my question is this: If any given AF 35mm SLR and digital AF SLR cost the same, and you consider every single feature and specification on both cameras, which one would generally be better? My budget is kind of tight, so a camera that isn't too pricety (600-700 bucks) so I can still buy wide angle and a good telephoto lens. I want it to be able to do things that a point and shooter can't, but also be able to do things that a digital camera can't (very long exposures and whatnot). I don't really travel much, except to tourist traps with my family, because I like to find great shots in common things (plus I can already find extrordinary things near where I live-like my friends backyard. His dad earns a store specializing in birds, and they have a huge backyard with trees, a river and a field with at least two dozen feeders.) If you know how to really use the equipment in terms of getting the exposure right and you are pretty sure of your composition skills, it's a toss up in terms of the camera and a matter of personal preference.
If you travel a lot and visit exotic and remote places, I go digital. The film quality can't be guarranteed in places like the Far East, India, Pacific Islands, etc. The digital gives consistent and reliable results.
If you do things like take long back pack trips (over a week or two), like I used to like to do, I go with film because I don't want to carry an extra battery or some sort of jury rigged solar recharging setup.
For initial cost, the film camera is the best. You don't have to invest in software and maybe an upgrade to a computer system, or the purchase of a new one.
If you shoot a lot, digital is less expensive over time in terms of not using consumable film. Also, it is much more flexible so you won't have to invest in filters to do color correction, produce golden sunset pictures, etc. You'll also never run into the situation where your film is the wrong type for the lighting. Even though the basics of photography don't change, the digital way of accomplishing many of those basics is different and that makes the learning curve steeper and longer. Digital is more convenient - it's not easier.
Vance
Addendum:
Given the added information, I do have a specific recommendation that should be around your budget if you shop smart.
Canon's EOS 350D is a full featured digital camera that will do just about anything you want. It can and does produce professional level images the equivalent of the Canon 20D and is outstanding in its low noise at the higher ISO speeds. ISO 1600 is very usable. It has RAW and JPEG image files available. You can get that with a kit lens for around $600.00 USD or less online with some smart shopping.
The kit lens would be the 17-55 mm zoom. It's not a great lens, but it is very acceptable. In 35 mm terms, this covers a range from 28 mm (wide angle) to 88 mm (short telephoto).
You mention birds and for that you'll want a telephoto. You're description of what you'll shoot also shows that anything may be a subject for you. Way cool, you should have a macro for nice close-ups. The Tamron 70-300 mm zoom lens is a good sharp lens with nice contrast. You should be able to pick one up for around $150.00 USD.
The wide angle of the kit lens will be good for landscapes, group shots of your friends and some pretty fine shots using the distortion of wide angle for creative stuff.
The macro will get you in close and the images are sharp. The world looks very different this way. You'll be able to take close-ups of flowers, insects, or anything else you want with good quality.
Tamron 70-300 zoom images:
Macro Spider:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/C...
Teleshot @ 200 mm:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/T...
Dance performance/handheld ISO 1600:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/T...
Kit lens, 18 mm @ 20 sec exposure:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Vance.Lear/K...
The camera used for the images above is a 20D, which is a working camera for me. The 350D and the 20D are virtually identical in terms of image quality.
The lenses used are the two I am recommending.
If you want to do better, start thinking in terms of a LOT more money. The 350D also uses the same lenses as the the high end Canon's so if you upgrade the body, lenses can still be used.
Tried to put together an equivalent Nikon system, but really couldn't.
A film system will be cheaper, but I think there would be a lot of practical drawbacks for you.
There's my thoughts, my reasons (the images) and your budget. Opinions vary.
Vance The AF 35 SLR. the digital hybrids are more costly to repair. There are many factors that can be considered, but the most important is what is an important feature to you? If cost is of no concern, than the odvious difference would be personal preference. Your question is a bit nonsensical ...
Both have there uses and photographers cannot successfully provide images for their clients with out owning a few of both. Since there isn't any quality difference and the price of the cards are so cheap it is better to go with digital as one will save all the film and processing costs You know, I started to answer this question with Column A and Column B, but I realized that was stupid. We can't answer this without knowing what YOU value in a camera.
On one extreme, you can get a $100 digital camera that has 10 shooting modes and even shoots video, for gosh sakes. One of the acknowledged film camera leaders, the Nikon F6, can't shoot videos. Does that make it better or worse than the $100 Nikon L10?
I see technology spilling over from the digital industry to film cameras, so a lot of previous distinctions are disappearing. The main difference is that one uses film and the other uses a sensor to capture the light, so the argument returns as the classic, "Which is better, film or digital?" and we can't answer that without knowing your priorities either.
I'd rather not go there. The real question might be whether the circumstances that you describe are realistic. I don't think they are.
Cost. If you only consider the initial investment, you might get this circumstance. Just considering the camera body, digital tends to have higher initial costs and much lower ongoing cost. Film - lower initial cost, but ongoing material, developing and printing costs.
The other cost issue is the life cycle of the camera. Here again, you really need to make the comparison based on the combination of initial and ongoing operating costs. Twenty, thirty and forty year old film cameras are still in use today. If they have been lightly used, and well maintained, they could be in use in another decade or more. Decade old digitals are collectors items for bookshelves.
Features. While some basic camera features such as shutter speeds, auto-exposure options, auto-focus options etc can be the same, there are always going to be substantial differences. Film will never give you immediate post-exposure review options! My grand-daughter has tried that, and she couldn't see the image on the film when she opened the camera back!
For the moment, film offers the potential for superior resolution. The differences will decrease. Unless you are consistently making large (over A4 size) enlargements, once you have more than 4MP, this difference will not actually matter.
The final issue is nothing to do with the camera, but the photographer. We all have different needs and wants. Digital or film is chosen on the combination of matching our unique needs with the characteristics of the camera system.
For example, I had used digital for years until a year or so ago, when I began planning to travel to Tanzania and climb Mount Kilimanjaro. My research indicated that my digital would be marginal, if it operated at all in the low temperatures at the summit. I bought an old, all manual, all mechanical film camera and used it with the digital on the rest of the trip. There were over 10 climbers in several groups that reached the summit at the same time my group was there. Only three cameras worked - two of them film cameras. One digital did eventually work. The other seven or so digitals didn't. This was no surprise to the guides, who presumably see this on every climb, and who warn people before they start.
The lesson to me is that the choice is never clearly one or the other, but what will match your needs in the circumstances in which you will be using the camera. after film and developing costs are added in...digital is far better...the delete button is a godsend, and i can see what i've shot (all those 300 pics i shot sunday) right away and for free on my computer...then i can delete what i don't want, and keep what i do whant and print out what i think is nice to print out. we went to digital last year (not yet a year ago) and between my lovely and talented wife and myself we've shot a couple thousand pics...that's what we've kept doesn't count what we deleted...and it didn't cost us anything in developing or film...i'm so sold i could just do a jig... |
