Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to Europe for three weeks in May. I have been debating to myself and to a few friends. They think I'm crazy for wanting a nice 35mm camera for this trip. Along with my digital point and shoot cameras I'm taking, I want a nice mid level 35mm camera to take along for scenic shots for the Alps. I know that it is going to be a lot of work for taking one along and taking a film camera with me. I love the 35mm's for the quality of prints they take. The other part of me would like to get a DSLR for this trip but they are so expensive. I found a few places online where I can get a 35mm camera set up with a couple of lenses for the price of a DSLR body only. What do you think?
I can't tell you what you should do, but consider this:
Eventually, 35mm will disappear, it might not be very soon, but it will happen.
35mm indeed has higher quality vs. digital
Consider convenience of DSLR vs. film, you can preview/delete shots that are not so perfect, but you know that already as you own digital P&S. Money saving with DSLR is a big plus (film develpment, etc) vs. film
Of course, it all depends on your preference and cost that comes with owning either lens. Everyone is into "digital world" right now, people prefer convenience over cost.
If this is your once in a life time opportunity, i would buy a lot of film to take with me and keep on shooting!
Well I disagree with Shepsmom. Film will never ever go away. The tonal quality you get with film is better. And a lot of professionals still use film. Even if you get the DSLR I would still take the film camera. I always do, I use both when photographing the mountains in North Carolina. And be sure you use a tripod!
Well, I have to agree and disagree with the above posters concerning quality of digital images. Can digital be better than film? Yes---if you buy a very high quality digital camera such as a Nikon D3 or D300 or Canon 5D or 1D mk3 (I think that's the number, I own Nikon). I have seen images printed up to 40"x60" from all these cameras and they are indistinguishable from film. However, a low, consumer level camera, while it can give you a nice image, is no comparison for film. So it's up to you and your budget as to whether you can get the image quality of film with a dslr.
As for professionals using film, I think you'll find that most have either already switched to digital or are in the process of switching to digital. Most pros I know have switched to digital long ago. And I know pros in wedding, portrait, photojournalism, magazine and book work and hollywood film pros. They are all into digital now. But then again, they can afford the top of the line cameras and optics.
Film or digital, you will have a great time and get wonderful photos!
Well, I have to agree and disagree with the above posters concerning quality of digital images. Can digital be better than film? Yes---if you buy a very high quality digital camera such as a Nikon D3 or D300 or Canon 5D or 1D mk3 (I think that's the number, I own Nikon). I have seen images printed up to 40"x60" from all these cameras and they are indistinguishable from film. However, a low, consumer level camera, while it can give you a nice image, is no comparison for film. So it's up to you and your budget as to whether you can get the image quality of film with a dslr.
As for professionals using film, I think you'll find that most have either already switched to digital or are in the process of switching to digital. Most pros I know have switched to digital long ago. And I know pros in wedding, portrait, photojournalism, magazine and book work and hollywood film pros. They are all into digital now. But then again, they can afford the top of the line cameras and optics.
Film or digital, you will have a great time and get wonderful photos!
Agree with you Canon reached the image quality of a 35mm film a year or two ago, and Nikon has done the same. These two companies will soon get into the medium format cameras. In fact, I believe that one of the EU companies already has a medium format digital camera, but it costs a fortune.
Hmmm only one thing I don't see mentioned here: The risk of air line security xray scanning RUINING exposed films. I don't care WHAT speed the film is, I process films for a living and have seen virtually EVERY speed of film out there ruined by security scans...
Unless you're absolutely secure in the knowledge, that the security check points will honor your request and NOT send your exposed films through, I'd take a decent DSLR, and a P&S digital. In some airports, they don't care, everything gets scanned and that's that....
I've just seen it happen much too often.....that's all. I'm not saying it happens every single time.
If you want to use film, have it processed BEFORE returning....the scans won't hurt negatives at all. Or ship the films home, and get them done when you return, but ask the shipper, if the films will be subjected to xray scans.
Research your camera well. We took a 35mm Minolta Range finder to Europe some years ago, it cost under $200. It was fast and light so the photo of the unique building we past while on the tour bus actually came out clear and in focus, most digitals have a delay in exposure. This particular camera had a built in 50 foot flash that could take photos of cathedral ceilings and be held easy on your wrist. SLRs are always bouncing around your neck, put a telephoto on and its twice as heavy. A name brand digital range finder can take photos of flowers then a telephoto of a bird in a tree, turn it off and it's back in your shirt pocket. What ever camera you might think you would want search it on the internet reviews. That's how I chose my 35mm minolta. The 50 foot flash sold me, but I searched reviews several ways to make sure 50 foot was correct. It is the best camera I've got, better, lighter, faster then any of my Leicas.
While point and shoot digitals have a shutter delay, ALL dslr have their shutter delay measured in milliseconds, I believe that the delay on my Nikon D300 is 40 milliseconds, that's 40/1000 of a second. Don't think that would cause much problems while shooting something such as your building being passed on a bus.
While it certainly could be said that the ease of a point and shoot is important, and I do carry a digital one when I travel as well as my other cameras, I don't think it's fair to compare the quality of one against a good dslr.
As for a built in flash, they certainly are handy, however I'd like a camera that could take a photo of that cathedral ceiling without resorting to flash.
While point and shoot digitals have a shutter delay, ALL dslr have their shutter delay measured in milliseconds, I believe that the delay on my Nikon D300 is 40 milliseconds, that's 40/1000 of a second. Don't think that would cause much problems while shooting something such as your building being passed on a bus.
While it certainly could be said that the ease of a point and shoot is important, and I do carry a digital one when I travel as well as my other cameras, I don't think it's fair to compare the quality of one against a good dslr.
As for a built in flash, they certainly are handy, however I'd like a camera that could take a photo of that cathedral ceiling without resorting to flash.
Well yes. In 40/1000 = 4/100 = 1/25 sec. Do you hold your camera without a flash at that exposure? Of course you'd use a tripod. At 60 mph, 88 feet per second, you have moved 3.52 feet in 40/1000 of a sec. When you're shooting at 1,000 or 2,000 shutter speed your photo may be clear but the object is in the next window because bus has moved three feet by the time the shutter has released. I tried taking photos with my HP 945 at a motocross. I don't know what the delay is but it became a matter of timing on my part to get the rider in mid-air and a clear background.
You can do the same with a less expensive digital range finder that has digital flash and put it in your pocket rather then dangling around you neck or in a camera bag with another 6 lbs of equipment and lenses. If you're touring this weight gets annoying.
Just my opinion. A 6meg digital range finder would be my choice but my 35mm Minolta with zoom lense was great. The bus driver wanted to buy it from me but settled for the model name and number. My HP 945 is fantastic, don't like it for travel and it's a battery hog. It has a 7x Zoom with 8x digital zoom Fujinon for 56x total. A so so flash excellent for closeup, portrait, and a little farther in addition to the Digital Flash. Rechargeables in this camera last about 50 photos, if I'm lucky, alkalines are better. I understand Lithiums are the best. It takes forever to process some 5meg, digital flash, long exposure photos, fast chips don't help it's the processor.
Actually, yes I do hold my camera at 1/25 without a tripod and get sharp photos. In fact, I can hold it down to about 1/15 with no problem. I would think you'd have more problem framing a moving object with a viewfinder than worrying about the 1/25th (I'll go with your number, I'm not much for math) that the shutter lag would be. However, best would be to ask the bus driver to stop so you could take a fine photo with either camera I wouldn't even attempt to take a photo with any camera out a bus window at 60mph with any expectation of a totally sharp image (i.e. the foreground would be blurred).
As for weight, it all depends on whether your trip is a photo trip of a lifetime or you are just wanting to take some photos on a trip of a lifetime. It's all about your interests and whether the weight is worth putting up with to you.
Digital zoom is a joke, all you are doing is increasing the size of the pixels, you can only rely on optical zoom for a clear unadulterated image. Olympus makes a nice p&s with a 10x optical zoom that is really great.
As for the download time for an image over 6megs. That all depends on the camera you buy. In the case of my D300, I have never even noticed the download of a single image and they are 12.3 meg. Of course, shooting a bunch of images will make for a slower download, but then again, I can shoot up to a string of 100 shots before the buffer will download. And battery live is said to be 1000 shots (although I've never gone that long before recharging.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wouldn't even attempt to take a photo with any camera out a bus window at 60mph with any expectation of a totally sharp image (i.e. the foreground would be blurred). 
