SLR v. digital SLR

Sama

This came up in another post about digital cameras, so am just curious as to your opinions, especially those of the pro or semi-pro photographers....

do you think it's a totally goofy idea to pull out the old SLR (in my case, Pentax ME Super) to use in India (or elsewhere of course....)? It is not autofocus, so there is the disadvantage of "wasting time" to focus and losing a shot. I would take only one lens, but then you have all that film to lug around. Hmmmm....maybe I'm talking myself out of this! I'm assuming you can get film pics put on a disc so you can put on a computer? or NOT?

yikes, maybe this is a bad idea, but am curious as to your opinions....

(sorry if this has been posted before!)

__________________
My India, 2005-2008
BE THE REVOLUTION

Merchant

The camera you should take is the one that is easiest for you to use. Old manual cameras have the advantage of being small, don't need to be recharged, and are pretty rugged. You can always get a CD of images when you have your film developed; at some places the CD is free.

Digital has the advatage of letting you see what you've just shot, but you still have to figure out what to do with the images on your cards--transfer them to CD at an internet cafe? Carry a laptop or a portable hard drive?

I have complete sets of film manual and a digital camera gear. Cost for me is a factor. It's much cheaper for me to shoot digital, since I have acquired all the necessary infratructure, and I now shoot thousands of images since I'm not worried about the cha-ching sound every time I trip the shutter.

But if I were traveling very light and heading to out of the way places, I would certainly take the manual gear--all of which (two cameras, three lenses) fits into a waistpack.

How much film will you shoot? Try to gauge it in rolls per day. You might not be carrying as much film as you think, and a sack of 50 rolls (taken out of the boxes but left in the cannisters) doesn't take up a huge amount of space.

I wouldn't go digital if you are happy with the old Pentax. It has served you well this far; no reason it won't continue to do so.

torryquine

I would ditto everything Merchant has said and give you a couple of other things to consider:

Batteries. We got caught out (in Agra of all places ) by dead batteries - we'd left the stock of Duracells we brought from home with most of our stuff in Delhi, assuming there was enough life in the rechargeable ones we thought were a more environmentally option. NO! The rechargeables just weren't up to the job and neither were the ones we paid an extortionate amount for at our hotel......so - hardly any still shots of the Taj, the Fort, the Itmad-ud-Dullah tomb, Fatephur Sikri or Bharatpur.... AAARRRHHHH Fortunately Mr TQ is s**t hot with a digicam so we have some great video (apart from the Taj of course, where they don't allow digicams).

So - take a good stock of tried and trusted batteries if you're opting for the digital option, but also take back-ups for your SLR batteries. Remember to pack them in your checked luggage when flying in India.

X-Ray machines (airports). These can damage film if they are badly maintained. Try to avoid having your film passed through them if you can (they were good about this in Kathmandu), or carry them in one of the bags that are designed specifically for protecting film in this way.

Hope this helps Gal

__________________
http://werenotafraid.com/

abracax

If you have ever done conventional photographic work, you will have some inkling of the enormous impact of film, paper, chemicals, etc. on the environment. That alone is enough to argue for going digital.

__________________
He travels fastest who pays for a cab.

Sama

yes, I did this anyway for years when I traveled around the US. as for digital batteries, I learned on my first trip to always carry 2 with me -- ran out of power last year at the Theosophical Society.....

good opinions all! thank you!

I always liked the way the Pentax "felt", nice balance, good weight. Tho sometimes the lenses were heavier than the body! Would have gone Pentax digital but read lots of bad reviews of their digital line.

I love the Canon Powershot S60 I have, however, I am dismayed at the quality of indoor shots even with the autoflash. They always come out too dark, happened on last trip too. The guy at the camera store played around with it and said I should put the dial on "P".... I've seen photos of indoor shots from other camera brands (Nikon, Sony, etc.), and everything is great. Mine stink! This is what has caused me to rethink the old Pentax ME Super....or just getting a digital SLR!

first example of bad indoor shot.....besides it being crooked!
second example -- taken during the day, lots of natural light (believe it or not!), since it was an "open air" room, more or less (man on right is a famous Tamil Nadu politician!)

I am assuming using the zoom played a role in this bad quality??

Attached Thumbnails

   

rab

I would go digital but if you so do make sure you are organised for battery charging and image stoarge as the others have said.

If you can afford digital SLR then go ahead I'd say.

If anyone wants an SLR camera which has been used about twice PM me with an offer. It is a Canon EOS 300 and takes fantastic photos. Can anyone advise if I can use my 35 mm lens with a new EOS 300D. I think I can therefore can save on the total I need to spend on a new EOS digital.

Ooops sorry I don't mean to subvert the thread - PM me on my digressions - I am here on photogenic Orkney and bought a new AU $200 Kodak basic digital and left my EOS at home as I can't afford the 3xxD yet - that's how I value the convenience of digital.

Merchant

Yep, the Canon EF film lenses will work fine on the digital line. There is one type of digital lens, the EF-S, that will not, however, work on the film line.

Film lenses on the EOS 300D won't have the same focal length, though. The digital camera has a small sensor and changes the perpective by 1.6x. So your 50 mm lens on a film camera is 50 mm. On the digital, it's 80 mm.

If you get the new EOS 5D, however, all focal lengths are the same, as the camera contains a full frame sensor.

Merchant

Also, film and X-rays--

I've carried large stocks of film and always had it blasted by the screeners as hand luggage multiple times (x-ray effects on film are cumulative); then carried those same unused rolls off to India again for a repeat, and never had a problem. You can ask for handscreening, but you won't always get it. But if you can't, your film should still be fine. Just don't put it in your checked baggage, where they do use a higher power x-ray.

Shaktipalooza

The sooner you can start investing in digital equipment, the sooner you'll be able to stop dumping money into film and processing. I like the environmental comment, makes me feel even better about making the switch this year.

I used to shoot mostly slides as did most of my friends. When someone would come back from a trip we'd have an evening of pics and brew. Now we'll just have to get a digital projector or burn DVDs.

One thing worth mentioning. I've always assumed that slides have more resolution than prosumer digital cameras but that really is a wash for 99.9% of the shooters out there. Digital SLRs 5 megapixals and above will produce fairly large prints. If you shoot film and want to see your pics online you'll have to scan, something in which I've had a lot of difficulty in achieving anything close to digital quality.

Maybe scanning technology has gotten much better (and cheaper) since I last tried.

__________________
IndiaGroove - Train finder now in beta!
Pics from India 2006
Traditional Indian Dance

Shaktipalooza

Yeah there is something seriously wrong with the exposure. First guess would be you zoomed beyond the range of the flash. Point and shoot cameras generally have pretty weak illumination. So if the camera shot at a lower exposure, to let the flash light the subject, you've just compounded the problem with zooming.

Probably would have had better luck with...

A. Using flash with no zoom, getting closer to the subject.
B. Using no flash, allowing the camera to set a higher exposure.

Just a guess.

Sama

actually I have not spent money on film or processing for years! The last time I did was when I did garden design and taught it, and used slides in my lectures -- hey, anyone wanna buy about 500 slides of great horticulture shots? Pro quality if I do say so myself -- all taken with my trusty Pentax....

Merchant, any idea on the dark indoor pics from a Canon digital?

crvlvr

if you plan to take a lot of photos, processing and printing fews for regular film reduces its cost effectivness.

Yogesh Sarkar

Unless you are a pro who needs huge prints, go with digital. Initial investment will be recovered as soon as you start shooting thousands of photographs. I brought my digital camera in September last year and since then i have shot 11000+ photos!

__________________
My Travelogues | My Blog | Ladakh Travel Guide

torryquine

I take it you've tried lightening the existing pictures in an editing package?

Merchant

They're underexposed but in focus, which is somewhat weird--suggesting that you weren't pushing the camera beyond its limits. It's hard to tell if the flash went off. My best guess is that you had the camera set to fire the flash and your finger or sleeve blocked it. It looks like there is a tiny bit of flash reflection.

But those pics can be salvaged easily: