35mm SLR, What to look for? - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

This is a discussion on 35mm SLR, What to look for? within the Member Show-Off & Photography forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Originally Posted by Black XT Is there a 35mm that has a screen in the back? I thought some of ...

  1. #16
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Black XT View Post
    Is there a 35mm that has a screen in the back? I thought some of the 35mm SLR's let you choose which picture to keep? I am probably wrong.


    If i were to get a digital, what printer would you guys suggest? I will probably get my brothers Ibook or some mac laptop from 3 years ago but I need a printer if I get a digital. I have an old printer that will not be good with printing pictures.

    Thank you again for your opinions, it is definately helping me. So a nikon or Rebel would be good?
    Its not even worth buying a printer. With snapfish, photobucket, imagestation, flickr, slide, SAMs Club etc, you just upload your photos to them and order the ones you want in the sizes you want, and either have them shipped or pick them up in an hour at their local vendor.

    FYI I know Yahoo photos used Target, Sams Club uses themselves, one of them uses Walgreens, etc.

    Buying the photo printer and then buying the paper and keeping it restocked isn't cost effective. A 4x6 cost like $.17. Heck my 20x30 hanging behind me right now was only $19, and you can't print that on a consumer printer.

    Worth noting, out of 8000 pics with my DSLR and 10,000 on my FZ5, I have ordered >300 in hard copy.
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #17
    Registered User Black XT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by 06wrx4me View Post
    Its not even worth buying a printer. With snapfish, photobucket, imagestation, flickr, slide, SAMs Club etc, you just upload your photos to them and order the ones you want in the sizes you want, and either have them shipped or pick them up in an hour at their local vendor.

    FYI I know Yahoo photos used Target, Sams Club uses themselves, one of them uses Walgreens, etc.

    Buying the photo printer and then buying the paper and keeping it restocked isn't cost effective. A 4x6 cost like $.17. Heck my 20x30 hanging behind me right now was only $19, and you can't print that on a consumer printer.

    Worth noting, out of 8000 pics with my DSLR and 10,000 on my FZ5, I have ordered >300 in hard copy.


    Nice. I never knew about ordering your photos online. Very nice.

    I will have to convince my significant other that it is a smart purchase.

    I have been convinced, Digital is better and will save money in the long run.

    Maybe a Body only for now. Is there a difference between the Rebel or the Nikon D40?

    I heard that there are lens that are cheaper because they are only for Digital SLR cameras. Again, just heard and I have no clue.
    Quote Originally Posted by njazwrx
    is that after he attempts to rape my dead corpse?

  4. #18
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Black XT View Post
    Nice. I never knew about ordering your photos online. Very nice.

    I will have to convince my significant other that it is a smart purchase.

    I have been convinced, Digital is better and will save money in the long run.

    Maybe a Body only for now. Is there a difference between the Rebel or the Nikon D40?

    I heard that there are lens that are cheaper because they are only for Digital SLR cameras. Again, just heard and I have no clue.
    If you have any old 35mm SLR lenses, or anyone in your family does, often they can be used on a DSLR. Many use this as their criteria for selecting a camera body. I didn't have any existing lenses so I researched and opted for the Sonly Alpha A100. But I had plans for more than "hobby" use. The Nikon D40 or the D40x are good "Hobby Cameras". As are the Canon Rebel XT and XTi.
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  5. #19
    Registered User Black XT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by 06wrx4me View Post
    If you have any old 35mm SLR lenses, or anyone in your family does, often they can be used on a DSLR. Many use this as their criteria for selecting a camera body. I didn't have any existing lenses so I researched and opted for the Sonly Alpha A100. But I had plans for more than "hobby" use. The Nikon D40 or the D40x are good "Hobby Cameras". As are the Canon Rebel XT and XTi.


    Thank you. I am glad that you understand my Noobness and Hobby usage of the camera I will probably end up going with the Rebel XT Body and get the lenses later.
    Quote Originally Posted by njazwrx
    is that after he attempts to rape my dead corpse?

  6. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    90
    Just posting up quickly, as I need to get ready to go pick up my new car soon.

    I got a Nikon D40 a few months ago and its a great camera.
    My sister got the Canon Rebel XTi (or some such..) for Christmas.

    These are probably the most popular of the "entry level" DSLRs.

    The Nikon can be had for around 500, is 6.1 megapixels and will take pictures about as good as you need.
    The Canon my sister chose was the slightly upmarket version with 10 megapixels- found a deal for about 700. (There is also a 6 megapixel version, as well as Nikon having the D40x with 10 megapixels.)

    Picture quality between the two is pretty much indistinguishable.
    Both are great cameras.
    The Nikons are slightly cheaper because they are a bit pickier on lenses:
    the autofocus stuff requires using special lenses with the focus motor built into them.
    The Canons have the motor in the camera body, as with a traditional 35mm camera.
    Understandably, autofocus lenses for the Nikon are slightly more expensive.

    For me, not an issue as I have no lenses at all, and a friend highly recommended the Nikon to me.

    Oddly enough, depending on what your real needs ARE, you may not really want an SLR:
    I did some testing for an article and compared the the D40 to a Canon Powershot 450, and using full auto settings for both, the Powershot image was pretty much just as good.

    To get a DSLR, these are pretty much the cameras to choose from, and the money to spend:
    Nikon D40
    Canon Rebel (6mp version)
    Around $500 USD

    Nikon D40x
    Canon Rebel (10mp ver)
    $700 to $1200 USD

    Unless you really are into photography, or have lots of money to spend, the cheaper versions of both are plenty good enough for any use I can think of, except maybe printing 4'x6' posters.

  7. #21
    Registered User Business810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    0
    I guess I'm a little late to this discussion, but I'll throw in my .02 cents anyway.

    I started out with a Canon film SLR. I still have the film camera, but I recently also got a Digital Rebel XTi body to go with it. Since I got the digital, I haven't really touched the film much.

    I'll agree with what scoobyroo said in that you will learn more with the film. I know I learned more about photography more quickly shooting with film instead of digital because I couldn't just keep snapping until something good came out. I couldn't get immediate feedback by seeing the picture on the screen. I had to learn how the different functions affected the outcome; this was good for me because at the time, I was a college student with a lot of free time, and I was taking pictures purely as a hobby.

    Now, the skills I learned on the film have transferred to the digital, and I'm a better photographer. However, for someone with limited time and money, digital is the way to go. As Ray et al. have said, most people don't have the time to mess with film anymore. Someday I would like to build a darkroom setup and use film more, but it's not in the cards for me anytime soon.

    As for Nikon vs. Canon, try both out and get whichever feels most comfortable and easy to use to you. At this level of camera, I think the features and quality are practically interchangeable for most people's uses. I chose Canon because I already had two Canon lenses to swap over from my 35mm.

    I would also suggest picking up the kit with the body and lens. It may be a bit more money, but you will be able to start shooting right away. Also, I doubt you will be able to find a lens for much less than the one included in the kit. Of course, if you were planning on spending more and purchasing a better lens, disregard that statement.

  8. #22
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    46,943
    I Support ClubWRX
    Just for another side on the printing thing, I prefer printing my own. The only inconvenience is that you have to occasionally buy supplies, but I can get ink and paper just about anywhere, these days.

    It's not even remotely technical, IMO. It's easy on a PC, and it's stupid easy on a Mac. I'm an "instant gratification" kind of guy; I don't like having to wait 2 days for something that I can get in 2 minutes.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  9. #23
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Just for another side on the printing thing, I prefer printing my own. The only inconvenience is that you have to occasionally buy supplies, but I can get ink and paper just about anywhere, these days.

    It's not even remotely technical, IMO. It's easy on a PC, and it's stupid easy on a Mac. I'm an "instant gratification" kind of guy; I don't like having to wait 2 days for something that I can get in 2 minutes.
    Whilst I agree with you in concept Ray, I have several pictures that were printed over a year or two ago using "photo paper" and "photo cartridge" that have started to bleed, fade and discolor worse than a 20 y/o developed photo. For me most of the stores are soo close that from the time I hit "send" on the computer, grab a drink, grab my keys and make it there, the photos are done professionally from a processing lab and ready for $.17 a piece.

    Which buy the time I pay $10 for the paper and $40 for the ink. I could have paid for 294 photos developed at my local vendor.
    Last edited by 06wrx4me; 12-31-2007 at 08:32 AM.
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  10. #24
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    46,943
    I Support ClubWRX
    Hmmm, none of my Canon photos have ever bled, and we're talking several years old, now. Could it be a difference in paper? Or maybe you shouldn't eat your pizza off of them? Just food for thought.

    Yeah, I know that the online printing has gotten crazy cheap. I'm just a DIY kinda guy. I can print; if I don't like it, I can make an adjustment and print it again...
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  11. #25
    Buzzz Wannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    5,217
    I have been a photographer for many moons now. I was a very late hold out. Some of the magazines I shot for stopped taking my pictures because they accepted all digital only. I just left them and went with the ones that took film. Soon no one would take my shots and I switched over. I will not be going back. Just the cost of film. Shooting one roll only to find that the roll got a bit hot at one time- (I live in Phoenix)- and hurt the final pictures and the entire roll was lost. Not to mention having the stuff developed and being in beginners hands at times. (They ruined my best single negative ever. Still mad over that one.)
    Then I look at my computer desk with a few dozen DVDs full of pictures compared to the 30,000 prints I threw away last month that FILLED my entire trash can!! Cost, space, time, consistancy, and control. Go digital and never look back.
    And for printing. Take it from the scrapbooking people; Go with some place that uses Fuji paper. It will last almost twice as long without color fade or yellowing than Kodak. Costco has nice stuff and uses Fuji.
    And as for the wife. Get her to take a few pictures of flowers the first week you get it. Blow the best one up to 12x18 at your local Costco or wherever. Get a cheap frame at WalMart and frame it and hang it in the house. The argument about the extra cost is OVER!
    And the online printing is Krazy Cheap. I just had one made to something like 4feetx6feet for $49. That is insane!

  12. #26
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    Hmmm, none of my Canon photos have ever bled, and we're talking several years old, now. Could it be a difference in paper? Or maybe you shouldn't eat your pizza off of them? Just food for thought.
    Kodak photo paper you, Wisenheimer!!

    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    I'm just a DIY kinda guy.
    We have a great section of...

    do-it-yourself.

    Do you like to
    "do it yourself"?

    Sometimes. I mean...

    if the mood strikes.

    How is the mood
    striking you now?
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  13. #27
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by Black XT View Post
    I will probably end up going with the Rebel XT Body and get the lenses later.
    Most of the time it is more cost effective to buy a kit if you don't already have legacy lenses. I only mention it cause most of the time they throw the kit lens in for $100 over body price. Then you go to buy the kit lens separate and its like $250.

    Regardless if you go the body then lens route, I have found the most usable range for everyday shooting is about a 28-105mm like this one:

    http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28-105mm...9125492&sr=8-3

    It is nice to have a long telephoto although I find myself only taking it out of the case about 1% of the time.

    I have a 18-70mm then a 70-200mm and a 50mm, and have found really a better 3 lens combo would be 18-28mm, 28-105mm, 100-300mm.
    Last edited by 06wrx4me; 12-31-2007 at 10:28 AM.
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  14. #28
    Administrator RayfieldsWRX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Old Folks Home
    Posts
    46,943
    I Support ClubWRX
    We've started drinking early this New Year's Eve, haven't we, Jeremy?


    No offense, but I haven't had good experiences with Kodak printing paper. Our Canon paper seems to have held up pretty well. I'll see if I can find some of my oldest prints and check them..

    Of course, the whole point with digital is that if they DID go bad, it's not like I have to go dig up a negative buried in a stack 2 miles deep. Go find the 2004 folder on my server, pick the month, find the pic, ==> print, done.
    --Ray
    Grandfather of the Bugeye Mafia
    2013 Subaru BRZ Limited
    2002 Subaru WRX Bugeyebrid Wagon

  15. #29
    Resident meany-rator 06wrx4me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    11,420
    I Support ClubWRX
    Quote Originally Posted by RayfieldsWRX View Post
    We've started drinking early this New Year's Eve, haven't we, Jeremy?
    Only Starbux thus far....I'm at work and its 10:30am.


    No offense, but I haven't had good experiences with Kodak printing paper. Our Canon paper seems to have held up pretty well. I'll see if I can find some of my oldest prints and check them..
    Non taken as I said I print mostly with vendors now. My parents used to print all at home but I have since converted them to vendors too after they realized the monetary benefit, and the fact they can print pictures of their grandchildren and family they didn't take by accessing the proper online album.


    Of course, the whole point with digital is that if they DID go bad, it's not like I have to go dig up a negative buried in a stack 2 miles deep. Go find the 2004 folder on my server, pick the month, find the pic, ==> print, done.
    This is true.....
    2014 Ford Fiesta ST

    06 WRX, HAWKEYE # 001 <T-boned and sold>

    COILOVER TABLE
    TURBO TABLE

  16. #30
    Registered User scoobyroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    134
    You all are right. I was just saying IF you had the time go film first for a better understanding of what it is you are making the camera do. If your goal is to do every-day shooting and have great results each time then 100% go digital. The cost is less in the long run but IMO it costs to learn and film would be the best route. If that is not your goal and your goal is to get some great photos go digital.
    My aunt shoots with the Rebel XTI and she loves it! She gets some amazing photos too. The 10mp is not needed.. not much more than 6mp is needed unless your going larger than say a 36"x24".
    I'd have to disagree on the quality of digital exceeding film. I shot 100 ISO slide for months and still haven't shot near that quality with my digital (EOS 20D with L glass).
    The thing I love about film is that the shots aren't as good as the camera you buy as it is in digital. You can buy great film and use an old canon ae from the 70's and shoot amazing photos just as you would with the say.. eos-3. Nowadays digital shooting is as good as the sensor you've got.
    You can't argue the fact that Digital's ease of use and quality for beginners is much better than film.
    Sorry for the rant
    To the OP go digital! Be it Canon or Nikon both will do you well.
    Curent: 1988 VW Golf Cabby
    6-8 months: 2006 JPB STi

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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