Low end dSLR vs fim SLR

Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Please keep the more expensive options (film or digital) out.

Thanks,

Siddhartha

John Doe ) wrote...
Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

You risk starting another "holy war" here...having said that, here's
my opinion, for what it's worth.

1) If you are interested in image quality then remember that the lens
is probably the most important factor. If you spend all you budget
on a fancy body and only have enough cash left for the cheapest of
kit-lenses then you'll get the same (poor) results no matter what.

2) IMHO, the quality of dSLRs and film is now broadly comparable for
most purposes. Others may well disagree (and probably will), but
often it will be something else (quality of lens, robustness of
tripod etc.) that will ultimately control image sharpness. Film
(*good* film) may still have the edge for absolute sharpness and
detail recording. Digital has the edge for lack of noise / grain.
All IMHO.

I would thus focus your research in getting the best bang-for-buck
out of your lens. Then choose a body to go with it. If you are
budget limited, look secondhand. There are some bargains to be had,
particularly from all those folk who are dumping their perfectly fine
film gear to go digital!

Ian
--
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK

Ian Riches wrote:

1) If you are interested in image quality then remember that the lens

is probably the most important factor. If you spend all you budget
on a fancy body and only have enough cash left for the cheapest of
kit-lenses then you'll get the same (poor) results no matter what.

I agree. So far I have zeroed down on Minolta Maxxum 5 with a 50mm
f/1.7 lens and 70-210mm f/4 lens.


2) IMHO, the quality of dSLRs and film is now broadly comparable for
most purposes. Others may well disagree (and probably will), but
often it will be something else (quality of lens, robustness of
tripod etc.) that will ultimately control image sharpness. Film
(*good* film) may still have the edge for absolute sharpness and
detail recording. Digital has the edge for lack of noise / grain.
All IMHO.

I am more interested in comapring budget SLRs (film and SLR) because I
was under the impression that the low-end dSLRs (300d or D70) still
don't matchup to budget film SLRs (300v, Maxxum 5, Nikon N80). Am I
right in the assumption?

Thanks,

Siddhartha

"John Doe" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget.

It is generally accepted that film gives more bang for the buck in terms of
image quality. Even if you compromise on the film scanner, you still have
the negative or slide, and you can always rescan it using better equipment
in the future. With digital, what you capture is what you get--there is no
room for improvement down the road.

If you are on a really tight budget, you can find some really excellent used
bodies and lenses that will yield results as good as new gear, at a fraction
of the "new" price. If you can do without automation, the savings can be
even greater.

The only argument for digital's economy would be if you shot tons of images.
Based on your original post, I suspect you will not be doing that initially.

If the sole criterion is image quality, film take a backseat to nothing.

"John Doe" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget.

It is generally accepted that film gives more bang for the buck in terms of
image quality. Even if you compromise on the film scanner, you still have
the negative or slide, and you can always rescan it using better equipment
in the future. With digital, what you capture is what you get--there is no
room for improvement down the road.

If you are on a really tight budget, you can find some really excellent used
bodies and lenses that will yield results as good as new gear, at a fraction
of the "new" price. If you can do without automation, the savings can be
even greater.

The only argument for digital's economy would be if you shot tons of images.
Based on your original post, I suspect you will not be doing that initially.

If the sole criterion is image quality, film take a backseat to nothing.

"John Doe" wrote in message
om...
Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Please keep the more expensive options (film or digital) out.

Thanks,

Siddhartha

I have a 300D, and also a film SLR (EOS 30) and have been looking at buying
a decent film scanner.
I would imaging that for the cost of a budget film SLR and film scanner
you're pretty much at the same cost of a 300D or D70.
The image quality of either DSLR is excellent, and will match film in many
cases. I think you'd have to print massive to tell one from another, and be
using quality film.
In my case, the running costs of the DSLR are soooo much cheaper than film
(film cost, developing etc) and the hassle of getting film developed
compared to digital that I expect the body to pay for itself within a couple
of years in these costs alone.
There are plenty of used 300D's and D70's around now as people upgrade,
especially with the launch of the new 20D. You should be able to pick up a
second-hand body for a good price now.

Look (and print) some of the example DSLR images from the web, and make your
own judgement.

Alan.

In article ,
John Doe wrote:

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Without wantign to start a holy war, I'll just say that if you're unhappy
with the image quality of a 6MP DSLR then you'll probably be similarly
unhappy with 35mm, and should be looking at medium format instead. IOW, they
are both good for the same sort of print sizes, to a first approximation.

Probably the important thing to bear in mind is that if you're planning on
processing your stuff digitally as a matter of course, scanning
negatives/slides in any quantity will rapidly become a pain in the arse.
Given your apparent preference for digitally produced output, you'd probably
find life far more enjoyable if you went for the DSLR and cut out the
tedious scanning step.

YMMV, of course.

John Doe wrote:

Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Lens. Film.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

John Doe wrote:

Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Lens. Film.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

John Doe wrote:
Hi,

I am planning on a film SLR + a film scanner combo keeping in view my
limited budget. But people are suggesting a dSLR given the costs of
film (possibly slide) development.

So my question is, how does a low-end film SLR, say a Canon 300V or a
Minolta Maxxum 5 compare to a Canon 300D or Nikon D70? In terms of
picture quality, what would loose with a dSLR and what would I gain
with it?

Maybe it would be a good idea to tell us a little more. What is your
subject, and what is your desired result?

If you desired result is images on e-Bay, you don't want to use film.
If your desired result is a 20"x24" fine quality print of a difficult
subject which will be viewed close-up I suggest you don't want a low end SLR
digital.

You also may want to consider the convenience factor, or then again
maybe not.



Please keep the more expensive options (film or digital) out.

Thanks,

Siddhartha

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math