[LUconn]

I'm looking to get one of those big honkers with the giant lenses. Something that uses film instead of a digital one. I've already to a digital camera and I've found that none of the pictures ever make it off of the computer/SD card. That said, I won't be developing my own film. Any suggestions? fsn, I think I'm looking in your direction.

[Libertine]

I've found that none of the pictures ever make it off of the computer/SD card.

So, will your film pictures ever make it out of the back of the camera?

[Sly Fox]

Lib has a point. Everywhere that you'd be developing film also print pics off SD cards. I can't think of a good reason to buy a film camera right now unless you were using one of those waterproof disposables at a water park.

[El Scorcho]

I believe you're referring to an SLR camera, and plenty of people are still shooting film in those. The primary reason for shooting a film SLR is because the full-frame digital models cost several thousand dollars. You can get a reduced-frame digital SLR for around a grand. Film SLR's are nice if you have the equipment and time to work with the film yourself. If you don't have those things, I would definitely go the digital route. You'll be using a professional camera if you buy an SLR, and you'll want to be able to do professional post-processing.

Now, having said that, the one downside to digital is that you'd better have lots of storage. My camera is churning out 5MB+ pictures and can take up to 3 frames per second. It's an easy way to fill up a hard drive very quickly.

The other thing about buying an SLR camera is that if you get one with a lens included, that lens is pretty much considered junk. I can attest to this, personally, as I wish I had just purchased the camera body and purchased my first lens separately. It's an arms race when it comes to buying lenses though, so do your research and figure out what type of lens will best suit what you'll be shooting the most of.

[HenryGale]

I agree...digital is the only way to go. It is even easier than film. When you have your digital prints on your computer, all you have to do is go to Walmart.com, upload your pictures to thier film center, pic out what prints you want, and they print them for you. You can have prints in your hands in one hour if you use their one hour processing (with only going to the store once, no dropping off film and then going back to pick it up). If you want to go total lazy, you can even have them shipped to your house. Prices are very reasonable, something like 12 cents a pic for 1 hour processing.

[Sly Fox]

Other lenses are what pawn shops and eBay are for.

[LUconn]

nope, SLR is what I was looking for. I have a digital camera and it serves it's purpose. I want something that I can use to take a professional looking photo, and it take the picture the instant I click the button. I know digital can do this but I hardly see how it would be worth it at that price when I can get the same effect with an SLR at 25-50% of the cost. Just so I can see the picture instantly? nah. And who knows, I may get into tinkering with developing.

[HenryGale]

Conn...there is a significant cost differencial up front, but the benefits of digital definatly pay off. First of all, with a quality digital camera, you definatley get professional looking pictures. There are definately problems with SLR's though. (I had one about 3 years ago) First...it will cost you about $20 for every 24-36 pictures you take. (Film and developing) That adds up pretty quickly. With digital you can take 36 pics in 1 minute and cost you the price of one print if you choose.

Also depending on what you want to shoot, digital makes all the more sense. If you are looking at shooting athletics, digital gives you the benefit of taking 456 pictures a game if you choose, and you only develop the ones you like. If you are shooting action, you can essentially hold down the shutter button on a good camera and take about 10 pictures in one instant, whereas if you have an SLR, you take 1 or 2 pics and HOPE you get the shot you are looking for.
If you are into scenic/landscape pics, then SLR will work fine, becasue you can plan on that one shot coming out.

FSN will definatly be able to shed more light on this.

[LUconn]

you make a convincing argument. How much am I looking at for a decent digital that will give me NO DELAY taking a picture? (or if there is a delay, unnoticable. I'm not even looking for a top of the line megapixel rate either. I'm still using a 3.2 Nikon that I got in '04 and it's not at a resolution I'd like but it doesnt bother me too often.

[HenryGale]

FSN will be able to tell you about the delay and cost...but with the appropriate camera, there is not delay with normal light conditions. Even using a flash, delay is extremely minimal. Like I said, you can really just hold down the shutter button and continue taking pictures. The delay is nothing like your typical point and click digitals.

Don't forget about editing...another reason digital is better that a film SLR camera. It gives you so many options.

[El Scorcho]

Digital SLR's work just as well as film SLR's. Seriously. I have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi and it takes the pictures as fast as I can snap them. If you're using auto-focus you just need to make sure there's enough light for it to focus and you can snap away. I bought my digital SLR simply because of the annoying delay with my point and shoot camera. You could probably pick up the Canon Digital Rebel XT for a decent price now that the XTi is out. It's a 6MP Digital SLR that you'd probably be very happy with.

[fsn32]

Shutter lag (the annoying time from button press to picture taking) is almost non existent on most Digital SLR's. My experience is with Nikon and the pictures I take are with a higher end (sports minded) camera. There is however a camera on the market that is getting great reviews and is pretty cheap.

The camera I am talking about is the Nikon D40, it is 569.00 with a lens at jr.com... http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4145713

The price difference between digital and film can be made up in about a year of processing and film purchases (or lack thereof.)

It has a built in flash and a decent lens with it that will work well for flash aided pictures and shots in good lighting outdoors. If you need more zoom or if you are shooting sports or low light stuff, you will need to buy a 2.8 lens... but lets not get ahead of ourselves yet.

I'm sure Cannon has a comparable model, I am just speaking of Nikon b/c that is where I am familiar. This Nikon takes about 2.5 shots per second... a little less than some but that is one of the trade offs for the price. The more expensive models will do 3 to 8 shots per second. What exactly will you be shooting?

They also announced an upgrade to the d40, the d40X that should be available soon... it has more resolution and 3 shots per second and will be around 799.00... which will probably be less at the discount sites. There is a review on dpreview.com (which is a great site to compare cameras.) http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030602nikond40x.asp

Film is really for the purists that want the color depth that digital doesn't have... but you have to be an expert to tell the difference. From a productivity stand point, digital is soooo much better. I can take 1000 pictures at a game, delete half of them on the back of the camera and sort out the rest on the computer and print or post the best 50. With film I would have only taken a hundred or so because of the expense and had to print them all and maybe get 5 or 10 that I really liked.

Did that cover your questions?

[VaDon]

If you are seriously looking for a good deal on a film SLR, do some research on a Canon Elan-7. I have an almost brand new body I will sell at a great price.

I bought it right before the digital SLR's became available, so I have moved up. It does not have lens with it, but the entire line of Canon lenses will fit.

Let me know if you might me interested. My son is at LU, so I am in Lynchburg fairly often.

Don

[LUconn]

I think I was talked out of the film. I've just been doing some research on the Nikon D40 vs the D50 and the Rebel XT. I'd like to say I'd comparing them all but I doubt I could afford anything but the D40, so I guess that's making my decision for me. And if The Hall says it's good, it must be.

[El Scorcho]

LUConn: The Canon Rebel XT with the kit lens is the same price as the D40, which around $500.

The XTi is about $300-400 more than the XT.

[LUconn]

Well from what I've read they both have their slight differences. Many of the difference are things you'll never even notice if you're not a professional. The main decision you make is Cannon vs Nikon because the Lenses you buy won't work with any other brand. That link that fsn posted is interesting. Apparently the D40x is coming out at the end of the month.

Although, it seemed like the Rebel XT didn't use an SD card for storage. Maybe I misread that, but that seems like a big difference.

[Hold My Own]

I'll be picking up a digital SLR too here in the next few months...hopefully you can give me a full review on the one you buy to see if it was a good pick up or not

[El Scorcho]

Well from what I've read they both have their slight differences. Many of the difference are things you'll never even notice if you're not a professional. The main decision you make is Cannon vs Nikon because the Lenses you buy won't work with any other brand. That link that fsn posted is interesting. Apparently the D40x is coming out at the end of the month.

Although, it seemed like the Rebel XT didn't use an SD card for storage. Maybe I misread that, but that seems like a big difference.

There are subtle differences between the Rebel XT and XTi, it's true. I have the XTi. The biggest differences the upgraded imaging processor, and the bigger display. The XTi is a 10.1MP cam while the XT is 6.2. Oh, and the XTi has auto dust cleaning. Other than that, they're about the same. They both use CompactFlash cards for storage, which I'm fine with. I have a 4GB CF card in my XTi.

I liked what I saw out of the Canon lineup, and it seems to have the most clear upgrade path if I get more serious about things in the future. Nikon doesn't have any full-frame digital SLR's, and that kind of scares me.

[fsn32]

Well from what I've read they both have their slight differences. Many of the difference are things you'll never even notice if you're not a professional. The main decision you make is Cannon vs Nikon because the Lenses you buy won't work with any other brand. That link that fsn posted is interesting. Apparently the D40x is coming out at the end of the month.

Although, it seemed like the Rebel XT didn't use an SD card for storage. Maybe I misread that, but that seems like a big difference.

Nikon doesn't have any full-frame digital SLR's, and that kind of scares me.

It will happen I'm sure... it seems like they go back and forth... Nikon beat Cannon to the "affordable professional digital body" 8 years ago (the reason I am Nikon) and they have gone back and forth ever since.

Unless you are shooting fish-eye, it really isn't the end of the world to have a 1.5 factor... it actually gives you the essence of more zoom on your zoom lens. I think we may be going a little over the top on LUCONN here... I'm sure either camera will work fine. It is kinda like a Chevy-Ford situation... both are good machines but everyone has a loyalty. That's why I didn't go overboard in my post... I mentioned Nikon just because that's what I use... heck, I have heard good things about Olympus's SLR.

I have used both brands and I like the controls and feel on my Nikon better but there are pluses for Cannon too... I would suggest going to a store where you can get your hands on both to help you decide. (Then buy it online )

[LUconn]

well, that's where I'm torn. I feel like if I'm shelling out this kind of money, I'd like to keep the option open to make a hobby of this. So while, I know nothing now, I'd hate to later decide I enjoy taking pictures of stuff and then find out I'm severly limited by what I've already bought.

[El Scorcho]

You won't be severely limited by going with either. You can shoot professionally without having a full-frame camera. I agree with fsn32. Get whatever feels best and works for you. The Nikon and Canon semi-pro SLR's are both great cameras.

If you're interested you can check out pictures taken with the cameras here:

Canon Digital Rebel XT: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos ... _rebel_xt/

Canon Digital Rebel XTi: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/canon/eos ... rebel_xti/

Nikon D40: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d40/

Nikon D50: http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d50/

[fsn32]

well, that's where I'm torn. I feel like if I'm shelling out this kind of money, I'd like to keep the option open to make a hobby of this. So while, I know nothing now, I'd hate to later decide I enjoy taking pictures of stuff and then find out I'm severly limited by what I've already bought.

If you choose Nikon or Cannon there is no way you will be limited... they will always be the top dogs and the their lenses will be worth the investment. From what you have said it seems that either of those camera body choices would be perfect... of all the brand arguments out there (Ford-Chevy, Cirius-XM, DirecTv-Dish, Pepsi-Coke) I don't think there is any closer than Nikon-Cannon... they are pretty darn even... it really comes down to price and features on the model you can afford.

If I would have bought in to digital two years after I did I would have went Cannon b/c of the camera they had out at the time. A year later Nikon had the cutting edge body (which is my main camera now.) If I had to jump in right now it would be a coin toss... Nikon has a great high-end product but not the ISO range I would want... Cannon has a very good high end product but with a slower Shutter response than the Nikon...

That's the high end in "Sports minded" cameras... as for the low end in consumer quality cameras I think the new Nikon D40X will probably be the trend setter for a while, but in this market a while may only be 6 months. Cannon and Nikon are like two siblings that never want to be out done. I had not done a lot of research on the D40X until now and i may have to pick one up myself... I have a D100 that needs repairs and it will probably cost 200 bucks... I may just apply that to one of these babies.