I didn't buy my camera recently. It is a Canon Rebel Ti from 2002. My dad keeps making fun of me for getting a film camera instead of a digital camera. Are film cameras not that good anymore? The reason I had gone film was because I thought that digital was never going to have the quality that real film would. Was this a stupid decision on my part?
2007-03-01 04:53:21 · 9 answers · asked by kirr45 1 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
Did you like the camera and get great shots? If yes, then you can't call it a bad decision.
You can always switch to digital now. Upgrade to a digital body that uses the same lenses that you are currently using on your Ti.
Film has its benefits. I switched to digital because of the high costs of processing the unknown.
2007-03-01 09:24:13 · answer #1 · answered by cdog_97 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it depends on what you as a photographer feel comfortable with. There is an art to film photography that I never grasped, yet something about my digital SLR makes me feel like I can take any picture I want. The technology is changing very rapidly also.... back in 2002, I would have been hesitant to buy a DSLR, as most were just coming out, they had a lot of bugs, and they were not as user friendly. Now however, the cameras have greatly improved, and the prices are reasonable. If I were you, I would save up for a DSLR, and then use both cameras. Some of the older Canon SLR lenses are able to be used on both digital and film... which might help you out on cost for a while.
2007-03-01 06:23:33 · answer #2 · answered by RzrLens 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a great camera. You get the same pictures a lot cheaper. I have a film rebel myself. I am crazy about it. Yes, I see people with digital. In my experience, digital pictures are often deleated or printed on substanderd paper. When you have it taken in to be be printed, you end up keeping them, and are glad you did later!
Digitals are neat, but I paid 50 bucks for a film rebel and a digital are around 700. And, digital is closing in on the quality of a film camera but not the battery life. I like to take star trails. Goggle that if you don't know what I mean. They are awsome time laps pictures of the stars that digital cameras often don't have the battery life to do.
2007-03-01 05:01:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you did not make a mistake - ESPECIALLY in 2002. We might have to talk about this if you bought that camera yesterday, but there was simply nothing even close to film quality for less than abotu $5,000 in 2002. Even today, you have to spend over $800-1,000 for a body alone to approach film quality. You could buy 4 or 5 Ti's for that. I always argue that film costs more money than digital (which it does), but you can buy a heck of a lot of film for $600-800 difference.
Enjoy your camera.
2007-03-01 05:20:01 · answer #4 · answered by Picture Taker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I switched from film to digital camera because the cost of film is too much.It cost me as much as an other camera in one year. I agree that the price if film camera is much cheaper than digital and it has better function than digital. And color of film is good too.
Both film and digital need "darkroom" to develop pictures. If you have your own film darkroom, you may develop good pictures for you (the way that you want). Film developed by other (Rite Aid, WalMart, etc) will come up the way you don't want. Some people, who don't have film darkroom), scan their film to digital files, do some color/contrst adjustment and print out.
If you don't have your own film darkroom, I suggest you go with digital and use computer as a "darkroom" to adjust pictures before printing. Most (or all) pro photographers do this. Photoshop is a powerful photo editor and it takes long time to learn to keep pictures look real (no fake).
2007-03-01 05:24:35 · answer #5 · answered by Henry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Quality film cameras STILL beat digital in quality of pics.
Also, there are some things digital speed is TOO SLOW to do.
My wife tried taking a picture of a hovering hummingbird with digital...wings a blur! Came out FINE with a 35mm using FAST film...
2007-03-01 05:05:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Film cameras are closing the gap and are basically as good as 35mm SLR cameras for everyday photography, but for professional-grade photography the 35mm SLR is still better. The advantage to a digital camera is you don't have to get any film developed and you can delete any pictures you don't like (with a film camera you have to get them ALL processed and won't see what they look like until you get them back from FotoMat or Wal-Mart or Walgreen's or wherever). I still have my Nikon N60 for the "artistic" stuff I like to do like nature photography and night photography -- can't do justice to any of that stuff with a digital camera unless you get one that costs a couple thousand dollars...
2007-03-01 05:02:55 · answer #7 · answered by sarge927 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even though I have a DSLR, I still use my SLR from time to time.
I do think the pictures that come out of it are better quality, but of course, there's a lot of convenience to digital.
2007-03-01 12:37:28 · answer #8 · answered by Rando 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
some people don't like digital at all and keep with film
and have the same quality then a dig
so if you are happy with your decision just don't take any notice at the rest
2007-03-01 05:00:26 · answer #9 · answered by Mar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋