Which Is Camera Is Better? A Slr Digital Camera Or A Non Digital Slr Camera?
I am extremly new to the word of photography and want to by a camera. I don’t have the space for a non digital camera to develop the pictures but digital slr cameras cost way more.
I just want to know which would be better for me to learn and if their is an easier way to get one(i tried ebay). I’m a working student and money is not growing on my trees.
also does any one have any recommendations for models/brands?
While having an SLR/DSLR always seems like the best way to go in a lot of peoples minds, it may not be for you.
Are you planning on doing more than snaps shots? If not, then get a nice point and shoot camera.
If you have doubts on any kind of photography career or future, then get a point and shoot.
A professional photographer gerts great results because of their knowledge and experience, not from the camera they use. Just having an SLR or DSLR will not make your images any better than mine, Ansel Adams, or the kid down the street.
Space is not a consideration even for film as you can have them developed at a pro lab, if need be.
Go digital for sure. Most of the worlds top professional photographers mainly shoot digital. That speaks for itself.
I will stir the pot a different way. Although I have digitals, I think the place to start is with film cameras. I would not even think of doing the developing in my home, so space is not a problem. You can get film developed at Target or Walmart for about 7$$ for a 24 exposure roll, and that includes the prints.
Most people who are printing their digital pictures at home do not consider all of the costs involved and the fragility of the picture that is the result. Most ink jet printers do not make a long lasting print, Target does.
Digital SLR’s cost more until you calculate the cost of film and processing. Let’s say that you can get a Nikon FM10 film camera and lens for about $250. You can get a Nikon D40 digital camera for about $450, plus $25-30 for a good memory card. This means that the initial cost of the D40 is less than $300 more than the FM10.
Let’s say you shop around and find a REAL bargain at 10¢ per print, plus about $2.00 for developing the roll. If this is a roll of 24 prints, it then costs you $4.40 for 24 prints or a little over 18¢ per print. That’s low. Anyhow, that’s about 1,666 prints for $300. It would probably be more like 1,500 prints. Let’s look at maybe a 3 year period and that somes to about 10 shots per day. You won’t use your camera every day, but when you DO use it, you will use a lot more than 10 shots if it’s digital. If it’s film, you are going to tend to be careful about how many shots you take, etc.
There’s an example and now you have to plug in your own numbers based on your own estimates, but this will give you an idea how to think about it.
Neither is better. I use both.
A dSLR for Color images. Canon Elan 7e with XP2 for b&w. Process only and then scan. XP2 is dye based and it scans magnificently. It looks better than any desaturated file that I have ever seen.
I suggest that if you do decide to go with a digital P&S make sure it has a RAW capture mode.( I personally would never recommend a digital P&S to any real student of photography, that 110 sized sensor produces a harsh, truncated tonal range. Yech!)
I do not believe color 35mm film is that big of a deal anymore. I usually get better results with my APS dSLR than 35mm film.
(However, if I am doing landscape or anything where I need magnificent detail I will not shoot anything smaller than 6×7cm film. I prefer 8×10 for landscape. But that is a different story)
You should go for a digital camera, but not a DSLR yet, just maybe an advanced point and shoot.
Going digital will make your learning journey faster and slightly easier, with photoshop you can enhance your photos dramatically with just basic skills, so it’ll save time and energy when it comes to photo editing.
you’re a student, and like you said, lack of money and also a completely beginner, so my suggestion is the Canon Powershot, it’s considered high-end, not too expensive for a camera. get one which is at least 7 megapixels.
once you’ve learned the ropes, go for a DSLR, maybe a Canon EOS or Nikon. keep shooting!
Buy a used DSLR from a reputable store. I have bought many items from Cameta Camera, since days of my buying film cameras and they back up what they sell…there’s a nice Rebel kit here for around $400.http://secure.cameta.com/index.cfm?fa=di…
My other choice would be a new Canon G9…not a DSLR but harder to outgrow than most point and shoots. Shoots RAW and has a hot shoe.BUT, it would cost more than this used camera.
As far as a film camera, the joy of film is in the darkroom and if you are not gong to process, you are better off with digital.
If you already have a computer, I would say buy a digital camera. You eliminate all the need for a darkroom and/or the cost of having a lab develop all your prints.
If you are willing to invest the time to really READ & STUDY the Owner’s Manual then a DSLR is definitely the way to go.
Most people will suggest either Canon or Nikon and they are good cameras. However, I believe the Sony A100 or Pentax K100D Super are good alternatives.
The Sony A100 is 10 megapixel, has Anti-Shake in the camera body, has dust removal for the sensor and can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985. It also uses many of the accessories for the Maxxum digital cameras such as the 5D and 7D.
The Pentax K100D Super is 6.1 megapixels, has Image Stabilization in the camera body, has dust removal for the sensor and, if you don’t mind manual focus, it can use every K-mount lens made since 1975. Of course it uses the later Pentax AF lenses as well.
If I were choosing it would be the Sony. I’ll admit to personal bias because I’m a long-time Minolta fan and Sony bought the Minolta DSLR line in ‘06.
Careful shopping will find either of these cameras, with lens, for well under $600.00. In fact, prices may be even lower since both companies have recently released new models.
Check at bhphotovideo.com or keh.com or adorama.com or abesofmaine.com - all very reputable on-line dealers who also have real brick and mortar stores. Unfortunately, there are all too many on-line scam artists who advertise the camera for a very low price and then offer to sell you, at an inflated price, the accessories that came with the camera. If you read reviews of the cameras at shutterbug.com or at dpreview.com they will tell you “what comes in the box”.
These books might also be of interest/use to you:
“Hands-On Digital Photography” by George Schaub
“How Digital photography Works, Second Edition” by Ron White
You can read reviews of them at shutterbug.com - they were in the Dec. 2007 issue of Shutterbug Magazine.
Again, any camera you buy will require that you READ & STUDY the Owner’s Manual - even the simplest digicam. I’ve lost count of the questions in here and in Cameras that include the statement “… this camera takes lousy pictures. I’ve changed every setting and it still won’t take a good picture…”. Changing settings without knowing what they do is a recipe for chaos - and lousy pictures. You must learn every setting, what it does, and when and why to use it. I learned long ago to never, never change more than one variable at a time.
Good luck and welcome to the fascinating, frustrating world of photography.
Be cautious when heeding advice on costs of digital and film cameras. The cost of film is nowhere near as prohibitive in comparison as some would suggest. You have to bear in mind that digital generally involves a higher capital cost or outlay, and the depreciation on digital kit is VERY high, meaning that over time, it can be significantly more costly, even when the post-capture costs are accounted for. The outlay costs for film are much lower than for digital, and you have to be using an awful lot of film before you reach the breakeven point. There are, it’s true, considerable implications for a professional photographer in terms of post image capture costs, but you need to be taking photographs at a very high rate for this to be a consideration for you.
If you are concerned about darkroom costs, there is no need to have a darkroom with film, since you can have the best of both worlds by capturing on film, then scanning to digital files and then processing in a ‘lightroom’.
There are — though you’d not think it from listening to some — considerable photographic advantages to using film. Film is not technically inferior to digital, on the contrary, it is digital that still has to meet the technical benchmark set by the image recording capabilities of film (unless, that is, you are prepared to lay out tens of thousands of pounds/dollars). First, film has a wider dynamic range than digital — around seven stops, compared to five or so for digital. What does this mean? It means film can capture a wider range of brightnesses than digital. This is why you’ll so often read about ‘blown highlights’ in respect of digital images, where the sensor cannot capture the luminance range of the scene being photographed, and the brightest parts of the scene are over-exposed and completely lose detail. Film emulsions also have their own distinctive characteristics, which can be used to great photographic effect.
There are considerable advantages to digital image processing. These are, in the main, concerned with convenience, such as immediacy of results, and relatively low running costs, together with the ability to take more images in the hope of getting usable results.
However, for a novice to photography, it would be a shame not to learn to use film, because its photographic qualities are fantastic, and the knowledge gained will not be wasted when (if) you migrate to digital. And if you choose wisely, you’ll be able to mix and match the two systems very well, getting the advantages of both.
I have been a photographer for many years (more decades than I will admit to here), and I use both systems. However, when I want to please myself, I mostly use my film systems. Photographically, I simply prefer film. My digital kit tends to be used when I’m photographic sporting events (where the ‘wastage’ rate is higher). When I want pictures that will be printed large and mounted for display, I use film, because for me, nothing else compares. My regular ‘kit bag’ for photo outings will have one of my main film cameras (generally SLR but often a rangefinder instead, which is fantastic for light weight and wide angles), with a compact digital. The digital lets me take ‘try-out’ shots and shots for my web-based albums, and my film kit is for the shots I want for display quality.
Be wary of ‘evangelists’ of either type who tell you this is the way to go or that’s the way to go. Don’t be afraid to use both. It’s not a mutually exclusive choice, and not a competition, any more than a painter should be told it’s either oils or watercolour.
A number of systems will let you use lenses interchangeably; for example, my Canon DSLR will accept the same lenses as my Canon film SLR. You can pick up one of the Canon EOS film bodies for very little (sometimes £20 or £30), and the lenses you get for it will fit any Canon ‘D’ body you buy, so the investment will not be wasted. The same is true of Nikon digital and film bodies. More recently, the Pentax digital SLRs have been receiving favourable opinions. These systems will let you use both film and digital, and as I mentioned earlier, a scanner will let you print from film via your computer, and it would be a practical consideration to factor in the cost of a scanner to accompany any film SLR. This will let you use film cameras without having to bother with any darkroom space considerations. It’s an option worth considering.
On a lighter note, a friend of many years is a thorough digital enthusiast, and we have friendly film/digital ribbing. He likes to take digital images on hia Nikon DSLR, and via Photoshop converts them to B&W, then adds digital ‘grain’ to give an effect like that of Tri-X film. When I want that effect, I take out my Canon EOS5 film camera, and load it with Tri-X…
Whichever way you go, I’m sure you’ll get a great deal of pleasure from photography. I simply offer a view that may be an alternative to that you are likely to get from most. I have top of the range professional grade cameras in digital and film, and yet still prefer film, so I do claim to be able to argue from experience, not over-consumption of some photo magazine articles.
i think the digital camera is much better to buy .i think brands of sony cameras are the best. wish u all the best.
SLR camera easy to use,which you could able to point and shoot in any of the spots,without using White Balance mode, no LCD screen,using Expodisc White Balance Filter to correction different lightings like:Tungstun,AWB,flash,fluorescent,dayl… have to charge the Recharger Batteries and camera Batteries, I am upset of using this Digital Camera.
I think a slr digital camera would be better!!!!!
your choice……………