[tgags]

Hi,
(posting this here because the photo contest was in here and I thought I could get some good feedback)

Our school referrendum is under way and they are going to be going from traditional film to digital (not everyone was happy about it, the kids really enjoy the hands-on film developing, but there is nothing that can stop this decision).

Anyway, they have sent out a memo to the art dept. asking us to recommend a digital camera for the course. Obvisously we can't go SLR, much to costly (we'll need about 20). But I have heard that there are non-SLRs that allow adjustment of aperature and shutter speed. Is this true?

Any recomendations? Keep in mind, school budget factor and also HS kids will be handling them.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.
TG

[bad_quote]

Canon A90s or A95s, that style of camera. Big enough to hold well, manual options (aperature, shutter speed, film speed, everything basically), very nice pictures, inexpensive, uses regular AAs. Very good compact camera.

I wouldn't do this though. Any shmuck can take pictures with a digital camera. Film cameras are what PHOTOGRAPHERS must know how to use.

[OldManMac]

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

A few sites that do reviews on cameras. I have owned Nikon, Olympus, and Kodak, and for the average amateur a major name brand, with a little research on specific models, will do fine.

quote:
I wouldn't do this though. Any shmuck can take pictures with a digital camera. Film cameras are what PHOTOGRAPHERS must know how to use.

The world is going digital, period. PHOTOGRAPHERS are going digital, period. I subscribe to several photo mags, and the features that high-end digitals have equal film cameras, period. Obviously, your school is not going high-end, but, nonetheless, digital is perfectly good. I hardly use my film cameras any more.

[Cubeoid]

Get the Sony one. It's pretty good.

[bad_quote]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/amabot/?pf_...M7RP8T8D6MFKMC

[bad_quote]

Avoid sony. They use sony proprietary memory cards. And sony isn't known for cameras. Canon is.

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

I wouldn't do this though. Any shmuck can take pictures with a digital camera. Film cameras are what PHOTOGRAPHERS must know how to use.

This is nonsense. Photographers who have to make money are shooting digitally. Content still matters... anyone can take snapshots and it doesn't matter whether it's done digitally or with film. Ideally a photo student will learn to work with both film and digital imaging.

In any case, I'd strongly recommend the school consider purchasing at least a few digital SLRs so that students have hands-on experience with them. The point and shoot digital cameras which do allow manual exposure controls generally have a chip which is too small to effectively demonstrate the principles of depth of field often have a narrow range of shutter speeds which will limit capabilities there too.
Furthermore, it's also going to be important to find a camera that can generate raw format files so that students can learn how that process works.

[bad_quote]

The exception would be those canon A50s-A90s. Their manual controls are very nice. It's a very versatile camera. One of my photography geek friends who used to be an SLR diehard now almost never uses it, and uses his Canon A90 something instead. It's a great camera.

[mdc]

I have a Fujifilm FinePix S5100 (which seems to be replaced with the $150 more expensive, S5200.

The S5100 is a 4 megapixel camera (S5200 is 5 megapixel). It has the ability to adjust the shutter speed, appeture, etc.
You can buy the S5100 for around $250. I put mine in a small camera bag and then throw that into my backpack. I've had the camera for about a year and it has not given me any issues.

I have a bunch of photos here that I've taken with the camera. The ones at the top were taken with the shutter at 3 seconds.

[tgags]

Thanks all for the feedback. I will print out and show to the art dept. and see what cameras everyone's looking into.

And, as I mentioned, not everyone is happy about it - mainly because the kids really enjoy the hands on film stuff. With digital I'm afraid it will become more of a photoshop course. But, we don't have control over it, the district (Superintendent) made the decision and it is literally set in stone. Our input, no matter how valid, means nothing to him. He does not listen to the teachers, especally the 'art' teachers.

Thanks again for the replies.

Regards,
TG

[bad_quote]

Give me his email address. He'll listen to me. Promise.

[MrForgetable]

What exactly is the class going to teach?

If it's just exposure and composition stuff then a non-SLR should work (although kind of painful because you have to go through lots of menus to change simple things like shutter speed and aperture)

But if you want to teach stuff like controlling depth of field by stopping down the aperture, a non-SLR will not work as well as film or the larger sensored digital cameras as the digital cameras have almost infinite depth of field because of its small sensor.

[ARENA]

You should reconsider the DSLR. I got a Canon EOS 350D a few months agp to replace my old PowerShot A70 and i've really enjoyed photography more than anything else since then. Have a look of some photos i've uploaded to my flickr at fotos.arenalabs.com.

[DeathToWindows]

In terms of actually learning how to work as a photographer, using compacts would seem to do your students a disservice - they're difficiult to compose properly on, the DOF is usually lacking and the lenses are mediocre at best.

Either stick with film (where you can get 20 ZX-Ms cheaply) or extract substantial funds to get dSLRs (I would say D50/D70/D70s because of build quality - I've never been very happy with the EOS 300/350D canon bodies as they feel a little too light).

[tgags]

Thanks again for the input.

The Superintendent will definitely not stay film, the decision has been made and it is going digital. We had our meeting with him last year and the experienced photo teachers were not too happy about it. I felt they had the most cogent argument on the planet - lots of good points - and it was like talking to a brick wall (honest). So trust me, there is absolutely no leeway there.

The curriculum has not been written yet, but I assume they want to teach the standard photo theory. I teach graphic design and computer illustration, so I don't know lots, however, I do some photography as a hobby.

I felt that with just point and clicks it would then mainly be a composition and Photoshop class (it's a year long course). So I though if they got point and clicks that could do manual shutter and aperature, they could then teach the film-based concepts (such as depth of field).

So a "compact" is anythign non SLR?

The SLRs are just too much money. We would need 24 of them, plus all the computers and software (and adobe kills you with the seat licenses, yes it is edu pricing, but same as college where the cost of software can be put into the tuition and lab fees. In K-12 it should be less because your tied to fixed meager state budgets).
Also, with SLRs price, with going thru several years of gradutating HS kids - not sure if you know that HS kids are like - but some will get broken and need to be replaced yearly.

So I was hoping for a compact (for the price point) with the manual adjustments to be able to do some of the traditional phot concepts. Don't think that would work?

Thanks, TG

[production_coordinator]

How very very sad... going from a $200 traditional camera to a $200 digital camera is a major step backwards IMHO (I taught photography at a high school) and it sounds like a "We are going digital... to go digital... because it's new..." situation. There will be zero depth of field with the inexpensive digital camera. I would use your traditional cameras with slide film... and slide scanners. I realize it's probably past that point... but you could probably save money by proposing this method.

Don't get me wrong... digital is king... but when you are teaching the basics of photography... dollar for dollar... film is still cheap. Remember, JUNK IN => JUNK OUT. If you switch to low end digital cameras, you could completely undermine your photography classes.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by KarlG

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.livingroom.org.au/photolog/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

A few sites that do reviews on cameras. I have owned Nikon, Olympus, and Kodak, and for the average amateur a major name brand, with a little research on specific models, will do fine.

quote:
I wouldn't do this though. Any shmuck can take pictures with a digital camera. Film cameras are what PHOTOGRAPHERS must know how to use.

The world is going digital, period. PHOTOGRAPHERS are going digital, period. I subscribe to several photo mags, and the features that high-end digitals have equal film cameras, period. Obviously, your school is not going high-end, but, nonetheless, digital is perfectly good. I hardly use my film cameras any more.

YOU said it...

HIGH END digital cameras have equaled film cameras. Unfortunately we are talking about high-school students learning the basics of photography on a VERY limited budget. Dollar for dollar, I could still outfit a classroom of accident prone students with traditional SLR cameras, film and slide scanners for 1/4th as much... less risk and exactly the same (if not better) quality.

Good traditional SLR = $300 x 20 = $6K
Make the kids buy the slide film (so they aren't wasting the film)
Slide Scanner = $400 x 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total - $7200



Good digital SLR = $1000 x 20 = $20K
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total - $20,000

[Tesseract]

If you are going from film SLRs (or good film rangefinder cameras with manual controls) to non-SLR digital cameras... don't.

First, as production_coordinator said, you get a better film camera for the money.

Second, the manual controls on consumer-level cameras are there, and they may be complete, but they are often harder to use than the ones on a film camera. You usually have to get the camera into manual mode (not always easy), then fiddle with tiny buttons intended for something else, and try to read a strangely-designed light meter on the LCD screen while looking at a preview image that may or may not accurately reflect the photo you will get. (On my camera, for example, the image on the LCD gets darker as the shuuter speed is increased, but it's never the same as the actual photo.)

Third, consumer digital cameras have small lenses and image sensors. The range of adjustment is not the same as one would find on an SLR of either type.

Fourth (and this is an argument against digital in general), traditional processing isn't used with digital photos. Darkroom work is another side of photography that you don't get to see with digital photography. Personally, if I were to take another photo class, it would be for darkroom experience. I can read photo articles and take my cameras out and shoot photos and practice composition and exposure and such on my own.

[tgags]

thanks again for the additional input.

For those against the course going digital, I hear ya. Believe me, I was there last year when we had the meeting with the Superintendent and he went over the referrendum with us. As I mentioned, they veteran photo teachers had the best arguments in the world (just like yours) and he looked us straight in the face and said "the decision has already been made, it's going digital". That was that. Nothing anyone could do (and I don't have tenure yet so I ain't raising a stink).

I'll pass along what ya'll are saying to the department coordinators (one happens to be one of those veteran photographers). She will probably agree with everything you are saying. But believe me when I say nothing will change the Superintendent's mind. And I think it is a 'going digital because it's new' reason - I can't see any other reason. One other reason my be because with traditional, there is the classroom and the darkroom, and the teacher can't be in both places. And they have had problems due to that, so I bet that is a factor. Can't have kids unsupervised I guess (even in the gym locker rooms, teachers have 'locker room duty'). Doubt they want to mess with the scheduling and start a 'dark room duty'.

Cheers all, thanks again.
TG

[tie]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

Second, the manual controls on consumer-level cameras are there, and they may be complete, but they are often harder to use than the ones on a film camera. You usually have to get the camera into manual mode (not always easy), then fiddle with tiny buttons intended for something else, and try to read a strangely-designed light meter on the LCD screen while looking at a preview image that may or may not accurately reflect the photo you will get. (On my camera, for example, the image on the LCD gets darker as the shuuter speed is increased, but it's never the same as the actual photo.)

Then your camera is junk (imho).

There are a lot of poorly designed digital cameras out there, but there are also some well-designed ones. Some of the "features," like the LCD getting darker automatically (that'll be real fun with an external flash shot) aren't always emphasized in reviews. Read them carefully, and pay close attention to manual controls. You want aperture priority, shutter priority, and full manual. If your students need to use menus to access manual controls, then they'll never learn it — way too frustrating. You should really ask this question on a dedicated photography forum, because getting the wrong camera would be an expensive mistake.

I have a Fuji F810, and it has great manual controls. No fooling with menus like some Canon cameras I have tried. No auto-dimming the LCD so you can't see it like some recent Olympus cameras. It does have some downsides, like a max 3 second shutter speed (but on the other hand, it can sync and dump flash at 1/2000; electronic shutters rock). Unlike many digital cameras, its flash does not use a "preflash"; there is just a single dump. This makes it possible to use with slaved older external flashes, if you have any lying around. It has RAW output. It's also discontinued, unfortunately; sorry.

Digital has lots of advantages. It is the way of the future. Students will learn essential skills like checking the histogram after each shot. The learning curve is faster, since you can shoot, adjust and shoot again. It's easy to take lots of pictures, at all different settings, and you can see the results immediately and check the ISO. For me, it is more fun, and a faster way to learn (also no marginal film costs to discourage learning). Is developing film really an essential skill? A basic Photoshop competency is more important. There is no need for the class to become a Photoshop class; curves and USM should suffice for the most part. Small digicams do have large DOF, which is potentially a big disadvantage. On the other hand, large DOF can be a creative advantage in certain situations, e.g. macro shots (note though that most p&s's only close to f8). Learning to adjust aperture is still an important skill, although the effects won't be as dramatic as with a larger sensor camera.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by tgags

thanks again for the additional input.

For those against the course going digital, I hear ya. Believe me, I was there last year when we had the meeting with the Superintendent and he went over the referrendum with us. As I mentioned, they veteran photo teachers had the best arguments in the world (just like yours) and he looked us straight in the face and said "the decision has already been made, it's going digital". That was that. Nothing anyone could do (and I don't have tenure yet so I ain't raising a stink).

I'll pass along what ya'll are saying to the department coordinators (one happens to be one of those veteran photographers). She will probably agree with everything you are saying. But believe me when I say nothing will change the Superintendent's mind. And I think it is a 'going digital because it's new' reason - I can't see any other reason. One other reason my be because with traditional, there is the classroom and the darkroom, and the teacher can't be in both places. And they have had problems due to that, so I bet that is a factor. Can't have kids unsupervised I guess (even in the gym locker rooms, teachers have 'locker room duty'). Doubt they want to mess with the scheduling and start a 'dark room duty'.

Cheers all, thanks again.
TG

With all due respect to your superintendent, this is a perfect example of why schools are failing our students. You are replacing a high quality professional level experience with a low quality amateur process.

QUESTION: Do they do black and white or color film?

[OreoCookie]

I think you're trying to square a circle here. What you are looking for is either a dslr or a pseudo-dslr (e. g. Fuji S5x00 series). Canon's Sx0/G-series cameras might be viable alternatives, but they aren't cheap either.

Do not under any circumstances get a point-n-click thingi. It'd be a waste for your purposes.

What exactly is your budget? What has to be covered by that budget?