Should I get a 35mm SLR?

[panocho]

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.

:hail: :hail:
this was while I was writing my "apology"
saravaaaaa!!!

 

[elsaspet]

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.

Let's put it to a friendly test. I will upload some JPEG photos. These on my camera usaully run in the 3600 pixel range. If I shoot raw, we are in real trouble. The files are huge.
So let me come back and post two images. One done on a pro 35mm with an L lens and one with the 20D with the same lens. You be the judge. The 64 ISO can be met or exceeded by the 20D. Just my experience with the two. Back in a moment with a comparison.

 

[elsaspet]

Here we are with film:

and then again with the 20D and exact same setup:

Now, put both of those into CS. See the pixels? The first was shot on 100 ISO film. The second was shot on Autofocus. I have no idea what the ISO was on that one.

 

[elsaspet]

Fire away? You betcha. The photos are in the number of photos you take. Do you wanna take 50 SLR photos and pray for no bad lighting or closed eyes or do you wanna click away and get that one fantasic photo that takes you places.

Taking the photo is only half the deal. The other half is post edit. If you can't post edit, it's over. Why spend half a grand on a camera if it can't deliver. Save up and do it right.


Edited because Hurtz is right. I was being a cramp. Sorry.:mrgreen:

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Digital killed film for color prints.

Unless you have a good enlarger and print yourself, (how many people do that for color here? huh? huh?) your prints will come back looking like CRAP.

Or may premium for pro lab.

Practially, digital is better than film. A 300D will give you a better color print than film from a minilab. And it'll be more convenient and cheaper.

tata

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Fire away? You betcha. The photos are in the number of photos you take. Do you wanna take 50 SLR photos and pray for no bad lighting or closed eyes or do you wanna click away and get that one fantasic photo that takes you places.

Trust me on that. I've owned a camera for less than 6 months. But I also an ex model/actress for a well respected agency. Do you want to make money? If you do you want to take the best images you can. Taking the photo is only half the deal. The other half is post edit. If you can't post edit, it's over. Why spend half a grand on a camera if it can't deliver. Save up and do it right.

If I had a penny for every model that thought she knew more about photography than the photographer... (...and were sometimes right). My response was always 'so how come you are standing over there whilst I am over here paying your wages?'

A straight upload from a digital is not a fair comparison with a film shot that then has to be scanned in. It's the same as comparing an inkjet printout with a tranny. All it does is tell you about the quality of film scanner or printer.
Try comparing a digital shot with a 10x8 tranny that has been drum scanned.
The bottom line is you choose the format appropriate to the job. But you still need to know what you are doing with both. There is more to being a good photographer than having an expensive camera - the same as there is more to being a good model than being attractive.

 

[Bosscat]

Taking the photo is only half the deal. The other half is post edit. If you can't post edit, it's over.

So how do you post edit a slide???

Shooting slide film allows for no mistakes, it makes the photographer have to do it right, instead of allowing for a whack of correction later.

 

[elsaspet]

Ok then boss. Hope you do well.

 

[tamerlin]

Now, put both of those into CS. See the pixels? The first was shot on 100 ISO film. The second was shot on Autofocus. I have no idea what the ISO was on that one.

It looks to me like your film shot was scanned rather poorly. The pixelization comes from
low resolution. If you had your filmed scanned at, say, 4800 dpi from a 35mm film frame
and compared that to a 6mp dSLR, you'd see pixelization far sooner in the dSLR's
images than in the scanned film images. However, if your film's scanned at a resolution
lower than that of the dSLR, it's going to pixelate more quickly as you blow it up.

That said, there's really nothing wrong with taking advantage of the fact that you're using
a digital camera to shoot like a madman (or madwoman). Learning photographic
technique will improve your keeper ratio, however, which means less time in post for
the after the shoot

Big Mike -- thanks, as you can see I'm quite new to actually USING film