DSLR or SLR?

[Ravang]

I'm having a bit of a conflict, I have been thinking about getting a film SLR camera but I'm not sure if I should buy it or save up for a DSLR camera. I have a Kodak Z712 IS which is a nice DSLR-type camera and I like being able to see my pictures right after I take them. So basically should I buy a film SLR camera for less money, but have to suffer the cost of film and development, or save up for a DSLR, which cost more but I wouldn't have to buy film or pay for pictures I don't want.... :-/

My parents had a film SLR once upon a time (found it in the attic), but have no idea what happened to it...

[AMDDDA]

dSLR.

[machineman9]

I would say DSLR

It is just going to be cheaper in the long run, and easier to manage the ouput.

I've taken about 600-700 photos since Christmas. Lots were testing the camera. Imagine that in film!


You can go from digital to print, but not so easily print to digital.


I would get the DSLR. Images are more manipulatable, and you can actually monitor how your pictures are doing at the time you take them... It is going to be a pain to think you've got a great photo, develop the image, find out it went wrong due to the settings or something, and then have missed the opportunity.

[Rifleman]

You have already acknowledged that you're aware of the benefits and drawbacks of moving from film to "ones and zeros". Why would you question others about what you know is the best choice to make?

[Ravang]

[quote]You have already acknowledged that you're aware of the benefits and drawbacks of moving from film to "ones and zeros". Why would you question others about what you know is the best choice to make?

[Jeff.Guo]

Thats when I realized that film was gone, 'cause technology never really goes backwards and improvements of the medium have been constant ever since ........... 8-)

I still shoot, develop, and print B/W film...

No doubt that digital photography is so much simpler and cheaper....not to mention that even a, now obsolete, 10mpxl camera's definition is the equivalent of half a roll of 120 negatives...but nothing beats a silver gelatin print. Its like flying an old Stearman, its old and crude...and vastly inefficient when compared to just about any other aircraft...but that's how grandpa did it, and that's what makes it cool.

[Mushroom_Farmer]

Your right, I should save up for a DSLR camera. The thing that got me thinking about the SLR camera's was the local shop is getting rid of their stock of film SLR's for extremely cheap...

[BFMF]

I didn't know you could still buy regular film cameras...

[Papa9571]

Yes you can. SLR cameras are available and are relativly inexpensive. But when you factor in film costs they get quite expensive. I have a Canon Digital REbel (6 mp) and a Canon Rebel XTI (10 mp) and have taken well over 30,000 shots in the last 6 years. Together both DSLR's cost me $2000 with four 2mp memory cards. Figure what it would have cost me in film (24 shots a roll at $5.00) and you can see a sigficant savings.
The myth that you cant "develop" your own pics with a DSLR are false. If you are serious and want to get the most out of your DSLR, and get the most editable image you can get, set your camera to record your pics in RAW mode. There are advantages and disavantes to doing this however, in my opinion, it is well worth it. The disavantage is that RAW images take up the most room on your memory card. The advantages are that RAW is the closest you can get to "film" with a DSLR and the all of the images information is editable. If you choose to save room on your memory card and choose jpeg, tiff, or another file format a lot of the image information is combined and the image is not as editable.
Make sure you have a good photo editing program and you can get shots that look amazing.

[The Ruptured Duck]

[quote]You have already acknowledged that you're aware of the benefits and drawbacks of moving from film to "ones and zeros". Why would you question others about what you know is the best choice to make?