Slashdot Mirror
Digital 35mm SLRs?
pipingguy asks: "Canon has released the first(?) 'low-priced' digital 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses with the Digital Rebel. I've owned a few digital and non-digital cameras over the years (and am by no means a photography expert), and most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus, not to mention the barely-noticeable millisecond delay between button click and shutter closure. Can any owners of this and other digitals provide some opinions on how this new model compares to the more expensive digital 35mm's and typical $300 SLRs? Is it time to buy?"
I'll answer it the same way that I answer two common questions:
1. What car should I buy?
2. What computer should I get?
My answers:
1. What are you going to use it for?
2. How much are you planning to spend?
Without knowing the answers to those two questions, then the original poster's question can't be correctly answered. If you're looking for professional, poster-sized prints, then your answer is going to be different than if you're just looking for something to take snapshots during vacations. Ditto if you have a large budget/if you're a broke college student.
Answer those two questions first, and you'll get a more accurate reply.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Well, that's the ultimate question the poster is asking, isn't it?
Historically, traditional photography has been a "rich kid's pastime," too. Just ask anybody who goes to art school for illustration what they think of the photo majors.
The question is whether we've got to the point where, in terms of TCO, you will come up even whether you use a traditional camera or a digital one.
Sure, digital cameras are expensive. But they have advantages:
- No film costs. Sure, you might have to buy CompactFlash, but those are completely re-usable.
- No darkroom costs
- Making hard copies of digital photographs can be expensive, but if you don't actually need hard copies (say, you're shooting for print publication), then you've got no costs there, either
- Digital cameras are more versatile than traditional cameras. You don't need to change film to change light or speed settings, for instance. This might mean you really only need one camera, while a serious traditional photographer might feel the need to buy and keep several
Bear in mind that I'm not much of a photographer at all, so I'm sort of pulling this list out of my ass. But I've been wondering, lately, whether a nice camera like a digital SLR might allow me to take better pictures, which might in turn inspire me to take more pictures. I really don't think I want to fool around with all the darkrooms, developing, etc... I'm much more comfortable with Photoshop. So digital is definitely the way to go, for me.But is an expensive digital camera really worth it yet?
Breakfast served all day!
Her sister owns a Canon Rebel 35mm camera, and my wife has been a die-hard film person. In the last week, she hasn't touched our 35mm camera.
The digital rebel can use all the lenses, filters, tripod, flash, etc from her 35mm, takes amazing pictures, and is SLR. (she wouldn't touch a non-slr camera)
The auto-focus is great, the shutter speed is better then any other digital camera we've played with (and very adjustable). Manual focusing gives her all the control she'd normally have.
It snaps shots a little slow, about 4 in the first two seconds, then one a second after that, but for a digital at 6.3mp that's not too shabby.
In my opinion, this is *THE* digital camera to buy right now... and at the rate I'm going at, I'll need to buy a second one since my wife won't let me have time with ours.
You can find a decent review of it here.
The thing that really makes you want to take more pictures is not so much the quality as the cost of seeing the results. With a film camera, I was always worried about the cost of film and developing, and that made me think before taking a picture. The result was that I never brought my camera with me to take casual photos, and when I did bring it I hardly took any pictures anyway. With a digital it's really easy to take tons of pictures because I know that processing them is as easy (and cheap) as downloading them to my computer. That means that my thought process has moved from "should I take this picture" to "why shouldn't I take this picture". The result is that I take a lot more pictures, and some of them actually turn out well.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Digital cameras are still relatively expensive, compared to their film counterparts:
Basic compact ~ $300 vs. $50
Basic SLR ~ $1000 vs. $300
What you gain though, especially once you leave the basic end of the market alone, is a fast, self-guided education in photography.
I bought the Sony DSC-V1 (a $600 higer-end compact). By that point, you're getting in to a camera which can just point and shoot but also lets you manually adjust apperature and shutter settings, add on flash units, etc. And the thing is, if you have any kind of an interest in photography, you will start playing with those settings.
I'd borrowed a film SLR from relatives in the past. I blew through about a dozen rolls of film and had next to no idea what I ended up with.
With digital, I blow through about fifty shots in a half an hour, reviewing each one as I go and, with the LCD review screen, learning a little bit more about how to improve the next shot. Then I end up ditching the thirty or so that didn't work and repeating. By the end of a session, I know I've got shots which really captured the depth of field I was after, that framed the subject well, that had the balance of light across the scene that I wanted, and so on. I've also probably stumbled on a couple of shots I didn't even expect.
Most importantly though, I've learned to take risks that I would never have done with film. While my wife drove tonight, I was shooting the sunset almost as fast as I could get shots off. I would never have even tried it with film - what kind of idiot would use an unstabilised setup in a moving vehicle on San Diego's bumpy freeways? With digital, it didn't matter. Worst case, I wasted a bit of time, blanked the memory stick and recharged the battery. As it happened, I got the most incredible sunset image I've taken yet.
You can get the same education with film, from an instructor. No doubt an instructor can teach you many things you'd never have learned by yourself. But a simple question for the slashdot readership: Who taught you the software you use professionally? I'm guessing the typical slashdot-type much prefers tinkering with things and finding out for themselves and that's where digital offers itself much more freely than film.
It's more expensive to start. Once you start adding camera accessories and good photoprinters, it gets expensive fast and it works out about the same to print (save you only print the perfect shots, you can review on the computer or LCD). What it does though is give you much more freedom to explore with faster feedback. To me, that's been worth every penny and it's worth the several thousand I'm budgeting for in several months time as the freedom and education of cheaper digital has convinced me I want to try more and more still.
Same thing here, I've taken more pictures in the last 2 months since I got my Fuji 3800 than I have in the past 2 or 3 years with my AE-1.
On the note of the usefulness and acceptability of digital cameras. Other than the cheaper consumer ones, the place it's really making inroads is in the Photo Journalist's kit. What other camera can you take the picture, preview it and send it to your newspaper or magazine all in a few minutes. Film is pretty much dead in photo journalism.
You get better by shooting -A LOT- of film. Ask any amateur or pro that has earnestly tackled the learning curve. So recommending a large format camera is really only suitable advice for someone who is already VERY proficient in composition, metering, lighting, and just plain seeing, etc.
My advice: Get good with a digital. Learn with the highest-quality digital you can afford, with many manual settings. (Thus the importance of DSLRs.) Once you -think- you're getting good, sure, move into large format. You'll be humbled. And it's gonna cost you a bundle. And you won't be able to take many good photos. (Though when you get a -good- one on large format, it's an event you'll remember for decades!) Anyways, I'll bet you keep refining your skills with the DSLR.
bottom line: dont buy a digital SLR, unless you really need a SLR.
I think in part you're right.
You need an SLR camera if you want to:
1) Shoot in dimly lit conditions (i.e. f/1.2 ISO 1600) without a flash and use the results for anything serious.
2) Be able to get a nice, shallow depth of field (i.e. blurred background) with good bokeh (pleasing "blur") for portraits or graphic shots.
3) Shoot wildlife or other "field" shots involving long telephotos or extreme lighting or weather conditions with any kind of sincerity or usability.
4) Shoot action of any kind that might need the likes of continuous tracking focus, zero shutter lag, and the ability to fire off shots in sequence just as fast as you can hit the shutter.
You do not need an SLR camera to:
5) Shoot the kids' birthday parties.
6) Take pictures of your pets.
7) Take vacation snapshots.
BUT... with that said... If you know how to properly use an SLR camera, know something about photography, and you have quality lenses, your results in the case of #5, #6 or #7 will be much better with an SLR than with a point-and-shoot.
Do be aware of the quality lenses caveat, however. Far too many amateur SLR users, film and digital, see the camera body as the "real" investment. They drop $1000 on a camera body and then go to their local camera store and buy a plastic 24-300mm zoom for $80.00 and wonder why the pictures look like they were taken through a dirty window in a rainstorm.
So I suppose corollary to your "don't buy an SLR unless you need one" post is "and don't buy an SLR unless you can afford lenses that will do it justice because a camera body can only capture what the lens shows it."
If you can't afford to spend significantly more on your lenses than you did on your SLR body (whether film or digital), you will definitely get better photos with a Sony digicam.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The big advantage of a digital SLR over a point-and-shoot like the A70 is in the chip. A 10D at ISO 800 looks about as clean as my S40 at ASA 100.
This is a HUGE difference - every photographer (including the type who buy 35mm disposables) will see this difference, while hardly anyone will see a difference between 3 megapixels and 6 megapixels.
Not exactly. The 18-55m lens that comes as part of the camera kit (can get just the body, though) fits only this camera. EF lenses fit it, however. The mount is just slightly different (EF-S, I think it's called). See this extensive review of this camera. I've seen it demonstrated and played with it a bit at a local camera store. I own a Canon A2, and I'm a bit unsettled with how light the Digital Rebel/EOS 300 feels, especially with that little 18-55mm lens. After taking a few shots with it, however, I got used to its lightness, which would be appreciated by my neck after a few hours of wear, I'm sure. If I'm good, Santa will bring me one with any luck!
With a film camera, I was always worried about the cost of film and developing, and that made me think before taking a picture.
Wow, you should always THINK before snapping the picture!! How else will you learn to connect the settings and view through the viewfinder to the picture that results, over time?
I think you mean, "hesitate". :-)
Best thing about Digital is that as a semi-pro (gifted amateur ?!?!?) it gives me more control over the post processing. Because I'm not a pro with a long standing relationship with a lab the results from film were always a bit random. With digital I'm in full control of the process from start to finish.
That alone raises my hit rate on a 'shoot' from something like 10% to nearer 50%
Don't look back the lemmings are gaining on you
Now: Should you buy a digital SLR? That depends, I think, on how much you will shoot and what you will shoot. The two biggest advantages of a DSLR over a film SLR are immediacy and cost. The disadvantages are a focal length multiplier (in the case of the Canon EOS-300D/10D) and a high initial cost.
As with all digicams, you can see your results instantly, allowing you to check the shot and retry it if needed (and possible). One note though: a DSLR is a true SLR (single-lens reflex) so unlike a regular digicam you can't shoot using the LCD -- you'll have to use the viewfinder just like the rest of us. It's better for framing a shot anyway, trust me.
The focal length multiplier (1.6x in the Canon case) comes in handy if you're shooting through a 200mm lens -- it becomes equivalent to a 320mm lens. It's a bitch if you want to shoot wide-angle, though, as a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm equivalent.
The initial cost of a DSLR is high -- you've got a much higher cost to buy the body, and you've got to buy a memory card. However, the more you shoot, the more cost-efficient it becomes. Excepting the cost of lenses, which is the same for both film and digital SLRs, the cost after buying is 0. Film development isn't cheap, particularly not if you shoot thousands of shots a year.
So, if you're seriously interested in photography, it's worth it. If you're just shooting the occasional vacation or family event, it's not worth it. My D30 and 10D (had to buy it after I broke the D30 on vacation, but I wanted it anyway :) have served me well over the last 2 1/2 years, and I haven't looked back.
One final caveat: many people upgrade their photography hardware and expect things to magically become better. Pros do not have access to magical make-photos-good-now equipment that us mere mortals lack (though perhaps there's a Photoshop filter I'm missing?). To take photos like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell takes talent, practice, and loads of patience. Good equipment can help make the task easier, but there is no magic pill.
The digital vs. film arguement seems to mirror a lot of the arguements that the audiophiles make when comparing digital to analog amplifiers, etc. Basically it boils down to the fact that there will be a diehard group of film people who will be around forever, just like the people who will only use tube amps. They say Kodachrome (or whatever) just has a special property to it, which enhances the image the way they like it. Because it's all subjective, you can't really argue with them.
You ask is it time to buy? Nope. Time to buy was a year or two ago, not because the cameras then were as good as 35mm film (they weren't, though the 1Ds is and in many ways the 10D/D60/D300 are close). But because the digital experience would change the way you to photography.
For a long time I advocated "shoot on film, but shoot like crazy because you will have to shoot a lot of film to match what you will pay in depreciation on your digital." That stopped being true a while ago.
Asking "Is it time to buy" is like asking, "Is it time to get a PC now?" Well, there are people buying their first PC today, and perhaps it is right for them as late adopters. But the truth is that even though today's PC is much better than yesterday's, and a digital camera will come out much better than the Rebel 300D in another 2 years, it is still time to buy, as it was time to buy 2 years ago.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
For a full discussion on this topic, try a photo.net search for the "film vs digital debate." It keeps popping up, and the photographers are a lot more adequately suited to argue it than us geeks.
That said, I am a photographer, so let me summarize the debate briefly. Aside from the silliness ("Digital isn't photography!" "Film is obsolete!!") from both sides, the central issue is the quality of the final product. Clearly, for many applications, digital makes significantly more sense. Obviously any web-based service, as well as virtually all major publications, and a great many quick-turn-around studio applications make good use of digital.
Film, on the other hand, still holds tenuously to the market of photographers who enjoy photography for the sake of photography. While digital is unarguably easier, and at the high end shares similar quality with average 35mm films, it has several major weaknesses. First, in color applications, saturation and dynamic range are typically still wrong. Great strides have been made, however, so most normal people can't tell the difference anymore.
The great bastion of film-based photography, Black and White, is still incomparably better than the digital equivalent. Nothing compares to a print made from the 4x5" negative made using a Korean War Era press camera. The rich, full tonality and smooth gradation are impossible to match digitally. The complete lack of grain is also quite notable -- no matter how good the camera, short of printing on a dye sublimation printer, there will always be some semblance of digital remaining in the prints. However, with the massive 4x5" negs, grain totally disappears, leaving an ultra-smooth, incredibly rich photograph.
So the bottom line -- digital is gaining more and more advantages over film every day. Film still has the financial advantage, and still holds B&W, especially in the medium and large formats.
A 1.4x Tele-converter means only half the light falls on the sensor. A 1.6x crop doesn't affect the light delivered to the photosite, only the size of the photosite. The image circle is the same size whether there's a digital sensor there or some film. The film (or larger sensor) will collect a larger amount of light, but collects no more light per square unit of area! There isn't any 'sensor sleight of hand'. What you are thinking of is called pixel pitch. Smaller pixels collect less light, but the 10D has similar pixel pitch to the 'full-frame' 1Ds and performs roughly identically (noise-wise). It's just a crop of the lighted area. You obviously haven't used a 10D - it blows away Velvia for many applications, and maintains virtually noise-free operation up to ISO 800.
What I'd love to see is a package about the size of a 35mm film container. It would have a 'strap' you thread into the film area of your normal camera, and with a sensor to cover the frame. The 'can' would have a MMC slot, or at worst, a few hundred Mb of flash and a USB jack. The sensor would be activated by light or easily rigged to sense the button push (perhaps wired to the flash-trigger circuit)
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
"Professional" reviewers of photographic equipment are almost always far too positive. Among other things, they usually depend on getting free loaners to review, and if they trashed a camera in a review, they might not get more free loaners in the future. Some of the digital cameras I have had have been real duds, yet they all received reasonably good reviews.
And then you have the analog traditionalist nuts, the photographic equivalent of the people who claim that vinyl and tubes are higher quality than CDs. You can have a 48Mpixel camera and they'll still claim that some random 35mm film beats it.
And what does it matter anyway? Digital is just different from analog. If you have the money, give it a try and see whether you like it. If you don't have the money, don't even get started.