[Athens]

I've been looking at SLR camera's for a while now, and since digital has taking over the film ones that use to be really expensive have come down by ALOT. Who uses the film ones, and how hard are they to master. I know there is alot functions and controls. Can they run in a Auto mode like digital ones or are you pretty much stuck doing every photo from scratch.

[IceEnclosure]

I'll probably never use a film camera again. I want a digital SLR.

I just wanted to say that. Sorry for the lack of meaty input. meaty input? eww!

[Athens]

Well im considering it for 2 reasons. Film SLR is much much cheaper now. I can spend more money on a good flash, lenses and such. Two for professional photos digital is great now, improvement from good a year ago, but film is still best for a little while longer. I rather have a digital point and shoot camera for just taking pictures, but for a hobbies in photography, think film will be the better choice for a few more years.

[Demonhood]

you can run any modern 35mm SLR in auto-mode, just like a digital. you don't need to know an f-stop from your elbow, but then, what's the point.

i have a Nikon N70 (35mm), and it served me quite well until i got my Canon Rebel XT (digital). in fact, i still have half a roll in there. hmm...i wonder what's on that first half.

[Athens]

well Auto mode while I learn the more complex uses for it, other times just want to take simple photos quickly as well

[Athens]

Hey if you dont use your old one any more are you interested in parting with it

[Cubeoid]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

hmm...i wonder what's on that first half.

Maybe some snaps from "Modmin Ball 2002"

[Weyland-Yutani]

I still use film cameras. I have a 35 mm Pentax MZ-5n SLR (out of production now) that still works just brilliantly. I have a lot of practice in shooting film and feel much more comfortable with it. It is an art because there is no undo. Once exposed, the picture is irrevocably on the film.

I would recommend Pentax or Nikon SLRs and I think you can get both brands new still. These are fine beginner's cameras.

Use black and white film to begin with. It is much easier to expose b/w corrctly than color. Develop your own film as well. It is not expenisve and quite fun. One has to know how to develop to get the feel for the actual photography IMO. Half the photography is done in the dark room.

Digital is easier for sure. Films are much more fun

cheers

W-Y

[Maflynn]

Originally Posted by Athens

I've been looking at SLR camera's for a while now, and since digital has taking over the film ones that use to be really expensive have come down by ALOT. Who uses the film ones, and how hard are they to master. I know there is alot functions and controls. Can they run in a Auto mode like digital ones or are you pretty much stuck doing every photo from scratch.

Today's digital SLRs are great. I won't ever go back to film again too expensive, and I can store all of my images on my computer and back them up on DVD.

As for usage, all digital camers including SLRs have auto mode, they also have three other modes next to the standard presets. The presets are landscape, night, portait etc. The other modes are aperture priority, shutter priority, program mode of course the old standby manual.

I use aperture priority 80% of the time, as that allows me to adjust the aperture and the camera adjusts the shutter speed, this gives me control of the DOF and to a less extent shutter speed. Shooting wide open means a faster shutter speed but small DOF.

The flexability and control digital SLRs provide is awesome and I'm now hooked on photography.

[Y3a]

Canon F. I Still use one for Pinhole photos for my "How To" books. Theres just SOME things digital can't do yet.

[misc]

I own a Canon 7/NE. Works well.

[OreoCookie]

Well, since slrs, d or not, are used in a very similar fashion, obviously you can learn something useful if you get a film slr. For instance, some of the shots that I had submitted to the photography contests were also shot on film (with my deceased F80 and one with the even older F50).

As far as photographic performance was concerned, the best camera I've owned to date was my F80. My Olympus E-20 has a few things which bug me (density and contrast, speed of the af, and to a lesser degree the quality of the lenses).

@Demonhood: You sold your (digital) D70 (or were you talking about an analog N70?) in favor of a Rebel XT?

[Demonhood]

i meant the N70. too used to referencing the new models nowadays.

[tooki]

DSLRs and film SLRs really do behave the same way. The big advantage of digital is that you can review the shot immediately to see the effect of what exposure settings you chose. With film, you have to wait till you get the film developed to see it. The delay makes it harder (though in no way impossible, especially if you take notes with each shot) to learn photography.

The biggest thing I'd tell you, if you get an SLR, is to ignore the junky lens that came in the kit and buy a used f/2.8 or better lens of some sort. My favorite lens for my Canon 35mm Rebel XS SLR was my 50mm f/1.8. The pictures from that lens were amazing. The pix from the included kit lens (35-80mm f/3.5-5.6) were worse than those from the $100 Fuji point-and-shoot zoom camera I had before it.

Alas, my 50mm lens died, and I have yet to replace it.

tooki

[paul w]

Well I learned on a k1000 - an all manual camera. Indeed I bcame so comfortable with manual everything, that for years my camera of choice was a simple nikon fm2. When graduating to dslr recently, though I may be kind of wowed by the bells and whistles of autfocus, spot metering and so on, I find it frustrating because ultimately the camera is making decisions for you.

Manual photography is not only not THAT hard to master, but the fundamentals will prove helpful with ANY camera or film/media you end up shooting. You will take better pictures for it.

[Maflynn]

Most photography classes being offered to still recommend/require the students to buy a cheap manual slr. you won't learn too much if you let the camera decide what settings to use.

While possibly slower in learning I think its better. I've noticed that people who shoot digital snap hundreds of photos in an attempt to snag one, where as using a film camera you need discipline to frame the picture, consider lighting and apterture.

As for the remark that a digital camera cannot do a pin hole photography, an enterprising hobbiest over at dpreview.com built an adapter on his D70, thus making a pin hole camera.

Mike

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Maflynn

I've noticed that people who shoot digital snap hundreds of photos in an attempt to snag one, where as using a film camera you need discipline to frame the picture, consider lighting and apterture.

That's a moot point, and it always bugs me when amateurs (such as I am, btw) who still don't want to go digital bring it up.

Have you ever seen a pro photographer? They snap thousands upon thousands of rolls of film. I ran into a National Geographic guy once on a plane and had a little chat with him - he had 300-odd pictures for the article he was working on (which wasn't NG, but I don't remember exactly what it was), and he expected to get maybe 8 or 10 actually worked into the article.

If it's what you do for a living, and you're good at it, you can get film for fairly cheap. That doesn't mean they don't have the "discipline" or technical expertise in taking pictures. It just makes sense - take as many as you can, and one will end up being absolutely perfect.

greg

[SVass]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/te...Hebs+OkvOOmHMA
today has a David Pogue review of a new Sony digital SLR the R1. You may want to check it out. sam

[powerbook867]

I've been shooting with my 10d for going on 2 years. I love the camera but realize it's limitations (specifically @ high ISO 800-1600). I've shot sports with it, portraits, some landscape etc. and the images look good to me. Here is where I'm at since I started w/ an SLR...I am not a pro, but I like to think I have more than a clue!!

http://www.jskphotography.com/

If you are thinking Canon (and I do all the time), check out this forum. Great group of people that will help with any questions you might have...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

The one thing about SLR's is the glass. Having spent way too much money on lenses, I will testify that this is a very addictive hobby! You ave been warned!!

[SVass]

A high quality, range finder, film camera is much easier to use than an SLR and is more manual in operation. They are also far smaller. I have a Leica M4-P that is quite rugged and has very few buttons and knobs. (It also may be quite expensive as are accessory lenses.) sam

[SimeyTheLimey]

another dp

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by SVass

A high quality, range finder, film camera is much easier to use than an SLR and is more manual in operation. They are also far smaller. I have a Leica M4-P that is quite rugged and has very few buttons and knobs. (It also may be quite expensive as are accessory lenses.) sam

I have a Leica M4-P, and a newer M6-TTL. While I love my Leicas, I would not say that they are easier to use than an SLR. I have been shooting them for 20 years, and would still say that an SLR is more intuitive to focus.

They are smaller, though. I carry two camera bodies, a 15mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm, a spare light meter and film into a bag that wouldn't accommodate a single SLR body and lens.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by tooki

DSLRs and film SLRs really do behave the same way. The big advantage of digital is that you can review the shot immediately to see the effect of what exposure settings you chose. With film, you have to wait till you get the film developed to see it. The delay makes it harder (though in no way impossible, especially if you take notes with each shot) to learn photography.

The biggest thing I'd tell you, if you get an SLR, is to ignore the junky lens that came in the kit and buy a used f/2.8 or better lens of some sort. My favorite lens for my Canon 35mm Rebel XS SLR was my 50mm f/1.8. The pictures from that lens were amazing. The pix from the included kit lens (35-80mm f/3.5-5.6) were worse than those from the $100 Fuji point-and-shoot zoom camera I had before it.

Alas, my 50mm lens died, and I have yet to replace it.

tooki

I'll be getting the camera as a body only, lens seperate and flash seperate in the coming new year.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SVass

A high quality, range finder, film camera is much easier to use than an SLR and is more manual in operation. They are also far smaller. I have a Leica M4-P that is quite rugged and has very few buttons and knobs. (It also may be quite expensive as are accessory lenses.) sam

I think a Leica is out of the question. For the price of a body and two lenses he could easily buy a dslr

[Railroader]

I have a Pentax K1000 and two lenses, a 75-300mm and a 50mm. Purely manual camera and lenses. Mostly I bought them out of budget reasons. But now, I really like them.

I still use the SLR for pictures that I want to have the "film feel". I can't really explain it. And I don't own a flash for the camera, so I am limited in using it outdoors or in a VERY brightly lit room on a tripod.

I take about 99.9% of my pictures with my Canon S2 1S though. Maybe I shouldn't have brought my digital camera into the discussion. I don't want tooki to lock this thread for no appearant reason. Sorry if that happens.

[Thorin]

Originally Posted by SVass

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/08/te...Hebs+OkvOOmHMA
today has a David Pogue review of a new Sony digital SLR the R1. You may want to check it out. sam

Sony's new digital SLR?

Originally Posted by NewYorkTimes

The model, the R1, has a large sensor similar to those in single-lens-reflex digital cameras, but it has an electronic viewfinder, not an optical one, and is therefore not an S.L.R.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Thorin

Sony's new digital SLR?

My copy today has the correction from yesterday's story. So I abjectly apologize for spreading their error. sam

[Thorin]

Originally Posted by SVass

My copy today has the correction from yesterday's story. So I abjectly apologize for spreading their error. sam

lol. Fair enough. I hadn't realised that the article had originally been posted online without the correction.

It doesn't inspire much faith in the reviewer though, as even Sony don't try to call it an SLR. Having said that, it does sound like an interesting SLR-like camera, and thanks for bringing it to my attention .