Back to film or stay digital

Your thoughts would be most welcome (sorry for the long post)...

When I could first afford a 'proper' camera (Chinon CE4 35mm SLR)
about 20 years ago, film was the only choice. Over the years I bought
more gadgets and lenses to go with my camera until I had a bag full.
The problems was, I got fed up of carrying around so much stuff; it
distracted from what I wanted to do which was to take pictures. So I
gradually stopped using it.

A few years back I bought a digital camera (a Kodak DC280) in an
attempt to rekindle my interest. I like digital for some things, it's
immeadiacy is very good. But because of my disappointment with the
limitations of digital I never really got back into taking pictures
for pleasure.

Now I'm feeling the urge again but can't decide which way to go. I
want a camera for good quality general photography, some landscape,
some action, some interior. I have set a maximum budget of £350 for
the whole set-up (I have a good PC and photo-quality printer already).
I've also decided that if I go film I will start again, disposing of
any existing kit (Pentax K mount lenses).

I've been suprised at the current film lenses you can get, 28-200's
were not an option a few years ago. On the film side I've identified
the Minolta Dynaxx5 as a good body, coupled to something like a Sigma
or Tamron 28-200 lens. And it comes within budget. And it will do most
nearly all I want.

On the digital side I've yet to find anything at the price which I
think is anywhere near as good as my film choice.

I find a number of irritations with digital cameras...

1. Response time - very few people quote the response time of the
camera or, more importantly, the cycle time. A few reviews derive
figures and to be honest they are very uninspring. A couple of frames
a second for a maximum of a couple of frames seems to be normal
(ignoring 'film' modes). The Dynaxx5 will do nearly 3 fps for a whole
36-exp roll by contrast.

2. Inbuilt flash - given that I want to get away from the 'gadget bag
stuffed full' approach most digital cameras seem to offer about 2.5m
at ISO100, fine for a 'snap' but not much else (the dynaxx5 says 12m
at ISO100).

3. Lenses - ignoring digital zoom, most digital cameras have a limited
zoom range. I imagine that a 28-200 will cover 95% of any pictures,
I'm not aware of any digital cameras with such a coverage.

4. Battery life - nuff said.

Re-reading the above, I suspect I've answered my own concerns and will
go with a 35mm film camera but I'm always open to other peoples
opinions.

I also suspect that at the lower (ie less than £1000) end of the
market there is not much point in asking 'Film or Digital' they are
two very different tools offering two very different feature sets.

Thanks for reading this far.

Brian
--
Brian Fairchild
B dot Fairchild at Dial dot Pipex dot Com

"But apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"


Brian Fairchild

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:07:47 +0100, Brian Fairchild
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Re-reading the above, I suspect I've answered my own concerns and will
>go with a 35mm film camera but I'm always open to other peoples
>opinions.
Sounds as if you have. My present compromise is to get a Photo CD
every time I have my film processed.

Photo CD costs:
Kodak (through Tescos) £5
Klick (Scotland only) £2
I cannot fault either of these as far as image quality is concerned
but the Kodak prints that accompany the CDs are better than those
printed by Klick

P

Brian Fairchild <(E-Mail Removed)> spake thusly to the assembled
multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:

>Your thoughts would be most welcome (sorry for the long post)...
>

[..]

>A few years back I bought a digital camera (a Kodak DC280) in an
>attempt to rekindle my interest. I like digital for some things, it's
>immeadiacy is very good. But because of my disappointment with the
>limitations of digital I never really got back into taking pictures
>for pleasure.
>
>Now I'm feeling the urge again but can't decide which way to go. I
>want a camera for good quality general photography, some landscape,
>some action, some interior. I have set a maximum budget of £350 for
>the whole set-up (I have a good PC and photo-quality printer already).
>I've also decided that if I go film I will start again, disposing of
>any existing kit (Pentax K mount lenses).

If theyt are genuine Pentax then I'd say why? And if you have a Pentax 24mm
you don't want, I think we could do a deal...

>I've been suprised at the current film lenses you can get, 28-200's
>were not an option a few years ago. On the film side I've identified
>the Minolta Dynaxx5 as a good body, coupled to something like a Sigma
>or Tamron 28-200 lens. And it comes within budget. And it will do most
>nearly all I want.

Be wary of zooms with big ranges - unless quality is not a concern. If you
want to avoid a bag full of glass, get a wide-angle zoom (say 28-50) and a
tele (80-200). And bear in mind that the lenses the big names sell as
standard on their consumer cameras are cheap and, being polite, are
unrepresentative of the quality of lenses sold separately.

One thing you might want to consider is to follow the route I've taken and
that's to acquire a stack of good-quality used 35mm gear on Ebay. For a
similar outlay, you could get yourself a really top-notch camera from a few
years back- if you are prepared to forego things like autofocus and other
modern conveniences.

>On the digital side I've yet to find anything at the price which I
>think is anywhere near as good as my film choice.

Likewise. And it takes some of the fun away as you don't get the chance to
experiment with different film types.


>Thanks for reading this far.
>
>Brian

In a flurry of electrons Julian Barkway spake thus:

>Brian Fairchild <(E-Mail Removed)> spake thusly to the assembled
>multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
>>Your thoughts would be most welcome (sorry for the long post)...
>
snip
>>
>>Now I'm feeling the urge again but can't decide which way to go. I
>>want a camera for good quality general photography, some landscape,
>>some action, some interior. I have set a maximum budget of £350 for
>>the whole set-up (I have a good PC and photo-quality printer already).
>>I've also decided that if I go film I will start again, disposing of
>>any existing kit (Pentax K mount lenses).
>
>If theyt are genuine Pentax then I'd say why? And if you have a Pentax 24mm
>you don't want, I think we could do a deal...

Unfortunately they're not genuine Pentax. Also looking around there
appear to be very few camera bodies which still use Pentax A mount
lenses.

>>I've been suprised at the current film lenses you can get, 28-200's
>>were not an option a few years ago. On the film side I've identified
>>the Minolta Dynaxx5 as a good body, coupled to something like a Sigma
>>or Tamron 28-200 lens. And it comes within budget. And it will do most
>>nearly all I want.
>
>Be wary of zooms with big ranges - unless quality is not a concern. If you
>want to avoid a bag full of glass, get a wide-angle zoom (say 28-50) and a
>tele (80-200). And bear in mind that the lenses the big names sell as
>standard on their consumer cameras are cheap and, being polite, are
>unrepresentative of the quality of lenses sold separately.

Thanks for that idea I must admit I hadn't considered getting a good
wide-angle zoom and a seperate tele zoom, time to go web-surfing. I've
decided to buy just the camera body and then pick a good lenses
seperately whatever I do.

>One thing you might want to consider is to follow the route I've taken and
>that's to acquire a stack of good-quality used 35mm gear on Ebay. For a
>similar outlay, you could get yourself a really top-notch camera from a few
>years back- if you are prepared to forego things like autofocus and other
>modern conveniences.
>
>>On the digital side I've yet to find anything at the price which I
>>think is anywhere near as good as my film choice.
>
>Likewise. And it takes some of the fun away as you don't get the chance to
>experiment with different film types.

--
Brian Fairchild
B dot Fairchild at Dial dot Pipex dot Com

"But apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"