maris
TPF Noob!
[FONT="]A philosophical digression: the decision between film and digital doesn't depend on what the pictures look like.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever. But if you want to see pictures that have the same relationship to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]A film based photograph happens when a physical sample (about 10^-25 kilograms) of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the film surface, and occasions picture forming marks right where it penetrates. If this is what you really want then don't bother with digital. But why would you want to make pictures using actual samples of subject matter?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Here's an idea. A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. There is no virtual component. It is a straight line case of one substance acting directly on another. To put it more technically a film photograph is an index of the subject. A film photograph has indexicality. If this is what you really, truly want then you must use film. Don't bother with digital.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining or even turn a dollar but there is a down side. As a general principle every picture that depends on downloading the memory of somebody or something, painting, drawing , digital, has the same credibility problem. It could have been synthesised from nothing even if the picture maker testifies otherwise. Bluntly, if you dont want to chance a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being", where looks like means same as, then film photography is what you must do.[/FONT]
[FONT="]To address the OP's question, any Canon SLR that has manual settings will do fine and the cheapest one leaves more money for film.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Digital picture making can, or soon will be able to, replicate the surface appearance of any medium; film, paint, pencil, whatever. But if you want to see pictures that have the same relationship to subject matter as film based pictures then nothing touched by digital technology is worth looking at.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]A film based photograph happens when a physical sample (about 10^-25 kilograms) of subject matter travels across space, penetrates the film surface, and occasions picture forming marks right where it penetrates. If this is what you really want then don't bother with digital. But why would you want to make pictures using actual samples of subject matter?[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Here's an idea. A film photograph is physically, necessarily, and materially bound to its subject in the same way as a graphite rubbing, a footprint, or a silicone rubber cast. There is no virtual component. It is a straight line case of one substance acting directly on another. To put it more technically a film photograph is an index of the subject. A film photograph has indexicality. If this is what you really, truly want then you must use film. Don't bother with digital.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Digital of course delivers "appearances" and that can be entertaining or even turn a dollar but there is a down side. As a general principle every picture that depends on downloading the memory of somebody or something, painting, drawing , digital, has the same credibility problem. It could have been synthesised from nothing even if the picture maker testifies otherwise. Bluntly, if you dont want to chance a world where "seeming" is indistinguishable from "being", where looks like means same as, then film photography is what you must do.[/FONT]
[FONT="]To address the OP's question, any Canon SLR that has manual settings will do fine and the cheapest one leaves more money for film.
[/FONT]