HELP...Can't seem to give up filme yet...but want to...

[AngieStegall]

I am a photo enthusist! I have mixed emotions about digital. I have a 3.2 meg for just point and shoot and really want to go digital but then I read it is still not where film is and I change my mind (over and over). I thought if I would go digital, I wanted to do the whole SLR digital with interchangeable lens but the price is around $1599 or so. Here is my question? Do most of y'all use digital. Do you think you can do all the things you did with your SLR camera and what brand do you suggest and why? I am looking for:
-Good portrait mode (easy changing of modes)
-Ability to put additional lighting if I choose (not just one flash)
-Ability to macro
-Good zoom of =/> 110mm
-Ability to have rapid fire shots
Not asking for much huh? :D
Thanks for your input!
Angie

[u.k. lady]

To be truthful ,digital is not quite there yet but it is getting very close and you cant really compare the two.They have such different looks and it will all depend on how you feel.
I have a Nikon d70 and it has a really good feel, I dont have the canons but i know other people who produce gorgeous shots with the canons and my sis in law has the fuji S2 she produces great work ,I would say go and check out the local camera store, have them give you a play with it, and then you can really decide if you want to go digital, or like me you could be looking to go back partially to film :)

Hope you find what your looking for :D

Jacqui

[emurph2]

Hi Angie,
I'd never go back to film.....EVER! I love my digital and have so much more freedom now to do all the creative things I want to do. Yes, you can add external flashes and use studio lighting. Yes, you can get amazing speed. You can do Macro, Portraits and Sports and so much more!! I have learned so much from going ditigal. I get instand feedback and try new things. I love the WB setting, it's one of my favorites. It's like adding a filter instantly and really enhances your photos when you learn to use it. I can change the ISO with the flip of a button without wasting a whole roll of film I can do shots at all different ISO settings and believe me, this makes a huge difference. I can take hundreds of pictures and never have to worry about film or running out of it. I can delete the bad ones. I only print the few that are worthy. I will save many that I don't print, but I save a lot of money by only printing the few that I love. For sports it's the best. I do sequences of shots and only keep the best ones. I also sometimes put the sequences together and line them all up perfectly. I crop my photos and straighten them to look exactly like I want them. I can go B&W or do funky stuff on the computer if I want. I can write something on the photo if I want or add special effects and I'll still have the origianl. I wish I could think of something negative to say about digital, but I can't. It's the best thing to happen to my photography skills and the quality of my pictures has gone up so much since getting a digital camera and learning how to use it.

I got a Canon 10D over a year ago and other than it's heavy, I don't have anything bad to say about it. Well worth the money and in the long run, I think I'll save a lot of money on film and processing.

Erica

[Fidelis]

Hi Angie,

I think many people face the same decision as you, as to whether or not they should cross that divide from film to digital. Its an entirely personal decision & both have their pros & cons as do all things. I do have to say though that digital isn't yet there to be able to compete against film & I can say that having been both a film photographer & now a digital one. Those people who shoot primarily digital will beg to differ I'm sure, but I know people who work in professional labs where they see both digital files & film everyday & even they say that theres a difference between the 2 & that digital still has a little way to go before its really up to scratch to compete with film.

Now thats all well & good but before you think your definately not going digital because its not quite there yet, just think about all the other things it can offer you! I decided to go digital because I weighed the pros & cons up & felt that not only going digital is more cost efficient in the long run, it allows me so much more freedom than film does. I can practice & practice till my hearts content with a digital & format my card afterwards & its cost me nothing, with film it can cost you when your sending your films off to be processed each time. Also if somethings not quite right with a digital file you can whip into PS & adjust it, its so easy. Infact the digital market as grown so much recently that film cameras are just dropping rapidly in value, now that tells you something, all those people can't be wrong about digital! It is great! If your still unsure why not keep a film camera too plenty of photographers do that & thats fine get the best of both worlds. Up until recently I did that but have since decided to fully go digital.

Anyway I've blabbered on far too long, I hope you can come to a decision your happy with!

Emma. :)

[Emma]

Most of the lag I get when writing digi pics is from our cruddy card.

We just got a new card, and it's FAST! Even RAW! So like any other piece of computer junk, a fast write needs a fast card!

The DSLRs come with fast-writing cards, people say there's not lag on those.

And FWIW, Nikon cameras have the best glass :) Even the guy at the Canon shop will tell you that...but Canon makes a great camera too. I'm torn...

We have an external flash also, a SunPak. Some of the options don't work for the digi cam because the camera sets those, but it gives a nice fire, which is what we want!

If you're serious about photography, do both.

[Karen]

[QUOTE=AngieStegall]I am a photo enthusist! I have mixed emotions about digital.

Well looks like I'm the descenting voice here Angie :), although I agree with Jacqui and Fidelis on all there other points :)in my opinion and from my experience and also from what I have read digital is up there and in some areas has surpassed film, certainly in 35mm anyway, I use a Canon Eos D60 which was the model before the 10D and before that with film the Eos 3 and 1000FN not sure what they are called on your side of the world.
I started out in the digital field with the S45 a 3.2mp Canon camera and absolutely loved it, but the mega pixels weren't enough for commercial work so purchased the D60 and have never looked back. I have to admit I haven't had cause to print beyound 12 x 16 inches but the quality as well as the sharpness was excellent.
Although the point and shoot cameras are great if you want to take the step up there really is no comparison between that and an dslr just as there is the difference between an ordinary film slr and a compact camera so too with digital the qualitly takes a big leap :)
I would imagine most if not all dslr's would have the capability to handle additional lighting, wether it be through the camera itself or with the use of an attachment on the hotshoe.
The ability to take macro images would depend on the lens, which I guess out of all the considerations you have to make is probably the most important, crap glass gives crap photos :) Both Canon and Nikon make top of the range lens, but you pay the price, but if you look after your lenses they will serve you well for years.
As far as doing everything I did with my film camera and still being able to do the same with the digital, there is the loss of being able to shoot in black and white of course, that conversion has to be done on the computer now, but I can (well most of the time):) get the depth of the black blacks and clean whites that you can achieve with film, one thing I do miss is the real grain of the fast films, Neopan 1600 was one of my favourites:)
Another thing that you would find very different is the shutter lag when moving onto the dslr, more or less non existant compared to the p and s.
Anyway thats my 2c worth, hope I haven't just added to your confusion:)

[Fidelis]

Karen,

While digital does offer many advantages it hasn't been able to surpass film where resolutions concerned & this is purely what divides film from digital. However the many other +'s to digital make it the better favoured option in my opinion. Granted most people who do photography because of their hobby or whatever wouldn't notice a difference anyway but some semi pros/ pros do, so thats the only reason I pointed this out. :) :) :)

Anyway just my 2 penneth worth again!

Angie,

This is just going on from one of Karen's point if you want to shoot a true black & white file then maybe look at the Fuji S2. I have this camera & its the only DSLR that I know of at present that allows you to shoot B&W without having to shoot colour first & then go convert it in something like PS. Its a great camera well apart from some battery issues that I've experienced,which I suppose are only a mild complaint in the midst of everything else it does! Plus these are coming down in price now ready for the S3 coming out in Autumn, infact you could even wait for the S3 & see what its offering although get saving plenty of $$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Emma.

[Karen]

Hi Emma

I didn't realise there was a dslr that shot in black and white mode, how do you find it? Does it give a better image than converting in PS?

Karen

[Fidelis]

To be honest Karen I haven't used it a whole lot yet in B&W mode but what I have shot seems to have come out well. I know some of the pro photographers @ ILP.com & some of them use the S2 exclusively on B&W for their portraits so that they don't need to keep converting & keep the quality at the same time.

Emma.