I asked my parents if they would get me a digital camera for my birthday/Christmas (5 days apart) They said they would if I was good and because I eat,sleep,breath, trains. I was looking at some and was wondering something. I saw this AWESOME Canon camera with super zoom and all the high tech photo stuff for $200.00 and she said she would get it for me becauseit was VERY good quality. I also saw some nice digital camera’s from $130 to $250. I like the Canon better but it shoots film and would it be worth the effort to buy a scanner too or just buy a digital and put them directly on the computer? By the way, I want to post my pics on the internet.
Thanks in advance!
Unless you’re going for nostalgia or are afraid of going digital, I wouldn’t even bother with buying a film camera now. Scanners are nice, but it’s too much trouble to buy film, have it developed, then scan it if you’re going to be posting pictures. Go with the digital; you can look at the picture right then when you take it and decide if you like it and then plug in the USB cable and have it straight to your computer without waiting for development. There are some good cameras out there for a low price now. Canon makes real good cameras in my opinion.
I’d say that if your main intention is to take photos for web publishing, you’ll be better off with a digicam. I use film and like it, but I’ve never scanned any of my photos in. If I want to take photos to illustrate a document or to put online I borrow the family Sony digicam and use that - it’s about 5-6 years old now and stores images on floppy disks, but it’s great if you just want a quick but good image.
On the other hand, you’ll be able to find film camera equipment cheaply now due to the number of people who have swapped to digital - I use old Pentax manual-focus K-bayonet cameras and lenses which I can pick up used in great condition for not a huge outlay. Older cameras are a great way to learn about photography as they’re usually mostly manual and also very robust - the Pentax K and M-series cameras have long been popular for these reasons, though buying either can be a minefield now if you don’t know what you’re looking for as they’re getting old. Mechanical cameras tend to age well (my dad has a 22+ year old K2 that still works well) but they can suffer from faults - you’ll need to research the particular model you’re looking at. Right now I’m using a Pentax P30T with manual focus and wind-on but auto exposure, it’s an excellent camera considering I only paid around £60 for it (body only).
I’d say it depends on how involved you want to get - if you have an interest in setting up a darkroom and developing your own films then film gives you that extra option, and it can be a lot of fun. However, if you want hassle-free photography you can get good images using a digicam and a decent printer - up to you which way you decide to go!
…Just a few years ago I purchased a Canon EOS with eye focusing and including a 28 to 200 mm lens…I love the camera as it can do many things well, but I wish I would have waited for just a few years more and purchased the digital Canon Rebel…It’s cost is roughly 850 to 1000 dollars depending where it’s purchased. Digital is so easy to move photos around including sending on internet and putting on discs…etc…In my case I was accumulating so many prints I wondered just where I was going to put more of them. In that way digital, in my opinion is superior with the easy storage. Using digital you can simply delete the unwanted ones and that’s another plus. But it’s your choice.
A few years ago I went to digital photography, and I think it’s great. If I messed up a shot, I can check it on the camera right away and take another. After downloading to my computer I can touch them up and make them look better. I took a shot on Horseshoe Curve and printed out a copy 8 X 10 that was just perfect.
My only lament is that the shutter lags behind a bit, and makes timing shapshots very tricky.
In my opinion, don’t buy a scanner; it’s a bridge technology that will be of little or no use to you once you’ve gone fully digital.
Other people on a different thread have noted that the analog equivalents to today’s SLR digital cameras have, indeed, become amazingly cheap.
But the two formats are so different! With the better kind of film-based cameras, even with their default technology, it’s a matter of knowing what kind of features (or filters) to add to each shot. With digital, spending more buys you more and more freedom to SUBTRACT from each shot (i.e., cancelling autofocus and so on–there’s a lot more of that in digital than analog).
You don’t say whether you’d be willing to settle for a “bridge” camera, but the truth is that auto-advance (non-instant, fillm based) Polaroids that cost $40 a year ago are less than $20 when Walgreen’s (in my region) puts them on sale; something like the Canon IQ zoom has gone down from $110-i***o $60, sometimes less. You might be able to be happy with these – and you’ll learn more about basic photography, “rule of thirds” and so on, with a more basic camera. (If for no other reason than your undeletable, uneditable pix will show exactly where you went right or wrong in framing, composition, etc.) This would work well if you feel patient and want to save your and your parents’ pennies for something Rebel-class in digital, which are slowly getting cheaper, but are still in the high hundreds of dollars.
A couple of things that most converts to digital WI***hey had known ahead of time[;)]:
What is the “recovery time”; i.e., the time it takes the camera to prepare for the next shot? If it’s four seconds, and many cameras are, you’re not going to be very satisfied with your action shots of moving trains, etc.
Cost and ease of memory: believe it or not, and even with on-site editing, it is incredibly easy to outstrip your camera’s picture-retention memory. Typically people buy "sti
I’ve got the Canon Digital Rebel XT and it is the best camera I’ve ever had.The quality blows you away.
Get a digital camera and not a film camera…trust me even though my camera cost over $1000 it lasts a long time and and a regular camera would cost over a thousand dollars anyway with all the film you would be buying over time.I had a film camera and wasted tons of money developing film and now that I went digital it doesn’t cost me anything.
Amen to that.
//another Canon Digital Rebel owner
I’ve shot a lot of film through Nikon F2’s and F3’s over the years for work and for pleasure. Quite frankly, aside from the issue of the quick follow-up shot that Allen already mentioned, I can’t imagine using a film camera for railfanning anymore.
I think you will be much more happy with a digital camera.
Paul
I too really enjoy my digital Rebel, its the camera I’m having the most fun with these days. Ask mom what the budget for this Birthday/Christmas present is, if you can find this out it’ll help you decide how to go.
If you have to go with a film camera because of cost, remember during development you can always pay a couple extra bucks and get the photos on CD.
Jim
Good point Jim.
I’ve used just about every Canon SLR built, from a Canonflex all the way to toying around with a 1Ds Mk II. I own a bunch of them, too. My personal digital at the moment is a grandfatherly (at least in digital terms) D60. Someday I’ll upgrade, but at the moment, I’m spending spare dollars on “L” glass. Sure the D60 is old, but I have quality enough to go to 20x30 if I do everything right. Example:
I know, I know, it’s not train related, but I do have it hanging in my office at 20x20 (which would be 20x30 if it wasn’t a square crop).
If you want decent pictures, and don’t want to toy with film (the largest I ever went with 35mm stuff was 16x20), think about a DSLR of at least 6 mp. D60’s go for as low as $500. The old Rebel (a frustrating camera feature-wise, but a gem in picture quality) goes somewhere in the same range, and gives you pretty decent high ISO performance. The new Rebel XT is a true sweetheart of a camera, with even better High ISO performance, less operation headaches, and an extra 2 mp to boot. I played with one of those, and really got hooked. These go for a little more, though. A 10D is in the same price range, with good features, a really solid body, and good High ISO performance.
Those are a little more than you stated your price range, but if you save up, I think you’ll be happily rewarded.
If you just want to shoot for the web, and occasionally print to 8x10, try to find a used S1 IS. Now that the S2 IS is out, the S1 has dropped in price pretty significantly. For a point and shoot, that bugger has a lot of range, image stabilization, and a fair to meddling feature set. It’s only 3 Mp, but if you use your Mp wisely, you can print a pretty good 8x10.
The other older digicam I like is the G3. Good feature set, decent noise performace for a digicam, and you can shoot in RAW. Not a bad camera (the G5 and G6 are newer, more expensive and noisy versions of thi
OK, OK I know this might be stupid to you guys, but I bought a Canon Rebel K2 last week. It takes film but, you know that if a 35mm Camera would be rated in mega pixels it would be around 30? Honestly I don’t know about you but I would still buy a film camera. I am not going to spend 800 bucks for a digital rebel…yet. I know its kind of a bad idea but you get better quality and they’re less expensive. I bought mine for $189.00. Don’t forget you always can get a picture CD for 3 bucks more or just the CD for 3 bucks!
Dustin
In terms of absolute resolution, yes. However, I can not tell you how wonderful a feeling it is to not have to deal with grain for big enlargements. I noticed grain even on Medium Format Astia. Only once I moved to 4x5 did grain quit giving me headaches. Plus, 4x5 is lots and lots and lots of fun! He he he…
Seriously, I have not tried the K2, but I’m sure like every other Rebel I’ve used (most of them) it’s a good camera, if a little limited in the feature set. The only nit I had with Rebels (and its on all of them) is the deal with the film being rewound at the beginning of a roll. While it prevents accidentally wiping out your images, its a pain sometimes.
Now focus (sorry for the bad pun) on getting some good lenses for the EF mount, and you’ll be ready to move into a Digital EOS in the future.
Good luck!
Chris
Denver, CO
The camera’s I have been looking at have been in the $120 to $200 range. Anything good there?
Check out the reviews at www.dpreview.com. Lots of cameras from all the manufacturers here. Allow lots of time to spend there since things get pretty in depth in short order. If you do not like all the technical stuff jump to the conclusion and use that to narrow things down a bit.
Ignore “digital zoom” specs, the quality is a total waste. Go for a bigger optical zoom and then use post processing to crop the photo for a better quality than the digital zoom. Three Mega pixels will do a nice 8x10 print and is over kill for internet posting. The Canon S1 IS was selling at Best Buy for $345 not too long ago but I doubt it is down to $200 yet.
I thnik most $200 cameras will be in the 3 mpix range, have a 3 power zoom about the equivalent of a 35mm-105mm lens in a 35mm film camera. One of the things to watch out for will be the shutter lag when shooting moving trains. If you compose your shot when the train is more distant and then pu***he the shutter release part way to set the exposure and focus the shutter lag will be reduced considerably.
It is probably best to stick with a name brand like Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, or Pentax though if you read the reviews at the site I mentioned earlier, the Kodak cameras rate very well for the $$
In addition to the camera you will need to buy some rechargable batteries and a charger with AA size being the most common. If you have rechargable AAs for a Gameboy or other electronic device you can save that cost. You will need storage cards in the type CF, Smart Media, SD or Memory Stick the camera is designed for. Probably 2 cards with a 128 mb capacity will be all you need to start. A card reader to connect with the computer will save a lot of time. The total cost in addition to the camera will be in the $100 range. Hopefully, some realtives may come through with presents as well.
While it may be true film has the resolution of a 30 mpix camera, indeed, digital resolution and film resolution are not the same. Every review you are going to find comparing the 16 mpix Canon 1Ds MkII or the Nikon D2x @ 12 mpix is going to show the resolution of these cameras exceeds that of the best 35 mm print film. Now by much yet but still better in most cases. It is quickly becoming apparent film grain will not be able to keep up with digital pixels in the resolution race. While it may be technologically possible to refine the grains more the research money is going to digital sensors and not film emulsions.
One of the problems of a 30 mpix digital sensor in a 35mm body is the sensor would exceed the resolution of even the best 35mm film lenses.
That’s pretty low in the digital realm, but some of the Canon A-series might qualify. I don’t know an awful lot about them. My sister has an A80, and seems to like it. I played with it once, and think I remember that I didn’t like its autofocus, and that it had some problems with chromatic aberration. It’s a 4 Mp, but in this case, not all Mp are created the same.
If you can save up a little bit, I think you’ll be happier in the long run.
Chris
Denver, CO
The Sony DSC-F707 is fairly old, but, it has full manual controls, and you can pick one up on eBay for around $250. I love mine. It’s 5 megapixels and has a 5x optical zoom.
One thing I have not noticed in this discussion is the liklihood of digital images surviving some time into the future. I photograph rail scenes for generations not yet born paticularly in urban and industrial settings, especially with old factories in the background, before all our industry is outsourced to Oblivia. I am concerned at the ability of digital images to survive 50 or 60 years from now. I have prints and slides going back to that time period and they are are as crisp, and most of all, retrievable, as the day they returned from the drug store. I have seen an aweful lot of electronic gagetry become obsloete and I wonder if the storage systems of digital will be accessible a half century from now. Will computers/printers (if they have computers/printers fifty years from now) be able to read your discs, cards or whatever ? If you print your images onto paper what will they look like in fifty years ? If you want the folks of the future to see our pictures and reflect on a past and gone way of life along the railroad you might want to stick to a tecnology that has proven that it can preserve the past into that not yet future for that not yet born generation.