Cheapest alternative to a high-end DSLR is a film SLR?

Question

I've got a good point & shoot Digital camera and looking into a DSLR. I was checking out various boards for recommendations on getting a good deal on a DSLR. One photographer was thinking beyond the box so to speak, and said the best way to save money on a DSLR is to use a film SLR. Since I already have a Canon SLR with an excellent lens set, I'm thinking that using both cameras I already own (digital point & shoot and my Canon film SLR) can sure save me a lot of money. If I'm not going to go for a really high end DSLR (over $1,000 say), am I going to lose any quality with what the cameras I already own?

What I meant about investing in a $1,000 DSLR is that I'd rather not have to if it won't make all that much difference based on the two cameras I have now. My point & shoot digital works great for most situations and I can use my film SLR features for a lot of the features people buy the dslr's for.

Answer 1

Remember where the costs lie with film and digital. If you currently have a film SLR, you won't have any additional up front costs, but you will have ongoing costs of film, developing and printing. I live in Australia, and this works out to be about $15 per 24 exposure roll. You can only take about 65 rolls before you will have spent the same money as you might have for a good DSLR. Only you will know how long that will take.

In contrast, once you have purchased the DSLR, ongoing costs are minimal. There will be some printing costs, but you can be more selective about what you print. You can take almost unlimited shots and work out what to keep later.

As a comparison, I recently took a film SLR with me on holiday together with a point and shoot digital. I took about 17 rolls of film over six weeks, and about 500 digital images. In a similar period two years before I only took the point and shoot, and took over 1800 images. My good image ratio for film is about double that for digital, because I take more care with film to get everything right. With a digital, I will take brackets of five, rather than three, and take a series of shots when I am on a bus to get a single good shot. Leave aside the fact that there was almost no cost, compared to about $200 for developing and printing for film just for this trip.

I like the combination, but I'm not so sure that it is good economics.

Answer 2

It is not to say that people who use dSLR cameras are amatures by any means, but one of the biggest reasons why people who are new to photography appreciate the digital medium vs. film is because when you are learning you do make awful lot of mistakes which translates into lost money if you account for film, and developing costs.
If you are confident in your knowledge of photography, if you don't shoot very often with your film SLR then I would suggest if you want to get with the digital age, but are not so keen on investing in a digital camera then try a hybrid solution. That is get yourself a relatively decent scanner either an Epson flatbed with film scanning capabilies such as the 4990 or a dedicated Nikon film scanner. There are of course a lot of other options in terms of manufacturers and models, but these are my reccomendations. Like having a digital camera, part of the learning curve is learning a program like Adobe Photoshop so you may want to look for a scanner that is bundled with a stripped down version of Photoshop, Photoshop elements.
In terms of quality, most people aren't going to be able to distinguish the print difference between an image made by a 35mm SLR and an image made by a dSLR. On the other hand if you are say comparing a large print made by a 5x7 view camera vs. the best full frame dSLR, even an untrained eye can tell which camera produced the superior image. However this is not a debate as to whether digital or film technology is better,each is unique and there is a time and place for each format.
On a final note you don't have to invest $1000 on a new or at least good dSLR. If you go to Keh.com you could simply get yourself a used Nikon d-100 which was just a few years ago one of the best digital SLRs on the market and is still a decent camera if you don't intend on using it to make huge prints.

Answer 3

I recently took a photography lesson and rented an SLR camera. It's a lot of hassle to develop film and enlarge it etc. My close friend has a DSLR and it's so much easier to handle. But if you want one that's really great, spending a little over $1000 is fine and will result in a camera with good quality. I suggest you get a Canon which comes with a lot of special features. Investing in a Digital helps you to fix up your shots, too which can improve your work.

So, I would say go with the DSLR, unless you're more into the classic ways of photography. But don't worry because there's not much difference in the two picture wise, the DSLR just has a lot more memory and capability than the SLR.

Answer 4

Othere than extra features, there is not a huge difference between a high end DSLR and an entry level DSLR.

Since you are a Canon user, look into their line of Digital Rebels. An older model can be found for way under $1000, and might work with you existing EOS lenses from your film camera. If that works out...you've got a kick butt DSLR with a quality film backup.

Juyst something to think about.

Answer 5

Chocolate of vanilla? It should be decided on which type of camera you prefer working with. If you go with an SLR you will be getting film negatives or slides, both of which provide high resolution images that can stand quite a bit of enlargement. You also have the option of having you negs/slides scanned, either at home or professionally. At home, with a good scanner, you can easily equal a 8-11 megapixel camera. Professionally you can get a scan that far exceeds anything you can currently capture with a digital camera If you go with DSLR you will be getting a digital file. You have the option of taking your memory card to a store (walgreens, safeway, etc.) and getting a so-so quality print, taking it to a photo shop and getting a high quality print, or printing it yourself at home. If you decide to print at home then you will want a decent photo printer, or a good color printer that can print photo quality. You also will need to develop a system for filing/indexing your image files. There are many good pieces of software out there for this, and often the camera will come with the software included. It really comes down to personal preference. Do you prefer negatives and slides or do you prefer to have it all on your computer? One of the other posts says that manufacturers are going to stop making SLRs. My understanding is that this is not true. Some makes are planning on discontinuing SLRs, but not all. Also, while some films will be discontinued, they are certainly not going to disappear. There is still a market, and a need for SLR cameras and film.

Answer 6

I think DSLR's in the small format realm (i.e. 35mm) have reached the point where they are almost equal to their film counterparts. I don't think digital will ever surpass film, especially as you get into medium and large formats.

That said, I recently made the transition from film to digital, simply because of the convenience. I enjoy doing my own darkroom work, and with film -- especially color -- that involves a fair amount a equipment, not to mention a "dark" room (which I don't have). With digital, I can do my "darkroom" work on my computer. Also with digital, I can see my pictures immediately after shooting them and make any adjustments in the field to the exposure -- a luxury I don't have with film. (I know bracketing is always an option, but it uses a lot of film.)

If you're happy with your Canon film equipment, then by all means, stay with it. You can always get negatives and slides transferred into digital format. Part of the reason I decided to "go digital" was because my equipment is Nikon and all my manual Nikkor lenses will still work on my AF D200.

Answer 7

There is a big difference in the quality of exposure between an actual digital image and a scanned print. Any digital Prosumer (around $500USD) camera especially by Kodak is a good bridge camera from a P&S and a DSLR. You can even add lenses and filters to them.

Check out Kodack .com for the P850 or similar.

beaux

Answer 8

as far as "quality" is concerned, I think that you can't beat film for that.

i have never liked digital, simply because i feel it lacks the character that film does. plus, in 5 or 10 years, that film camera will still be good...your DSLR will probably be obsolete.

long live film!

Answer 9

you have two options

1. start using your SLR and shot tranparencies and buy a dedicated fim scanner

or

2. buy a DSLR canon and use the lenses you have if they are EOS mount

a