35mm SLR or Digital SLR?

[bigunivers]

I've been using point-and-shoot digital cameras for the past 4+ years now. However, I'm getting ready to take a Basic Photography course and they require a 35mm camera.

My question is, should I borrow a 35mm from someone for this course instead of investing in a new 35mm camera (e.g. Canon Rebel)? Or, will I need the 35mm for anything else in the future that I cannot use a D-SLR for (e.g. Canon 10D)?

My interest is in nature photography and possibly selling large pictures (e.g. 20" x 24"). My fear is that I won't be using a 35mm beyond this course because I'm really interested in digital much more.

[jlpriestley]

I believe it was Kodak that came out a while back and said they were no longer going to be manufacturing film cameras. That in itself says a lot to me about the future of film cameras (yes there will always be a need and some demand to some extent). If you have access to a D-SLR I would borrow it and try it out. That way at least you won't have the typical buyers remorse one has after spending a large amount of money because you will know how much you want your own after using one (brief that remorse will be though after you use it!!) As for the class, check with the instructor -- I know of at least one that prefers to have film cameras used in the class vs. digital.

My $0.02. Good luck!

[jerrymeola]

I would check further about whether a film SLR is really necessary for the photo course.

The elements of composition, exposure, rule of 1/3s, contrast, lighting moods all are the same regardless of whether you shoot film or digital.

I often teach seminars and my regular photo course seminar always begins with the fact that there is no difference in the elements that make a good photo whether you use film of digital.

I think the teahcer of your course probably feels the same. He may discuss aspects of film that will not apply to digital but if you do not intend to shoot film not learning it will not cost you anything.

If he is not up on digital he will not discuss any of the technical problems that need to be considered in digital, but buying a film camera will not help you in this regards anyway.

Figure that if it is all about fim you may only get valaue from 75-80% of the course but it will be a good learning experience just the same.

As to your desire to shoot nature and print 20x24 good look. You have a lot of technical issues to learn and at pushing the limits of digital or even film for this size print. Good luck and go for it.

You need to learn to fill the frame as cropping at this size print is almost impossible. That means learning much patience and using blinds.

Focus must be perfect and no blur. Pros spend tens of thousands of dollars on image stablising lenses, high speed focus lenses and high capture rate (continuous) digital cameras (or less expsensive motorized backs for film). Even then it is not something easily learned. Just buying a DSLR still has many limitations.

The rewards are worth it. Start with what you have and learn one step at a time. when you can say exactly why the current camera is not giving you the image you want you will be ready to upgrade. I would be willing to go to your photo course with only your digital point and shoot (they are not going to throw you out you paid for it). Anything you do not learn about film is not necessary if you do not use it anyway. And comparing your digital with what is possible in film will teach you the current short-comings of digital and inspire you to find ways to accomplish the same result.

[Popi]

I would consider looking into another class - digital class. May as well. I switched from 35mm SLR to digital SLR and there is no going back for me (believe me, it was a huge dilema for me). I am also considering taking the New York Institute of Photography correspondance courses - they also offer digital I think. My friend did the course a few years back so I had the apportunity to look through the textbooks and assignments. I was rather impressed. That's my 2 cents worth, totaling to $0.06 now

[thebassman]

I agree.... unless you've got some particular reason for sticking with 35mm... going digital is not only cost effective, but opens up certain limiting possibilities that film doesn't have (though film will always hold a special place in the heart of a pure photographer).

[where1]

Due to the 1.6 multiplier factor the Canon 10D has, if you want to shoot super wide angle, the film camera will come in handy. In other words, if you use a 20mm lens in the digital, it will be like using a 32mm on the film camera. To get a 20mm equivilent shot on the digital, you will need a 12.5mm lens. Sigma has a 12-24mm by the way.

For this reason, I still shoot film when I use my 15mm fisheye. When attached to the digital, it lost too much of it's effectiveness. A 24mm fisheye doesn't cut it.

Of course you could get a FF digital (1Ds) for around 8 grand, or a 35mm film body for a few hundred.

I do like shooting digital a whole lot more than film.

If you do decide to buy a film body, get one you can share lenses with your digital. But I didn't need to mention this, did I.