Shutterbugs

[Wyl Staedtler]

What are the feelings on the Canon EOS Rebel 2000?

ETA: And has anyone had experience with the Rebel Ti? Comparisons?

[Cat X]

That's a 35mm film camera. Why not digital? The digital SLR's are cheaper to run and you can hammer off shots liek no one's business. They also take the same glass as 35mm, with all EF mounts allowed.

Film may have some romantic qualities about it, but a real digital SLR like my Canon 20D can take a picture that is the equal in quality and grain that 35mm produces. The only difference is 35m can be blown up a good deal larger, but we are talking about 3 meters instead of 2 meters so I doubt you want that advantage. Post production some say with film is better but digital you use Photoshop and you can get any effect you want much easier without mucking around with chemicals.

Printing a D-SLR picture is a bit trickier but the new photo printers are nearly the match of a 35mm print and getting better all the time.

SLR's in general arent cheap with proper glass, that goes for Digital or film. But the fact is the glass makes a world of difference and is why I will not use a point and shoot, I will take the time and trouble to use my SLR. Even the so called 8.2 mp CCD on the 20D knocks the socks off 10.5 mp point and shoots because of that fact I can use better lenes. This is true witht he film SLR's, you will get great shots. And the functions of a Rebel can compare to D-SLR - but the sheer ability to simply click like mad, take 80 shots instead of 24, means you can and usually do get a better shot with the D-SLR. Plus the ISO of Digital is variable, you only have one ISO at a time with film.

You really do need to have a specific reason for a film camera to justify it over D-SLR. The Rebel 35mm is good yes but I think film is a waste of money now. Whatever you do, remeber that the kit lens isnt great and to get a good lens is going to hurt your pocket.

[Wyl Staedtler]

I hate digital. :)

[Morgan Evanar]

I hate digital. :)Because? Surely there is more to it than that.

[Slayn Cloak]

What are the feelings on the Canon EOS Rebel 2000?

ETA: And has anyone had experience with the Rebel Ti? Comparisons?

Rebel ti is the best sub pro out there. There's obviously better stuff in the pro range, but do you need it?

[Cat X]

I hate digital. :)

You need to borrow and use a good semi pro D-SLR like a 30D, the model that replaced the 20D. Most of the best photograhers I know have abandoned film entirely because D-SLR's are better cameras with better features. And the post production is much easier with better options.

And being a long time film user who's traded to D-SLR, I dont get why you could hate the format. It's just so much better for everyone, not just amateurs but even for semi-pro and pros.

(I also got some of my rally shots published not long ago, yay me!)


Rebel ti is the best sub pro out there. There's obviously better stuff in the pro range, but do you need it?

Entry level SLR's will knock the socks off any point and shoot fixed body, so for those you dont need to ask that, they are just simply better cameras and justify the price on that alone. The Rebels have a smaller body so that makes transport and use easier and some females say that it fit's their hands easier

[Wyl Staedtler]

I hate digital. :)Because? Surely there is more to it than that.


Mmm, just do. My dad had a darkroom when we were kids and we grew up playing about with his camera and working with him in there. Digital just feels really impersonal, I guess.

[Zem-El Vymes]

Is this the same argument as "vinyl sounds better than digital" sort of thing?

All I know about cameras is that you don't ever want to bother with integrated flashes if you are taking pictures of any quality.

I've thought about getting into photography but I need a better paying job to support another expensive hobby.

[Cat X]

Is this the same argument as "vinyl sounds better than digital" sort of thing?


It shouldnt be, because some D-SLR's are now superior to anything film can do and most are the equal or cant be told apart by the naked eye. Digital ease of use alone is worth it.



All I know about cameras is that you don't ever want to bother with integrated flashes if you are taking pictures of any quality.


You would be surprised - the better D-SLR's have quite good intergrated flashes. I do have a ETTL capable external flash, I tend to find it awkward and I'll only use it if I need some real finesse or brute power with lighting.



I've thought about getting into photography but I need a better paying job to support another expensive hobby.


The camera bodies arent too bad - a Canon 30D for instance is a good semi pro at about 1800. The real problem is the lenses. When you get serious, you want to use somethign else other than the kit lens and that's when you look at either fast glass (Low F-stop value) or L series glass. you are going to play a hell of a lot of money. A Canon 100-400 L f4.5-f5.6 is worth 2500AUD and is the best lens for motorsport bar none. But then you also need two closer lenses, say a 18-85 L and a 10-22 L and that's goign to add you anohter 2000. Then you get big battery packs, different flashes, a tripod, bags.......

It's hell of a lot cheaper than cars tho. And about the same as cycling - I';m looking at carbon fibre bikes and they are 7-8000 to kit out totally. A pro level camera kit will be about 15000 when it's all said and done. My kit so far is replacement value of 4500.

[Zem-El Vymes]

It shouldnt be, because some D-SLR's are now superior to anything film can do and most are the equal or cant be told apart by the naked eye. Digital ease of use alone is worth it.

Thats what I meant, because I didn't think the pro-vinyl argument had any merit either.



You would be surprised - the better D-SLR's have quite good intergrated flashes. I do have a ETTL capable external flash, I tend to find it awkward and I'll only use it if I need some real finesse or brute power with lighting.

Aren't most pretty hard lighting? I can understand using that sort of thing on the fly, but wouldn't external stuff be better for set-ups, since you can change the softness, angle, etc?



The camera bodies arent too bad - a Canon 30D for instance is a good semi pro at about 1800. The real problem is the lenses. When you get serious, you want to use somethign else other than the kit lens and that's when you look at either fast glass (Low F-stop value) or L series glass. you are going to play a hell of a lot of money. A Canon 100-400 L f4.5-f5.6 is worth 2500AUD and is the best lens for motorsport bar none. But then you also need two closer lenses, say a 18-85 L and a 10-22 L and that's goign to add you anohter 2000. Then you get big battery packs, different flashes, a tripod, bags.......

I can't even afford the $600 Walther PPS I want, so cameras are waaaay out of my league.

[Mu Satach]

Personally, I like both formats.

There's something quite nice about film. There's a texture that is absent from digital images.

But yeah, wish I had the money for a good Nikon SLR digital.

[Morgan Evanar]

Thats what I meant, because I didn't think the pro-vinyl argument had any merit either.They don't. If you want a warm sound, buy a tube preamp. Fact of the matter is that vinyl nor film is as good as their digital counterparts anymore. Film is just going to get more expensive, too.

[Dasquian Belargic]

The only film-based camera I still use is my polaroid. I just love the way the pictures look. :)

[Mu Satach]

Thats what I meant, because I didn't think the pro-vinyl argument had any merit either.They don't. If you want a warm sound, buy a tube preamp. Fact of the matter is that vinyl nor film is as good as their digital counterparts anymore. Film is just going to get more expensive, too.I don't know why anyone plays live music or paints any more either. :p

[Zem-El Vymes]

They don't. If you want a warm sound, buy a tube preamp. Fact of the matter is that vinyl nor film is as good as their digital counterparts anymore. Film is just going to get more expensive, too.

I've got some vinyl that I want to get encoded onto a digital turntable, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

[Morgan Evanar]

Thats what I meant, because I didn't think the pro-vinyl argument had any merit either.They don't. If you want a warm sound, buy a tube preamp. Fact of the matter is that vinyl nor film is as good as their digital counterparts anymore. Film is just going to get more expensive, too.I don't know why anyone plays live music or paints any more either. :pCompletely different mediums. I understand there are a lot of artistic things you can do with film and the darkroom. I've taken a few photography courses. The fact is those chemicals are fairly toxic, and you can achieve 99% (or a hundred, if you're sufficiently motivated) in Photoshop.

Live music and painting is not a remotely apples to apples comparison. We're comparing recorded formats.

[Wyl Staedtler]

Oh I'm not arguing that digital doesn't produce stunning photos, or that it isn't easier and more efficient. It does and it is.

But I personally don't like it because I'm a cranky old lady who clings to nostalgia like ivy and hates change (I didn't even get a DVD player until last summer). Besides, I'm not going to spend money on a camera that doesn't feel right. Particularly when the new darkroom is already half-built. ;)

Who knows, maybe in five or six years I'll be converted. :D

[Morgan Evanar]

What glass do you have already?

[Wyl Staedtler]

Equipment purchased so far:

Beselar B&W 35mm film enlarger - came with 50mm lens, slide carrier, filter drawer, 2-1/4 optical glass condenser
8x10 and 11x14 easels
Gralab timer
bestwell magnasight 8x enlarging grain focuser (well okay, so my dad bought this for me...)
safelight
tongs, mixing jugs, etc
squeegee

I'm not sure what else I'll need, beyond the chemicals obviously. And the room, which is half-built in my new house.

[Mu Satach]

Completely different mediums. I understand there are a lot of artistic things you can do with film and the darkroom. I've taken a few photography courses. The fact is those chemicals are fairly toxic, and you can achieve 99% (or a hundred, if you're sufficiently motivated) in Photoshop.

Live music and painting is not a remotely apples to apples comparison. We're comparing recorded formats.

Part of what makes vinyl sound different is that with each pass of a record needle the grooves are destroyed slightly. Thus each record not only changes over time, but also becomes *slightly* unique from all other albums. A texture is created that does not happen with the digital medium. Granted, you have to be a super freak (aka sound editor) to pick out that difference and like you said, there are other ways to get a nice mellow low tone from an album... but what I was thinking of, and didn't convey at all, was that sometimes there is a *physical* reason why some people like certain things.

(I posted in a rush, which is never a good idea. My shift at the station was over and needed to jet out of master control as the night time host was coming on.)

Ultimately what we all enjoy is the <i>experience</i> of something no matter whether it is auditory, visual or physical.

There's a reason why some people choose to pick up and play a guitar vs. a synth. There's a reason why some people pick up a paintbrush vs. a camera. And there's a reason why some people still choose to enter a darkroom vs. uploading files off of a flash card.

Sometimes, it's not about the end product but experiencing the process of getting there.