DSLR or classic SLR?

M

Mbed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
I found this canon for exchange and i was wondering if its still worth going back to 35mm film? I cant afford buying a new one at the moment and i have what it takes to get it in exchange!
 
Odd question for a first post?

Can you afford to buy and develop film and have prints made?
 
The camera was more than likely his! he wanted to get a link to his sales pitch
 
well if it was his sales pitch,he'd have more luck in his own country than over here .
but just in case it wasn't ,,,if you cant afford a new camera ,,then you might not be able to afford the costs involved with film, look for a used digital ,,,,
 
Are you good enough to get the results you want with film? No recourse to correcting RAW files with film.. you have to know what you're doing.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Are you good enough to get the results you want with film? No recourse to correcting RAW files with film.. you have to know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

:thinking: are you looking for a hornet's nest to poke with that stick?! ;)
 
No... I'm not. If the OP's post is genuine, it's something to be considered. Shooting film requires more exposure precision as there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No... I'm not. If the OP's post is genuine, it's something to be considered. Shooting film requires more exposure precision as there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

I find with negative film there is more latitude for recovery of over or under exposure.

Slide film I'd say is more similar if anything to digital in terms of room for error.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No... I'm not. If the OP's post is genuine, it's something to be considered. Shooting film requires more exposure precision as there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

The exposure latitude of print film allows for much better lazy photography than digital IMVHO.
Slide film OTOH is the only thing that'd make me bracket exposure.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Shooting film requires more exposure precision as there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

I know, hence the ;) however, in light of recent debates....just sayin'!

Phil V said:
The exposure latitude of print film allows for much better lazy photography than digital IMVHO.
Click to expand...

As Pookeyhead says, 'there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact'. Wanging a few sliders is somewhat quicker and more straightforward than trying to achieve the same aims in the darkroom.

To the OP, unless you're enthralled with the labour and cost of the film to neg to print process, digital is your friend!
 
DT01 said:
As Pookeyhead says, 'there are far fewer things you can do to correct the exposure if you get it wrong. That's a fact'. Wanging a few sliders is somewhat quicker and more straightforward than trying to achieve the same aims in the darkroom.
Click to expand...

But for the casual snapper it just means getting the exposure 'about right' and dropping off the film at the lab. Then back comes your perfectly exposed prints. Thereby feeding the myth that digital shooters mess about with their PP and film shooters never did.
 
Phil V said:
But for the casual snapper it just means getting the exposure 'about right' and dropping off the film at the lab. Then back comes your perfectly exposed prints. Thereby feeding the myth that digital shooters mess about with their PP and film shooters never did.
Click to expand...

There is that!
 
boliston said:
I find with negative film there is more latitude for recovery of over or under exposure.

Slide film I'd say is more similar if anything to digital in terms of room for error.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I mentioned how much latitude each medium had. I merely pointed out that it is easier to correct mistakes with a RAW file, than it is with film, and hence becomes more important to expose it correctly.
 
well Mbed seems to have gone quiet. Maybe he has sold it, sorry bought it now.
 
just in case its a genuine enquiry , i'd say you can get a lot more camera than that link for not a lot of cash buying a canon film SLR
 
Mbed said:
I found this canon for exchange and i was wondering if its still worth going back to 35mm film? I cant afford buying a new one at the moment and i have what it takes to get it in exchange!
Click to expand...

I'd say it was not worth it - save up and buy another digital SLR or go second hand. Film can be fun sometimes but its a step backwards IMHO
 
joxby said:
is there an echo in ere..lol
Click to expand...

I'm currently digital cameraless but I've got a film camera (EOS5) - can't justify the cost of the and film and developing. I'd rather save the cash to put towards a dSLR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top