Back to 35mm!

18 replies [Last post]
Andy Martin
Offline
Joined: Aug 30 2000

I purchased a Minolta Dimage 7 digital camera last year and have been using it regularly for the last 15 months. During this time I have fought with a viewfinder which I can only describe as 'apalling', an exposure control system which seems to have a (very inconsitant) will of its own and the consumption of batteries at an astonishing rate. The picture quality (when in focus and correctly exposed) is certainly no better than a cheap 35mm compact camera!

The Dimage is going-up on Ebay within the week and I'm returning to my trusty 35mm SLR complete with brilliant viewfinder, trusty exposure system and decent battery. I'm putting the money from the Dimage towards a Nikon Coolscan 4000!

Has anyone else made the return journey to 35mm after trying digital?

harlequin
harlequin's picture
Offline
Joined: Aug 16 2000

i still use 35mm for anything other than a shot i need immediately.
my canon eos takes far better shots compared to all the digital cameras we have , but you do need the 'processing' time.

Gary MacKenzie

sepulce@hotmail.com ( an account only used for forum messages )

Thinkserver TS140 , 750ti Graphics card  & LG 27" uws led backlight , Edius 8

Humax Foxsat HD Pvr / Humax Fox T2 dvbt

Keitht
Offline
Joined: Jan 8 2001

I have recently purchased an HP photosmart 850. It has 8x optical zoom and 4mp resolution. For all that it is still in my view little more than a £400 point and shoot. It is useful when we are out walking but when we go on holiday to the Canadian Rockies in August it will only be used as a backup to my 'proper' camera.

------------------
Regards

Keith

Regards Keith

John Farrar
Offline
Joined: Sep 13 2000

It will be some time before I am convinced that digital can replace a half decent slr and film scanner. My Minolta Dynax5 with a Tamron 28-200mm lens and Nikon Coolscan IVED will knock spots off a digital camera costing 3 times the price. IMHO
John

tom hardwick
Offline
Joined: Apr 8 1999

Andy - you might like to refresh with a post I put here:
http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000262.html

I started the ball rolling with this....

Just back from photographing a wedding. Took 750 pictures. All on a Minolta Dimage7. What a perfectly horrible camera. Got through 3 sets of hi cap NiM H batteries. Nasty viewfinder, obstructive download time, lazy autofocus, floppy lens. I lost so MANY shots because the camera was "busy" doing other things. Like getting hot enough to burn my right hand. A lot of money for something that seems at least 20 years older than my 1995 EOS.
But that makes it the age of the EF, and it's not a patch on that camera.
£790? No thanks. Never again. It's the lightening speed of a film camera for me.
tom.

Keitht
Offline
Joined: Jan 8 2001

The major positive from digital that I have found is the accuracy of colour reproduction as opposed to transparencies and scanning. I have needed to do minimal colour tweeking on digital. That doesn't come close to outweighing the othe disadvantages though.

------------------
Regards

Keith

Regards Keith

buckers
Offline
Joined: Nov 10 2000

There are so many positives to digital cameras, hence their pace of sales. I'd never use a camera that doesn't allow you to see the results straight away, my kids think it's funny when my mum takes a photo and they can't see it !

IMO digital cameras are a new device in their own right, and should not be compared to traditional film but should be judged on their own merits. I've never had a 'chemical camera', so I happily use my digital (my 3rd) without constantly referring back to kit I have owned in the past.

My current camera can take 900 photos on a memory card, and I have filled this on trips with only one battery change (4x quality NiMH AA).

It does sound like the Dimage7 is a crock of sh*te, but I think it's unfair to tar all digitals with the same brush.

Adam

andrewh
Offline
Joined: Oct 4 1999

You have to compare like with like, not price with price. The current champion of "affordable" digital cameras is the Canon 10D. Use that and then decide whether you will go back to 35mm with all the processing and scanning.

I am going to go digital this summer. I will either buy a Canon G5 or a 10D with a 16-? lens. Much though I like the idea of the 10D I do feel that I would use the G5 much more. It is simply a matter of portability but with things like off camera flash.
Decision soon.

Andrew

Wayne Moule
Offline
Joined: Jun 2 2001

For some reason,Compact Digital Cameras can take Macro shots without a seperate dedicated lens,that's an advantage to me.

I did though,go back to a Samsung Compact for the same reasons,poor battery life,limited dear memory and awkward focusing,especially Macro pictures via an LCD screen that hardly shows up in bright light.

However,recent new models do look better,with cheaper memory,longer battery life and EVF's,for centering of the subject.

I am thinking of getting a Fuji 2800,as they come out well in reviews and my mate has a couple of Fuji's,one recently being the S602,which are great.

SLR's are ok,but are bigger and can't do Macro's close enough for me,without me spending £100's on a dedicated lens.

g3vbl
Offline
Joined: Sep 9 2000

The Canon 10D looks great and it's cheaper than its predecessor too. If only it had a full-frame (35mm) size sensor so that you didn't need 16- and the usual 28- was fine.... then I'd finally give up the EOS.

Having said that, I learned many years ago that a compact (Canon AF-35M in those days) was great because you got photographs when you couldn't have been bothered to carry the SLR and all the lenses etc.

The Canon lens on my digital compact has horrid barrel/pincushion distortion but it's correctable with plug-ins in Photoshop and I am prepared to carry it over (very) difficult terrain, whereas I might not wish to carry the SLR. Compact Flash memory is so cheap these days and 1GB weighs far less than the equivalent in film. What's more, it doesn't need refrigeration.

My main gripe about digital compacts, and I haven't tried the digital SLRs, is the 'variable response elastic band' which almost always connects the shutter to the shutter release.

Chris

Gavin Gration
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 1999

I guess if the quality of my photographs was critical I wouldn't be using digital(note I didn't say the quality of my photography!).

For me DSCs have brought 3 benefits:-

1) I make regular money selling digital photos - that's why I bought the first DSC.

2) I've got loads a cracking pictures of my family growing-up with no film costs - I'd never have shelled out for the film.

3) I taught myself a LOT about stills photography in a short space of time.

Despite my early enthusiasm for it I don't think I'd take on a wedding with my kit but equally I wouldn't have the bottle to shoot it on film either.

Going back to a compact DSC from a DLSR takes some getting used to but I still excercise the Oly C3000Z every now and then - in fact I did a little job with it a couple of weeks ago.

The only 2 downsides for me are that since I've been bitten by the bug and keep buying those pesky photography magazines and DPReview gives me a prolonged-stare induced headache

Gavin

Andy Martin
Offline
Joined: Aug 30 2000

As an update to this thread, I had my Minolta 7 stolen over summer while on holiday in France. The insurance company offered to buy a replacement 7HI(they don't seem to pay out in cash anymore)but I declined.

In the end, having compared, many different cameras in the same price range, I opted for a Sony Cybershot DSCF717. The build quality is good, the viewfinder very much preferable to the Minolta, the lens is great and the pictures seem excellent.

Possibly an odd, or even ecentric choice, but I am pleased with my decision!

lesreeves
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2001

Looking at some of the "pro" 35mm comments reminded me of a site i viewed recently.

My Canon S50 captures in raw format which means whilst the images are larger in file size, they are without any camera processing lossing the image.

The site I mentioned earlier (breezebrowser) has software to convert to jpeg (or whatever) *after* you have played with the image. (Yes you can do this in photoshop - but this is better)

On the site, you will see a photo of a church which looks like it was taken at night. It is hopelessly underexposed. Using this software, it brought it back from the dead. Whatever the merrits of 35mm that might still remain (and I doubt there are many now), there is no doubt that digital is now winning the camera war at present as sales back up. For the most its because they have a PC and cheap colour printer and a new gadget toy, but there is a very serious edge to digital now. I just wished I had sold my Cano EOS500 a while back while it still had some value. At least I will be able to use the EF USM zoom lense when I *eventually* buy into SLR with the 300D looking to be the likely candidate. However.....thats for the future and further price drops before I can justify the expense.

Les

Keitht
Offline
Joined: Jan 8 2001

The arrival of the Canon 300D has certainly made me sit up and look. I currently use a Canon EOS50E with a 24 - 85mm zoom and 75-300 zoom. Getting the extra magnification at the top end will certainly be advantageous but even the lens provided with the 300D has a 35mm equivalent of about 29mm at the wide end. I waited a long time to be able to afford a good wide angle and the thought of losing that really puts me off at present. Naturally being able to use the lenses at all is a very big plus.
I strongly suspect I will go digital within the next couple of years but not just yet.

------------------
Regards

Keith

Regards Keith

Alan Roberts at work
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

I know this isn't really relevant to the thread, but it is relevant to the title of it. DCI (the importing agent for Discovery in the US) will happily accept digitial stills for publicity purposes, but only if they're shot with a camera having 10Mpixels or more. So for practical and economic purposes, that means 35mm.

JMCP
Offline
Joined: Nov 21 2000

Hi Alan,

there are digital slr's out there that could satisfy those requirements, they are the Canon 1Ds which has a resolution of 11 mega pixels or a Kodak 14n what has a resolution of 14 mega pixels.

Cheers John

Alan Roberts at work
Offline
Joined: May 6 1999

Yes, I know, but I said for "practical and economic" reasons. 35mm photograpghy is an awful lot cheaper than those beasties, for the present.

JMCP
Offline
Joined: Nov 21 2000

If I were in the business of selling my pictures to media companies then I can't think of anything more practical than using digital cameras, even if it did mean having to shell out £4K - £6k for them.

As for economy, after a certain period of time depending on usage I'm sure these high end digital camera's would work out just as cheap if not cheaper than traditional high end camera's. But, since I'm not in that business I'm probably completely wrong.

Cheers John

Robert Charles
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2002

I am a Semi-professional photographer and have always had Canon EOS cameras. My first being the EOS600, then Eos5, then Eos3 and if I was going to go digital, yes, you've guessed it, now a Canon 10D, mostly because I have the Canon Lenses. Whilst I agree with the comments about the flexibility and costs of the digital prints, I do not take the most important bread and butter shots with it as yet. I use it for fill shots because you can easily rattle off hundreds of prints, which if you were using film, would be expensive. Main group and portrait shots are still on 35mm. I find the results of the Canon 10D prints to be a little soft, especially when you enlarge them.

I let my kids use the 10D as well, (brave of me you might think!! I make them use the strap around their neck!!) cos I know it's not really costing me much. I will be getting them a Cheap digital Camera to increase their enjoyment of taking pictures with out the Processing and film costs.

Digital is here to stay, but for now, Professional prints (for me at least) will still be taken on the 35mm. Besides, when you take a digital pictures, you end up tweaking it all the time to get it just right in Photoshop before printing. When you take your 35mm rolls of film to a dedicated professional lab who know your style and photo output preferences, they print them to the best results. This is a lot of time saved and as the old saying goes, "Time is money”!!

Robert.