nikon F5 or DSLR?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 20, 2008
319
0
0
#1
I am a newbie who wants to progress from P n S cameras to the next level. I thought hard on this as good money will be spent. To get a nikon F5 film or digital SLR? An analogy would be: to spend a topend PDA or a laptop for the same price.

I have a few questions:
1. Which is a steeper learning curve - film or digital slr?
2. The F5 is rated as one of the best film professional camera in the world and yet it cost around $600 for body (secondhand) only while a similarly class top dslr would cost at least $3k and above.
3. Is film dead?
4. Are the accesssories for the F5 too expensive?

Your kind views are appreciated. Meantime I am hanging on to my money till I made that decision.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#2
I am a newbie who wants to progress from P n S cameras to the next level. I thought hard on this as good money will be spent. To get a nikon F5 film or digital SLR? An analogy would be: to spend a topend PDA or a laptop for the same price.

I have a few questions:
1. Which is a steeper learning curve - film or digital slr?
2. The F5 is rated as one of the best film professional camera in the world and yet it cost around $600 for body (secondhand) only while a similarly class top dslr would cost at least $3k and above.
3. Is film dead?
4. Are the accesssories for the F5 too expensive?

Your kind views are appreciated. Meantime I am hanging on to my money till I made that decision.
Get a DSLR. The learning curve is about the same for both film and DSLR, only difference is that DSLR you get to see the results immediately. Don't forget to factor in the film, processing and printing cost if you go the film way. Accessories wise, they are about the same.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#3
agreed with lsisaxon,
to learn photography, using DSLR or a film camera is basically the same.

if you carefully think about composition, lighting, camera setting before each click, you will learn something from each exposure.

and you will not learn much thing if you are shooting just like using machine gun..
 

#4
$600 for F5? Where? Didn't know it was that cheap. Thought it was still selling at thousand odd at some shops. I would love to get a F5. My dad sold his after switching to digital. But film would certainly be better than digital I believe. You can tell the difference if you have shot with Slr and Dslr. Sometimes you just cant get the feel you want with a digital cam. =(
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#5
$600 for F5? Where? Didn't know it was that cheap. Thought it was still selling at thousand odd at some shops. I would love to get a F5. My dad sold his after switching to digital. But film would certainly be better than digital I believe. You can tell the difference if you have shot with Slr and Dslr. Sometimes you just cant get the feel you want with a digital cam. =(
It's all about controlling the lighting and exposure, and of course, sad to say though, like film, brand do matter when it comes to the feel of the images because of the different philosophy they apply to the in camera processing of the images for DSLRs.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,707
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#7
I am a newbie who wants to progress from P n S cameras to the next level. I thought hard on this as good money will be spent. To get a nikon F5 film or digital SLR? An analogy would be: to spend a topend PDA or a laptop for the same price.

I have a few questions:
1. Which is a steeper learning curve - film or digital slr?
2. The F5 is rated as one of the best film professional camera in the world and yet it cost around $600 for body (secondhand) only while a similarly class top dslr would cost at least $3k and above.
3. Is film dead?
4. Are the accesssories for the F5 too expensive?

Your kind views are appreciated. Meantime I am hanging on to my money till I made that decision.
If you are asking these questions, I suggest you settle for a cheaper DSLR e.g. D80 or used D200. Save some money on lenses(assuming you don't have any to begin with). If you like film, you can always pick up a used F100 for a few hundred bucks. There is no need to get expensive(relatively speaking) stuff at your stage.
 

Jan 12, 2007
378
0
0
#8
yeah...agreed. get a digital to shoot and maybe an fm2 to play! best part is u can share lenses between ur nikon dslr and film camera and dont have to worry about a different mount.

manual focus is an issue which some people would bring up...at first i thought manual focus was such a hassel until i tried it myself and shot a football tournament with a 200mm f4 manual on my d80. brilliant.
 

Mar 20, 2008
319
0
0
#9
thanks guys for the really help views. I guess I am still finding the one factor that will tip me towards either film or dslr and if dslr, which camera. Thanks again.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#10
thanks guys for the really help views. I guess I am still finding the one factor that will tip me towards either film or dslr and if dslr, which camera. Thanks again.
Actually there are a good number of reasons cited so far for a dSLR.
I myself embrace digital for the sheer convenience and the instant feedback of shots taken.

However if u need more reasons to shoot film check out this article by Kodak

Ryan
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#11
shoot 1k shots with F5 u will spend approx, 28 rolls of film = 1 roll approx say cheap 5 bucks + developing and prints, total 10 bucks for each roll = 280.

F5 - 600
DSLR - 3k

so if u shoot 10k shots... u already ROI on the DSLR already...

so DSLR still the way to go... but film still more fun, esp the uncertainty of the shots.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#12
To TS, let says one roll of neg is $3.50, process and scan is $7, each roll cost is $10.50, if you are shooting 100k images, 2778 (rolls) multiply $10.50, material cost is already $29169.00

How about DSLR? if your camera write off after 100k shutter counts, what is your damage?


shoot 1k shots with F5 u will spend approx, 28 rolls of film = 1 roll approx say cheap 5 bucks + developing and prints, total 10 bucks for each roll = 280.

F5 - 600
DSLR - 3k

so if u shoot 10k shots... u already ROI on the DSLR already...

so DSLR still the way to go... but film still more fun, esp the uncertainty of the shots.
anyway you shoot DSLR without preview is even more fun.
 

Del_CtrlnoAlt

Senior Member
Feb 15, 2003
16,268
0
0
Outside the Dry Box.
Visit site
#13
To TS, let says one roll of neg is $3.50, process and scan is $7, each roll cost is $10.50, if you are shooting 100k images, 2778 (rolls) multiply $10.50, material cost is already $29169.00

How about DSLR? if your camera write off after 100k shutter counts, what is your damage?



anyway you shoot DSLR without preview is even more fun.
uncle, my DSLR never hoot until 100k... u mean yours hooted ar?

mine at most 11-13k range only... 3 year +++ liao
 

#15
I am a newbie who wants to progress from P n S cameras to the next level. I thought hard on this as good money will be spent. To get a nikon F5 film or digital SLR? An analogy would be: to spend a topend PDA or a laptop for the same price.

I have a few questions:
1. Which is a steeper learning curve - film or digital slr?
2. The F5 is rated as one of the best film professional camera in the world and yet it cost around $600 for body (secondhand) only while a similarly class top dslr would cost at least $3k and above.
3. Is film dead?
4. Are the accesssories for the F5 too expensive?

Your kind views are appreciated. Meantime I am hanging on to my money till I made that decision.
Actually your analogy is abit wrong. Film and DSLR is not like topend PDA and a loptop. It would be more like writing or printing really. The outcome is similiar, though the process is different.

Both the film and digital media is just different media, really. The art is in photography techniques. It seems a general consensus that film quality is better than digital printouts, but with digital, you can review your photos in smaller formats much earlier.

Film will not be dead, just as medium formats or pin-hole cameras will not be dead. Its just technology and there are places available for any technology.

If you are using P&S, then you need to find out why you want to upgrade to SLR (film of Digital) Both give you more controls and flexibility. Just look through the forums, there are already hundreds of reasons out there why people switched.

I started with film SLR and progress to Digital, due to the advancement of technology and that it is easier for me to keep, view and edit digital formats, and it allows me to do printouts in a more creative ways, not that I couldn't do them in film, just less convenient.

There are whole lots of personal reasons. Don't think anyone can decide for you.
 

Mar 20, 2008
319
0
0
#16
Actually your analogy is abit wrong. Film and DSLR is not like topend PDA and a loptop. It would be more like writing or printing really. The outcome is similiar, though the process is different.

Both the film and digital media is just different media, really. The art is in photography techniques. It seems a general consensus that film quality is better than digital printouts, but with digital, you can review your photos in smaller formats much earlier.

Film will not be dead, just as medium formats or pin-hole cameras will not be dead. Its just technology and there are places available for any technology.

If you are using P&S, then you need to find out why you want to upgrade to SLR (film of Digital) Both give you more controls and flexibility. Just look through the forums, there are already hundreds of reasons out there why people switched.

I started with film SLR and progress to Digital, due to the advancement of technology and that it is easier for me to keep, view and edit digital formats, and it allows me to do printouts in a more creative ways, not that I couldn't do them in film, just less convenient.

There are whole lots of personal reasons. Don't think anyone can decide for you.
hi, thanks for your views. The common denominator between film and dslr is taking photos; only the hardware is different. Maybe we dun agree with the terminology and hence the use of analogy. It does not matter here.

I have one of the first top Lumix models then - the LC40 (4 megapixels) using Leica lens which allows the use of interchangeable lenses but not flash. I still have it and using it. However, it is limited due to the lenses available and not as versatile as the true slr whether film or dslr. I like forummer Kit's suggestion to get a cheap dslr first and play around with it. I can see the wisdom of this advise: get a better tool when you have mastered the basics.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom