I am thinking about getting into photography and I was curious to see if anyone else here was into it. I'm not talking about that Digital crap, I mean the good old 35 mm cameras and whatnot. If there are, could anyone suggest a good camera for a beginner (And yes it can be old, I'd actually prefer that).
7th November 2003
I suggest you talk to Riles, he seems to know alot about photography.
How did I miss this?
Why are you so set against digital photography? I have a film SLR, but I almost always stick to my Rebel XT because I enjoy the freedom that digital offers. With film, I would have to pay for all of the development, and personally I don't have the knowledge or access to the facilities necessary to develop film myself. Because of this, my creative control would be limited to the actual scene, I wouldn't be able to do much post processing. With digital I can take as many pictures as I want (limited only be storage space) and I can edit them much more easily.
Most pros nowadays have moved on to digital, the quality is great, indistinguishable from film, expecially on small sizes like 3x5, 4x6 and 8x10.
GF's Cognitive Psychologist
13th April 2004
Well I prefer SLR film cameras because simply, what you see is what you get. And you have so much more room to experiment with exposure and aperture with film. Of course, the only bad thing about film is it takes a while for me to scan my fav pics into my comp.
Digital SLRs are the same as film SLRs except that they use a digital sensor, not film. You look through the lens in much the same way. I believe only two models of DSLRs allow you to see the image on the LCD screen, because they have a special mirror.
I like the Digital Rebel but it's about $800 or more, I'm not spending that much on a camera. I prefer 35 mm because it's far more adjustable and interchangable than that crappy digital. You're not going to convince me, my digital camera just sucks batteries and gives crappy pictures that look bad (Too bright, focused on the wrong thing, produced grain, etc). In fact, several of my past digital cameras have given sucky pictures. Besides, I am not going to develop it myself or anything I just want the adjustability and quality of the photos. In any case, I have already bought a camera, a 35 mm Canon Rebel G. You can use that awful digital crap that does it all for you and ruins your pictures or requires you to spend near a grand for a camera that lets you change it, but I'll stick to the good ol' 35 mm.
Wow, I'm sorry that your views on this matter are so distorted. Digital SLRs are in fact more adjustable then film SLRs on-camera, the simple ability to change ISO whenever you want is a perfect example of that. Ironically, your camera will cost a lot more then mine will one you have used it to the same extent I have. I have taken over 10,000 pictures, which would take you 417 rolls of 24 exp film. The price of the film and the price of the development is already more than I had to spend. I can still take pictures without needing to spend more money, you can't say the same.
Like I said, most professionals now use digital, and 35mm is a dying format. It will be around for a bit longer, but companies are starting to abandon it. Nikon has already quit development of their 35mm camreas, save for their highest model which costs $2,299.79 USD on Amazon right now.
To answer your other points:
"my digital camera just sucks batteries" My camera has taken over 1,000 pictures on a single battery charge. You will find many other who can cliam the same thing.
"gives crappy pictures that aren't right" What camera did you have? Was it in the right mode?
"I am not going to develop it myself or anything I just want the adjustability and quality of the photos." By not developing the photos yourself you are actually limiting your adjustability, because there are many developmental editing techniques that an ordinary photo development lab won't do for you. With digital you can edit yourself, and if you use an editor like GIMP, its free.
"You can use that awful digital crap that does it all for you and ruins your pictures or requires you to spend near a grand for a camera that lets you change it, but I'll stick to the good ol' 35 mm." Please, look at some of my pictures (here). I'm not expecting you to like them, nor do I feel they are that great, but hopefully you will realize that digital is nowhere near as bad as you think it is.
Now you have not made a bad decision by using film, you will get some great pictures, however digital is not as "crappy" as you think it is.
I pretend I'm cooler than AzH
3rd September 2005
im guessing shintsu has a digital camera and thats the only problem. i suggest you check out comsumer reports magazine to get the best quality camera for your price range. ive taken many photos on a 3 MP camera, MP dousnt really matter that much until high resolution, the chip is what matter, anyways the pictures were beutiful, crisp and clear and you can adjust stuff with with picasa 2 free software from google. also the pictures that i didnt like i just erased, no harm no foul and no wasted money. oh ya and i suggest high quality batteries and charger.
Tech is where you'll find me..
13th April 2005
If you can get your hands on a darkroom, then traditional film is the way to go.
If not, save yourself the expense and trouble, and get a digital camera.
I can't afford an expensive Digital camera nor have I seen a quality digital camera that is affordable.