Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: advantage of slr compared to Dslr?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    Sincerely, IMO, stick to digital. Easier on the wallet in the long run and easier for experimentation and learning. You can always buy a film cam later if the fancy takes you.

    Cheers,
    experimentation and learning, yes. Easier on the wallet in the long run, nop.

  2. #22

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by rafiano
    well...i am a newbie and i have a digital and film SLR. Its true that the learning curve is faster for the digital SLR. I tend to take more pictures and learn more mistakes from the digital SLR. Digital SLR gives you immediate feedback and let you discard the poor composition that you have taken. I usually shoot sports, thus it does help to check on the pictures...else I would spend a fortune on developing film and later getting a heartache realising my shots were under.

    However...I bought film as I could not afford a DSLR at that time...and at the end of the day...its the money that talks...

    So...if you can wait...save money and get a DSLR..if you cannot wait...get a film SLR...and start shooting. At the end of the day...its the photographer...not the camera. You need to practice, make mistakes and learn. Just have the confidence to press the trigger.

    Cheers
    Agreed that a DSLR costs way too higher than a SLR. I own both. But buying a DSLR doesnt exactly stop your expense. Especially if you want to print your pictures. You either have to buy a printer, cartridges, papers (which are not exactly cheap) or get them printed from the shops for which you still have to pay!

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by viperMako
    experimentation and learning, yes. Easier on the wallet in the long run, nop.
    Learn?
    I'd question whether the person has enough self-restraint.. Most people who go digital do so because of the instant-feedback & ability to delete.
    If one can't stop him/ her-self from deleting bad shots, he/ she would never have the chance to learn from it..
    It's not like film.. It's physically there.. Unless you throw the negatives and prints away, you'll see it and remember it..

  4. #24

    Default

    hmmm ... for me ... i learnt the real basics on a 'prosumer' ... then played around with my 2 brother's dslrs ... e300 and d70 ... learnt to use the dials and functions .. .spent ages reading the manual ... now .. i'm shooting on full manual! =P well .. for most shots ... unless i'm in a hurry then its in aperture priority ...

    but .. i think the learning curve is better ... if the person is keen on learning photography ... both the technical aspect and the creative aspect .. for me .. the technical aspect is getting there ... but still newbie =P ... creative aspect? .. what creative aspect? lolz .. long way to go ... but considering i only got my dlsr a very short while ago .. i think its easier to learn and correct mistakes on a dslr than a prosumer cam ...

    so .. learning the techincal aspect might be faster on dslr .. but i think creative aspect is learnt faster on slr ... and perhaps techincal aspect too ... (if u badly underexpose a whole roll ... u'll learn ... FAST!)

  5. #25
    Senior Member Halfmoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Hougang, Singapore.
    Posts
    4,569

    Default

    I think if you shoot with film first before moving to digital, maybe the transitional will be easier, than digital to film.....

    I think film is still the better trainer... and yes... film and processing is expensive... but when you are PAYING for it, you remember the lesson better.....

    I am a FILM guy for sure... and I still believe in FILM...
    Art is perception; Perception is art.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    AMK
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    I've been film SLR user's for many years...But I can still remember that I had never so excited about photography before digital came out in year 2000 (IXUS I) 2 mega pixels only($999)(Toshiba Libretto mini laptop) where I can take more than a thousand shots in Japan and in the way I have save 28 rolls x $20 = $560 for developing film+film...of course I still take about 15 rolls of film with my new EOS 3...quality is better from EOS of course...

    but now is different situation...film is not as good as digital from DSLR (I mean Canon EOS-not sure about other brand) except Fuji Velvia Slide...

    I can control Colour/contrast/sharpness better than the film easily...slideshow can be done in digital....nobody will use slide film to shoot wedding/event...that will be crazy thing to do currently!! Each print out from slide is about $1~1.5 per 4R print...

    As for wide angle...I can confirm that there is no wide angle available currently is sharp & no distortion from edge to edge...so it is better to use in scale factor form in 1.3x / 1.5x /1.6x....u know what I mean...

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    SLR camera allows ou to shoot the glorious fuji velvia 50 and provia 100... beautiful slide films.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firefox
    Learn?
    I'd question whether the person has enough self-restraint.. Most people who go digital do so because of the instant-feedback & ability to delete.
    If one can't stop him/ her-self from deleting bad shots, he/ she would never have the chance to learn from it..
    It's not like film.. It's physically there.. Unless you throw the negatives and prints away, you'll see it and remember it..
    You want some real life testimony? I've learnt 10x more about photography in the 1.5 years of shooting digital than the previous 10 years of shooting film. Instant feedback is a valuable tool, as is post-processing. Incredible tools to understand what you did wrong and cheap for experimentation. If you are not a disciplined shooter with digital, you won't be one with film either.

    Cheers,

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bedok
    Posts
    716

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by dkw
    You want some real life testimony? I've learnt 10x more about photography in the 1.5 years of shooting digital than the previous 10 years of shooting film. Instant feedback is a valuable tool, as is post-processing. Incredible tools to understand what you did wrong and cheap for experimentation. If you are not a disciplined shooter with digital, you won't be one with film either.

    Cheers,

    For one person of your type, how many are there that I described?

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Tan
    As for wide angle...I can confirm that there is no wide angle available currently is sharp & no distortion from edge to edge...so it is better to use in scale factor form in 1.3x / 1.5x /1.6x....u know what I mean...
    dont get u , dude. all i know is that EF17-40/17-35/16-35 are quite gd when used on 1.6x and 1.3x , and AFS17-35 is vgd when used on 1.5x

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    AMK
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user111
    dont get u , dude. all i know is that EF17-40/17-35/16-35 are quite gd when used on 1.6x and 1.3x , and AFS17-35 is vgd when used on 1.5x
    Sorry for my poor Singlish...what I mean is that all the wide / telephoto lenses are better quality in the centre portion than at the edge....so it is better to use DSLR with 1.3x or 1.6x to get the best of the lenses than on the film cam which capture in full frame where it's edge quality is bad at least to my requirement...

  12. #32

    Default

    okie got it

    but "outer rim -poorer image quality" issue is more pronounced on wideangle lenses than on teles.

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    AMK
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by user111
    okie got it

    but "outer rim -poorer image quality" issue is more pronounced on wideangle lenses than on teles.
    yah loi...that why I never tried to get the full frame 1Ds mk2....I rather wait for 1D mk 3...hopefully not so soon...if not, the 300mm f/2.8 will come later...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •