

When I got my 10D, I also bought a 50mm 1.8, put them on the digi, at the same settings same light focal length etc, and put the shots side by side - the difference is amazing, judge for yourself which one is which.

I sold the 35-80 for £40 on ebay, so a bit of a result really!

 

[panocho]

I know film is supposed to be better and I bought into that too until I used both cameras side by side.

The new Digitals killed film. Period.

Yes, I know, I know... always my childish argument (not suitable to serious photgraphers... )... but the difference does not only lie in the results! It is the use that makes for me the difference!!

I really enjoy "playing" with a film camera. Doesn't happen with a digital (ok, I've never used a digital SLR, and I guess that that must be far better... but still...!). To me, digital partly involves another conception, quite different; it kind of forms part of the culture of the disposable :meh: while with a film camera you take another approach -you just cannot shot one thousand times as if nothing!

well, I don't want to start the stupid discussion film vs digital. Both are ok... but that's precisely the point: both! You just cannot "kill" film!! layball: