New digital cam or new good lens for film cam?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Sacher, Dec 9, 2005.

  1. Sacher

    Sacher Guest

    Hello all,
    I am in two minds about continuing with my film camera. I have a Canon
    EOS66 SLR camera, with very normal 28-80, 80-200 and a 50mm lens
    collection. I wanted to specialize in some area of photography and
    finally I choose macro(because I do not travel much and I am a
    beginner. With macro, the opportunity is just around you. At least,
    that is what I believe now). And I fix the lens as Tamron 90mm 1:1
    macro. It costs around Rs.18,000/- in India.

    Now, with this Rs18,000/-, I can buy a somewhat good digital cam. It
    can have very long zoom, may be having IS. But it will not be an SLR.
    And I think carrying around an SLR something cool.

    I do not know what I should do. Should I go to digital or should I
    stick to my film cam and buy the new Tamron? Is the normal macro
    available in digital camers 1:1?

    Please help me take a decision.
    Thanks
    Sacher
     
    Sacher, Dec 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sacher

    tendim Guest

    I find that the decision to migrate from film to digital is completely
    personal. If you like the results of your camera, I say gowith the
    Tamron, or another equivalent macro lens. If you make the switch to
    digital, keep in mind that you are tossing out all of your initial
    investment (unless you get an EOS DSLR). This move has nothing to do
    with the area that you want to focus in (you want to focus on Macro
    photography, why are you even considering switching?); if you are
    thinking of switching to digital from analog then thinking of focusing
    on a specific field of photography (Macro in your case) at the same
    time is a bad idea.

    In short: stay film, invest all the money in a good macro lens, don't
    forget to get a macro flash (ring flash), and have fun! The only
    downside to Canon EOS macro is I don't think they have a bellows unit
    (yet!).
     
    tendim, Dec 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Sacher

    Scott W Guest

    It is hard to say which way you should go. But one thing to keep in
    mind is that with macro photography you have a very small FOV,
    sometimes being able to take lost of shots can be a big help.

    I took this yesterday, this little guy was on a web that was blowing in
    the wind making it very hard to keep in focus, I took 22 shots of it
    and got a couple in good focus.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/53345360/original

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Dec 9, 2005
    #3
  4. "making it very hard to keep in focus, I took 22 shots of it
    and got a couple in good focus. "

    that's what I find is one of the advantages of digital.
    you could take _many_ shots of the same thing, and keep
    2 or 3 and not have to pay to develop a whole roll of throw aways.
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Dec 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Sacher

    Sacher Guest

    Thanks for the suggestions. My confusion is about the quality of
    images produced by the digital cameras. See, for the price of the
    Tamron 1:1 macro lens(which is the cheapest available in this segment),
    you can get a good ZLR type digicam with mega zoom and macro mode. Is
    the macro mode available with this type of cameras at par with the
    image quality we expect from a prime lens?
    Anybody compared the results in this area already?
     
    Sacher, Dec 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Yes.

    The lens takes the picture.
    No zoom is as good as an excellent prime lens.
     
    Chris Loffredo, Dec 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Sacher

    no_name Guest

    No.
     
    no_name, Dec 13, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.