I prefer old SLR to DIGITAL SLR. Am I the only one?

I’ve used some top digital slr cameras, but in my eyes it doesn’t compare, in terms of photo quality, to a regular slr film camera.

I’m basically sick of digital SLR. I’m sick of digital cameras, period.

Answer by RaynaOC
Then go back to film. If you still love it, shoot it. The industry is moving to digital and certain kinds of film are becoming harder and harder to come by but you can still get some.

I myself prefer shooting digital as opposed to my old SLR. Yes it’s a different look and yes it take some getting used to. But I prefer it.

Shoot what you like. Just be prepared to have a few stumbling blocks set in front of you as far as technology and film availability is concerned.

Answer by electrosmack1
I’m not sick of digital photography. That is, I don’t hate it or anything; just more so this digital mentality it has sprung up. But, I did get tired of using it. I got tired of using digital because I did not like the look* of shooting with slide film all the time. I did not like the easily blown highlights and short latitude of the medium. That’s why I use a 4×5″ camera for all of my photography nowadays.There are many others like you. If you prefer the quality of the 35mm, stick with that. Despite what some believe, film is readily available; especially if you go to the larger photo stores, like B&H Photo.

Answer by vicseo
I agree with you wholeheartedly that film is the ultimate commercial way to go since most major publications such as National Geographics still require color slide submissions and any prints larger than A6 must be from film.

Good luck!

Answer by Steve P
Like many others I jumped on the digital bandwagon a few years ago and basically put away film for a long while. I had a VERY large investment in a Canon 1Ds and several L lenses. Know what I did in 2007? SOLD IT ALL!!!, and I don’t regret it a bit. I still have my old Canon D60 digital SLR for when I really need the convenience, but the money I got from all the 1Ds and lenses payed for a beautiful, like new Mamiya medium format camera with 3 fantastic prime lenses. Almost overnight, the joy and art of photography came back to me. Like you, I was sick to death of feeling like nothing more than a moronic participant in an electronic video game instead of a PHOTOGRAPHER.

My only suggestion to you is that if you are using 35mm film, make the step up to medium or large format. The Mamiya 645 AF handles and performs much like a 35mm SLR. Another great camera is the Pentax 645N. The Mamiya 7II will give you the even larger 6 x 7 cm size negative in the relatively compact rangefinder body. Then of course there is the terrific Mamiya RB and RZ models, the Hasselblads, Bronicas, etc., but they are larger and bulky.

Film is NOT dead, and will not be for a long, long time to come, if ever. I see film becoming a niche market for the “art” crowd. I can fully understand the need and advantages of digital for commercial purposes, but, to me, film is like steak compared to a digital McDonald’s hamburger.

steve

Answer by Steven W
I’m all film. I’ve set up a darkroom in the basement. To me, especially when it comes to black and white, the darkroom is far more enjoyable. There’s something about seeing something you’ve labored over throughout composing, exposing, developing, and printing slowly show up in the developer bath that is about as close to magic that I’ve ever experienced.

Is that feeling of accomplishment that keeps me coming back to film, and will likely keep me coming back again and again. The textures in the paper look like you can feel them, ya know?

Digital has its place, of course, but for my money, film is my friend.

Give your answer to this question below!

Depth of field demo – f/1.8


Image by Derek K. Miller
I’m showing my daughters a bit about how cameras work. This was taken with my Nikon D50 digital SLR, 50mm lens, ISO 1600, f/1.8 for minimum depth of field, 1/100 sec exposure. Notice that reflections in the MacBook screen are also blurred.

Compare with the f/22 version.

An image now used for my apertures and f-stops blog article, part of the August 2008 Camera Works series of articles at my blog.

I am looking to purchase a new digital camera. I know what I am looking for is in the 10x-12x optical zoom range if it is not an SLR. I also want to consider SLR cameras, but I do not understand how to compare the SLR lenses which are measured in mm to the cameras with have an integer multiple zoom factor. Help!

Answer by Panacea
Times is equal to the ratio of the longest and shortest focal lengths. Take the digital rebel XT. It comes with am 18-55mm kit lens (kit lenses suck for other reasons so you should buy a higher quality lens). That is roughly 3X zoom capability (55/18 = ~3).

Note that the focal length determines how magnified the object is. So when evaluating a lens for how much it is able to bring an object closer to you, it’s the higher number that counts.

For example, my Sony DSC-R1 has a 24-120mm lens. This is 5 X zoom capable. However, the amount of magnification this lens provides over the XT is more than double (120 vs 55).

A camera that is higher zoom, does not necessarily have more telephoto capability as a camera with a lower zoom. Look at the focal length.

Answer by hemanth k
Yeah he is correct the larger focal length divided by the shorter focal length gives you zoom factor.(larger fl/smaller fl=zoomfactor of the lens).

What do you think? Answer below!

These Entry Level DSLR cameras are as easy to use as Point and Shoot Cameras and offer features that allow you to grow as a photographer. Sony Alpha A33 w/ 18-55mm Lens goo.gl Pentax Kr w/ 18-55mm Lens goo.gl Canon T2i w/ 18-55mm Lens goo.gl Nikon D3100 w/ 18-55mm Lens goo.gl