which type of camera is better, a digital SLR or a 35mm SLR?

Question

I'm just looking for the pros and cons for each type of camera.

Answer 1

There are many opinions going both ways on this. I will say neither is better, they are just different. I have shot on film for many years, and I switched to digital for the ease and convenience. But you just can't beat the look of film. There's just something about it that's more real. Plus, as long as you store your negatives or slides properly, they will give you a lasting file that won't be digitally corrupted or accidentally deleted. And you won't lose them in a computer crash.

Digital gives quicker feedback on results, and as long as you remember to back up all your image files, you can store them in very little actual space. You won't have to worry about scratches or dust on negatives (although your camera's sensor can get dusty).

Answer 2

For really learning about photography - f-stops and shutter speeds and ISO and composition and lighting - a totally manual 35mm film SLR is best. Using a film camera will also teach you to slow down and actually think about the scene before you release the shutter.

I recommend this book often: "Object & Image: An Introduction To Photography, Third Edition" by George M. Craven.

Once you've really learned the aforementioned concepts you'll probably want to switch to digital. At least you'll know what you're doing and how to actually take advantage of the features and benefits of a DSLR.

My knock on digital cameras is that they, IMO, encourage what I call "machinegun photography" - take 300, 400 exposures and hope 10% of them are worth keeping. Or spend hours at your computer with an editing program trying to make a mediocre image into an acceptable one.

I'll use the words of one responder, Michael Pterisori to reinforce this: "... while the other guys have finished filling their 4gb memory cards in less than a minute." Obviously no thought at all could go into performing such a feat. A chimpanzee could do that and anyone impressed by it knows as much about photography as the chimp - perhaps less.

Answer 3

35mm has very nice colours if you're using slide film.
It does have the extra step in the developing process however which is developing the film. You can then scan in your slides/negatives with a scanner and work digitally but the extra step can be frustrating.

Some people argue that the 35mm film camera is being phased out but until digital mp are drastically increased (they are reaching over 12 atm which is awesome) then I don't think that will quite happen. Digital also has to work on truer colours.

Digital can be a little confusing for people that find technology overwhelming but it really needs to be known as easy and simple. It's very convenient.

35mm cameras seem to be more reliable, and unbreakable compared to digital. You might find after a year or two that red spots appear on your viewer, or greens become out of alignment. These things can be fixed but I never had to get my 35mm repaired anywhere near as much as my digital cameras.
Digital also goes out of date quite fast. for example, they now have 5mp cameras on phones, when 5 years ago they were the standard.

However digital cameras are the new thing. And although they have a few cons, if you get something up to date, you'll never cease to amaze with it. Digitals definately are good because of their convenience and ease of use. 35mm have been debugged over the last few decades but are becoming increasingly more difficult to get film for and to find good developers/printers. There's a place in the world for both. But don't expect to see the 35mm around excessively in 20 years. They'll probably be more like novelties.

Hope this helps

Answer 4

My wife is professional photographer and has worked for many of the top studios in our area Philadelphia. She has mostly 35mm Camera's and is just now getting into digital. She always says that what ever you can do with digital you can do with film better even though digital is more of a convenience and the pictures you can get are good. The art is lost a little in the process. I have to agree with her when I see her work shot with film over digital I must say I give digital a second place.

Answer 5

it depends on your price range, the upper end digitals are the way to go imho. They are very much the same as a 35mm but can hold 1000's of pictures at a time.

Answer 6

depends they are both great

dslrs give noise, slrs dont

i can get 2gb scans off my 35mmm transparencies, can get files that size off dslrs yet

dslrs are the future no doubt, once they sort the noise out

as ace said some clients only want transparent film they know its one scam from digital and superiour for high res printing

for convienence dslr cant be beat,

a

Answer 7

A SLR IS A SLR no substitute
a 35mm slr does not exist.fake slr's
a slr has 3, maybe 4 differnt types of stabilizer, meaning that if ur busy takin a pic of ur car, during an earthquake, you will have a perfect picture

with a fake slr you will be stuck in the corner, trying to turn it on, while the other guys have finished filling their 4 gb memory cards with pics in less than 1 minute.

Answer 8

HI
THE SLR IS beter
http://www.thegreatguys.com/servlet/the-6012/Rebel-XTi-Digital-SLR/Detail?sfs=1b929e1f

Answer 9

Digital is sooooo convenient for me, and quality is as good as film for my use.

not to mention digital editing.


Which of you is the limp wristed puke face that gave me a negative for submitting my opinion?