digital or no?

[disx]

i'm about to start a photography class and i was wondering if i should go with digital or not? i thought maybe i should get an appreciation of a regular camera before playing with a digital but since they're just so much cheaper (no film, etc) and easier i don't know.. is it worth it? also, past that - what should i go with to start out on? i don't want to take photos of just birds or animals, so i'd need something fairly multi-purpose (i think i'll do mostly landscape/scenery type shots).. 35mm is the only requirement - any suggestions? thanks a bunch.

[Tannin]

There is no point at all in buying a film camera. It's probably sensible to start out with something modest. Fuji and Canon and Nikon all make nice cameras. Avoid Kodak at all costs. You might do well to keep your eye on the Bird Forum for sale column, as a retired digiscoping camera like a Coolpix 4500 for example would make an excellent little unit to learn your trade on. You can look at getting an SLR (if you want to go that far) later on - they won't have got any dearer.

[citrinella]

i'm about to start a photography class and i was wondering if i should go with digital or not? i thought maybe i should get an appreciation of a regular camera before playing with a digital but since they're just so much cheaper (no film, etc) and easier i don't know.. is it worth it? also, past that - what should i go with to start out on? i don't want to take photos of just birds or animals, so i'd need something fairly multi-purpose (i think i'll do mostly landscape/scenery type shots).. 35mm is the only requirement - any suggestions? thanks a bunch.
I was about to suggest Digital until I saw the 35mm requirement. To me that means film. There are digitals that are "equivalent" to 35mm, but they are ridiculously expensive for a beginner.

Check the class requirements.

If digital is acceptable, go digital, film is waning, it will soon be a very small niche, and film supply will be limited (particularly in variety).

If digital is not acceptable either find another class, or borrow or at worst buy cheap second hand kit (good 35mm second hand stuff is _very_ cheap).

Mike.

[russkie]

hi

all i can tell you is my experience. I started with semi- auto slr 30 years ago and vowed id never go autofocus when they came in, but finally caved in and bought a minolta dynax . God I thought that photography couldnt get any better. Stuck with that for 10 years or so and when digital came in i bought a small nikon - and was amazed at the simplicity and the quality, it became my camera of choice for holidays but not birding due to only 3x zoom.
then after joining BF this summer i decided to get a canon 350d.
every other photographic experience has faded into obscurity- digital slr is awesome. Im not advocating canon/nikon - that debate as been fought over elsewhere - im just saying that a good digi slr will blow your mind.
to be able to go out nad shoot 200+ frames and within minutes of arriveing home , download and tweak them and then print, instead of waiting a week to find out that only one or two are worth printing - well that is amazing.
also to be able to change "film" speeds at the touch of a button - awesome.
the quality , ease of use, overall saving in terms of running costs , and versatility ------ you gotta go digital.

sorry for the long post


Nigel

[madmike]

Hi disx,
At one time I would have said start with film, but frankly, digital is here to stay, and it's just a tool - so if you can, go digital. There are some new SLR's about for about £500, and probably £300 secondhand.
The cost of using film particularly when you are learning is quite unacceptable especially if you don't have to.
If you get a Pentax digital SLR you can use very cheap (but good) old lenses on it.

Good luck.

madmike :t:

[robski]

i'm about to start a photography class and i was wondering if i should go with digital or not? i thought maybe i should get an appreciation of a regular camera before playing with a digital but since they're just so much cheaper (no film, etc) and easier i don't know.. is it worth it? also, past that - what should i go with to start out on? i don't want to take photos of just birds or animals, so i'd need something fairly multi-purpose (i think i'll do mostly landscape/scenery type shots).. 35mm is the only requirement - any suggestions? thanks a bunch.

I would ask your class tutor because I know some courses still do film developing and processing as part of the course - otherwise just go for digital.

Robert

[greypoint]

Actually I'd probably say both. Film SLRs can be bought second hand these days for almost nothing - so if you can afford a DSLR [on a tight budget as a learning camera you could pick up a Canon D30 for under £200] and a couple of lenses add the same make film SLR and you can use the lenses on either. That way you can do most of your photography with digital and no film cost - but for a few pounds have a film camera body to put your lenses on if your course requires it.

[RAH]

I agree with all those who said "go digital." However, I believe that this is a VERY poor time to buy a DSLR. Next year, according to Popular Photography magazine, many manufacturers (Pentax, Konica, maybe Panasonic, etc) will be introducing new DSLRs, because they are losing their shirts with the flood of point-and-shoot lookalikes. And the mag says that most will have more megapixels (hopefully without more noise!).

Also, you don't have to be clairvoyant to know that Canon's 20D and even Rebel XT are starting to get old and will almost surely be replaced next year (esp the 20D). Plus, how much longer can Nikon keep selling those 6MP models??

So, yes, buy a point-and-shoot digital (if the "35mm" requirement doesn't stop you in your tracks and force you go film). I would recommend getting one that has full manual override (allows you to set the shutter speed and aperture manually), because in a class they are almost certain to have you try that at some point.