Low end dSLR vs fim SLR

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

"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

Up to 8 x 10, or maybe even 16 x 20 (pushin' it), the Digital SLR is fine.
Beyond that, forget it. Of course, if you're going beyond that enmasse,
you'd best purchase a medium format camera and film scanner, or just go for
wet prints.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
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?


Define "matchup". Do you want comparable functionality, or are we talking
quality of image?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
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?


Define "matchup". Do you want comparable functionality, or are we talking
quality of image?

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Joseph Meehan wrote:
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.

Good point. Let me sum-up my needs from the setup:
1. Learn more about photography. My experience till now has been
limited to playing with the Oly C-750, I have. So i am not looking at
pro features like mirror lockup etc. I just need a device that'll let
me learn the basics well. Infact, to that end, I was considering buying
a manual-focus SLR but decided on an AF so that I can use it as P&S
when I want to.

2. Budget - My budget is about US$300 for the camera and the lenses.
After reading and searching, I found Maxxum 5 ($119 new) and some used
lenses at www.keh.com. A 50mm f/1.7 and 70-210mm f/4 costing about
$130. And a couple of filters - Skylight and C-PL.

3. As far as printing goes, I gather that since I'll be experimenting a
lot, printing all the photos doesn't make sense (given I use film). So
I will want to preview the photos that I want to print. I expect them
to be probably 4-5 per roll of film of 36. To that end, I am looking
for a film scanner and after reading several reviews I froze on the
Epson 2580 ($140). The ones I like, I will probably print them on A4
size or larger or just mail them across to friend/family.

4. Once in a while shoot weddings (of friends/relatives) and when I am
on a vacation, shoot landscapes and panorama. I would like these to be
printable on A4 or larger size.

Over a period of one year of using digital technology (that is Oly
C-750), the only advantages I see of having digital over film is
running cost and convenience. You save on cost of the film and
development. Printing costs remain the same. Let me explain why.

If I see the way I shoot, I point the camera at the subject, look
through the viewfinder, compose and shoot. I do this with film as well
a digital. With digital, I shoot more because I don't have to worry
about wasting film or running out of it. But if I didn't worry about
film wastage, I can shoot the same subject with different exposures,
aperture, shutter, white balance etc.

People point at previewing what you've shot as a major advantage of
digital. I disagree. What detail do you see in a tiny LCD? I have had
lots of ruined photos because of camera shake, bad settings of
exposure, apaerture, shutter etc. But they were not big enough to show
the image as ruined on the small LCD. Only when I go back home and see
it on the PC that I notice that the image isn't that good or has been
totally ruined (as in the case of camera shake). At other times, you
don't have the time for previewing after you've shot. Think about doing
that when you are on elephant back in a wild life sanctuary always on
the look out for an animal to show-up so you can shoot it or in a
wedding with all the chaos (Indian weddings are pretty chaoatic )
Cheers,

Siddhartha

(John Doe) writes:

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've left out the most important point: what is your goal with the images?
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

(John Doe) writes:

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.

I would *not* consider buying a new film camera and scanner as a
starting point right now. It's considerably cheaper to buy the DSLR,
and you'll save money on film and processing (I guess you won't save
as much as *I* do, seeing the film and processing prices you posted,
but still a savings), *and* you'll save an immense amount of time and
some learning curve (scanning film isn't totally trivial).

Are you going to make prints as big as 16x20 inches very often? It's
possible but not clear to me that film shows an advantage when you go
that big. I go that big so rarely that my comparisons aren't really
of the same generation -- the 16x24 print from my Fuji S2 looks better
than any 16x20 print I ever made from 35mm film, but those were a
couple of generations of film ago, so *today's* film is presumably
better.

Do you do highly-detailed landscapes, camera on a tripod, first-rate
lens, slow film? Many people think that digital prints actually show
up deficient in detail in that kind of extremely challenging work.
(Medium format is much more suited than 35mm or 35mm-derived DSLRs for
that kind of work anyway).

Do you use wideangle lenses a lot? The 1.6x (1.5x for Nikon) crop
factor will deprive you of some of your favorite lenses in that case.
(But if you use telephoto a lot, your lenses just got *improved* 1.6x
as part of the bargain!). (The new Canon 10mm-whatever zoom helps
this a lot, and works on the 300d, but it's another expense, too).

Digital does better than film at ISOs starting around 400, and is
really drastically better than 1600.

A digital image stays smooth as it's blown up -- no new detail
appears, unlike film, where the grain structure starts to appear.
This greatly confuses all attempts to compare film to digital for
degree of enlargement possible; an "over-enlarged" digital picture
looks immensely better than an over-enlarged film picture for most
purposes. (And, if you *like* grain patterns, digital is not for
you!)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Joseph Meehan wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Hi,


2. Budget - My budget is about US$300 for the camera and the lenses.
After reading and searching, I found Maxxum 5 ($119 new) and some used
lenses at www.keh.com. A 50mm f/1.7 and 70-210mm f/4 costing about
$130. And a couple of filters - Skylight and C-PL.



A low-end DSLR costs $999, so that should help narrow your search right
there! Considering that, I'd get a used Canon Elan IIe and 50mm lens from
www.keh.com. Best bang for your buck right there!

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"Jeremy" writes:

"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.

No it's not. Not in any sort of medium-run view.

And note that he's buying a scanner -- indicating that either he wants
do his printing digitally (good choice) or else that his end product
will be digital display of the photos. And having to buy the scanner
too really ruins the bang/buck ratio.

Also depends on how much you shoot and what you pay for film and
processing. Doesn't take very long to shoot up $1000 worth of film
and processing; that's somewhere between 50 and 400 rolls depending on
choice of film and processing, local prices, etc. ("roll" meaning 36
exposures for my purposes). Which could easily pay itself back in the
first year even for an amateur.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"John Doe" writes:

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?

The D70 and the N70 are *the same camera*, so they'll match up pretty
precisely. One has the expensive digital electronics on the back, the
other has a film transport mechanism. Similarly the D100 and the N80
(and the Fuji S2) are the same body. I imagine the Canon Digital
Rebel 300 is the same as some film body, probably the EOS 300?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/