Low end dSLR vs fim SLR

A decent film camera is a minimum of 250 (Rebel Ti or equivalent) a decent
film scanner is going to run a minimum of 500 (that is absolute minimum) You
are at 750 dollars and haven't yet bought any film, or had any processed.
The DRebel is 900 dollars. Do the math.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"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

The Maxxum five is not exactly a barn burner for features. No bottom end SLR
is. That is the way it goes.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"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?

Thanks,

Siddhartha

That would be silly. The web images are going to be low quality compared to
printing from the camera.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Alan" wrote in message
...

"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.

Tony wrote:
The Maxxum five is not exactly a barn burner for features. No bottom
end SLR
is. That is the way it goes.


http://www.photographic.com/filmcameras/158/index.html

Puts Rebel Ti, Maxxum 5, Nikon N65, Pentax ZX-L and the Sigma SA-7 in
the same category. Even spec for spec, the Rebel Ti does not seem to
out-do the Maxxum 5 significantly.


Maxxum/Dynax 5 Canon RebelTi

AF sensors 7 (1#) lighted 7 (1#) lighted
AF working range -1/18 1/18
Metering systems 14 seg, spot 35 seg, partial
M-working range 1/20 1/20
Exp. Compensation +-3 in .3 .5 .7 +-2 in .5
Shutter speed 1/4000-30s,B 1/2000-30s,B
Auto-Bracketing yes yes
Mirror lock-up no no
Multiple exposure yes yes
max. X-Sync 1/125s 1/90s
Hi-speed sync. 1/4000s 1/2000s
Flash sync 2nd curtain no on flash?
Flash Exp. Comp. no on flash
Built-in Flash 12 (28mm) 12 (28mm)
Viewfinder-info A,T,F,Ec,AF A,T,F,Ec,AF,Sh,D
Viewfinder size 90% 90%
Programs F,P,Sp,Ap,M,5 F,P,Sp,Ap,M,6,Dep
DOF preview yes yes
Custom functions 14 no
Metal mount yes yes
Motorspeed 3 fps 2.5 fps
weight (g) 335g 365g
Price $119 $140

I am putting on hold the decision to get a scanner but the Epson 2580
seems good at $140.

So that brings the total expense (including scanner) under $300 without
lenses. I won't compare lenses because cost of lenses will be
additional with film or digital. Besides, I simply don't have the $899
for the 300D's body not to mention a 512MB flash card to go with it.
$899 might seem to trivial to you but its a lot of money here in
India!!

Ironic, because I decided on the Maxxum 5 based on the info on your
site Btw, its a great site. Spent a lot of time going through it.
Thanks,

Siddhartha

On 13 Sep 2004 05:49:47 -0700, "John Doe"
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.

Good choices so far in the older Maxxum lenses. Not the best bokeh in
the world but sharp. The 24-85 is a decent lens as well. All of them
should be great on the upcoming Maxxum 7D.

Right now I am shooting a Maxxum 7, 70 and 9xi with those two lenses
and many others. I use a Nikon Coolscan V and get excellent results.
I'll probably buy the Maxxum 7D when it is released as the scanning is
getting a bit much. I don't mind a bit of scanning but I am getting a
bit trigger happy with the Maxxums lately.

Picture wise at 4x6 or 5x7 comparing the film and my old 10D shots you
will be hard pressed to really tell the difference when using good
film and a good scanner. I compare my 10D shots with my film shots
and all I can see is a bit of grain now and then when I use cheap
film. But there is definately a difference in latitude in the 10D
shots compared to the use of print film in the Maxxums.

If you don't mind the time in scanning get the Maxxum 70 and a Nikon
Coolscan V and invest in some good film (Reala or Kodak 100UC or 400UC
as an example) and you'll be happy til you get the itch to buy the
Konica Minolta DSLR.


Valder

Valder wrote:
On 13 Sep 2004 05:49:47 -0700, "John Doe"
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.

Good choices so far in the older Maxxum lenses. Not the best bokeh in
the world but sharp. The 24-85 is a decent lens as well. All of them
should be great on the upcoming Maxxum 7D.

Right now I am shooting a Maxxum 7, 70 and 9xi with those two lenses
and many others. I use a Nikon Coolscan V and get excellent results.
I'll probably buy the Maxxum 7D when it is released as the scanning
is
getting a bit much. I don't mind a bit of scanning but I am getting a
bit trigger happy with the Maxxums lately.

Picture wise at 4x6 or 5x7 comparing the film and my old 10D shots
you
will be hard pressed to really tell the difference when using good
film and a good scanner. I compare my 10D shots with my film shots
and all I can see is a bit of grain now and then when I use cheap
film. But there is definately a difference in latitude in the 10D
shots compared to the use of print film in the Maxxums.

If you don't mind the time in scanning get the Maxxum 70 and a Nikon
Coolscan V and invest in some good film (Reala or Kodak 100UC or
400UC
as an example) and you'll be happy til you get the itch to buy the
Konica Minolta DSLR.


Valder

Hey Valder!!

Nice to see a first hand view of the kind of setup I am planning to
have. Yes, for film I plan to use either Reala or I will also try and
see how does slide film at the price turn-out to be. At the same price
point as Reala, I get Sensia and Elitechrome. So I will try out both,
colour negative as well as slide film.

And again, thats my plan too. In a couple of years when I have enough
money, I'll get the Digital Maxxum 7 or whatever successor Minolta has
to that.

For scanner, I might not be able to afford the Nikon Coolscan and will
probably settle for Epson 2580 or 3170.

For camera, I might go with the Maxxum 5 or 70. Either of them seem
fine for my use as there doesn't seem to be much difference between the
two. Infact, some suggest that the Maxxum 70 is a bit of a downgrade
from the 5.

One question, how are enlargements from film compared to 10D? Say A4
size or larger.

Thanks,

Siddhartha

Tony wrote:
That would be silly. The web images are going to be low quality compared to
printing from the camera.

there are "straight out of the camera" images on dpreview for this purpose.

Nick

"John Doe" writes:

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.

It's true it's hard to get into a DSLR on this kind of budget.
Certainly not new equipment.

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.

I don't think a flatbed scanner is a decent choice for 35mm work.
There are resolution issues, film flatness issues, density issues, and
range issues.

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.

But you learn a lot more, without the trouble and expense and *time*
of setting up your own darkroom. Because in digital you're
essentially doing your own "darkroom work" on the computer in
photoshop. You also get better prints, since you're not dependent on
the automation or the technicians in the lab to make aesthetic
choices.

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.

But you *do* have to worry about film wastage, because money is
limited.

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 )

Don't you have zoom in playback? I can zoom in on the LCD plenty well
enough to check focus. Do you have histogram display? That'll tell
you all you need to know about exposure, with a little practice. And
you can tell if you caught the expression you were going for.

With things like kittens playing, musicians, that kind of very active
subject, I probably throw away half what I shoot in the field, and
some more on the computer at home (I rarely throw away anything just
because I have a "better" one; I throw away the ones that aren't
usable for anything).

I can also do things like hold the camera at arm's length, guessing
where it's pointed, repeatedly until I get it right. I've done that
with film, but I can crop tighter in digital because I can tell when I
finally get it right. (Twistable LCD screens on consumer cameras help
a lot with this, but DSLRs don't have live preview so I'm guessing
still.)
--
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:

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.

It's true it's hard to get into a DSLR on this kind of budget.
Certainly not new equipment.

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.

I don't think a flatbed scanner is a decent choice for 35mm work.
There are resolution issues, film flatness issues, density issues, and
range issues.

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.

But you learn a lot more, without the trouble and expense and *time*
of setting up your own darkroom. Because in digital you're
essentially doing your own "darkroom work" on the computer in
photoshop. You also get better prints, since you're not dependent on
the automation or the technicians in the lab to make aesthetic
choices.

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.

But you *do* have to worry about film wastage, because money is
limited.

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 )

Don't you have zoom in playback? I can zoom in on the LCD plenty well
enough to check focus. Do you have histogram display? That'll tell
you all you need to know about exposure, with a little practice. And
you can tell if you caught the expression you were going for.

With things like kittens playing, musicians, that kind of very active
subject, I probably throw away half what I shoot in the field, and
some more on the computer at home (I rarely throw away anything just
because I have a "better" one; I throw away the ones that aren't
usable for anything).

I can also do things like hold the camera at arm's length, guessing
where it's pointed, repeatedly until I get it right. I've done that
with film, but I can crop tighter in digital because I can tell when I
finally get it right. (Twistable LCD screens on consumer cameras help
a lot with this, but DSLRs don't have live preview so I'm guessing
still.)
--
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:

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.

It's true it's hard to get into a DSLR on this kind of budget.
Certainly not new equipment.

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.

I don't think a flatbed scanner is a decent choice for 35mm work.
There are resolution issues, film flatness issues, density issues, and
range issues.

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.

But you learn a lot more, without the trouble and expense and *time*
of setting up your own darkroom. Because in digital you're
essentially doing your own "darkroom work" on the computer in
photoshop. You also get better prints, since you're not dependent on
the automation or the technicians in the lab to make aesthetic
choices.

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.

But you *do* have to worry about film wastage, because money is
limited.

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 )

Don't you have zoom in playback? I can zoom in on the LCD plenty well
enough to check focus. Do you have histogram display? That'll tell
you all you need to know about exposure, with a little practice. And
you can tell if you caught the expression you were going for.

With things like kittens playing, musicians, that kind of very active
subject, I probably throw away half what I shoot in the field, and
some more on the computer at home (I rarely throw away anything just
because I have a "better" one; I throw away the ones that aren't
usable for anything).

I can also do things like hold the camera at arm's length, guessing
where it's pointed, repeatedly until I get it right. I've done that
with film, but I can crop tighter in digital because I can tell when I
finally get it right. (Twistable LCD screens on consumer cameras help
a lot with this, but DSLRs don't have live preview so I'm guessing
still.)
--
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/