Menu
What's new
Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!

Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

Question for RM............

A

Anonymous

Guest
Are film cameras completely obsolete? How difficult is it to convert from using film cameras to digital cameras in regards to the learning curve? Please have a great day! Kelley (Texas) <img src="/metal/html/confused.gif" border=0 width=15 height=22 alt=":?">
 
But since it's raining out and I bored to death I am going to butt in and offer my two cents worth. I cut my teeth on an old Kodak Brownie and then moved on to SLR 35mm film cameras. I still own an old Honeywell Pentax Spotmatic and a Minolta X-700. Admittedly I never got beyond the novice level with my film SLR's as it was expensive to learn because I had to buy film and pay for processing. But I became good enough at the basics that for normal family and tourist type photos I achieved pretty good results. Those basics have not changed, i.e., focus, exposure, shutter speed, aperture, ISO speed, etc. Now jump forward about 20 years when I purchased my Nikon 4300, essentially a simply point and shoot camera. Great little camera that under the right conditions gave some incredible pictures. Unfortunately good photo opportunities don't always happen under the right conditions. I quickly reacquired the photography bug and I knew I had to get an SLR to gain more control over my shots. I was a bit scared at first but I soon found that my many years working with only the basics with film gave me a good platform to build on with my new digital camera. Obviously camera technology has made tremendous gains in the last 20 years. Just the technologies of auto focus and evaluative metering alone have vastly improved the quality of my photos. The big factor is the ability to shoot hundreds, if not thousands of photos at a time for free. Add in all the new technologies and the ability to digitally edit your photos and the results make the whole process very satisfying. In my opinion digital is so far superior that I can't imagine ever shooting film again. My advice is go for it Kelley and get a nice digital SLR. I'm guessing that you'll be producing photos that will knock our socks off in no time. Plus, you live in a beautiful part of the country and enjoy a lifestyle that is quickly becoming extinct. Capture it, share it, pass it on to future generations. <img src="/metal/html/smile.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":)">
 
to check the Forum. At one time, I owned a Pentax Spotmatic too. I presently own a Minolta X-700, Minolta X-570, and Minolta Maxxum 7000...all of which are now out dated as per se. I have owned and used Nikon equipment in the past. About a year ago, I acquired a simple Sony digital camera from my son, but have never taken the time to really learn how to use it. I am well versed in using a SLR film camera, but now realize that it is time to move on to using a digital camera. I will probably have trouble understanding all the computer software and also the functions of the digital camera...but, better late than never, right? The only phase of photography that I had never done is macro photography...Royal lit a fire under me in regards to macro photography with his bug pictures.
Thanks for the response to my questions. I really need to get back outside and finish repairing a section of fence that a feral hog tore up last night. Please have a great day! Kelley (Texas) <img src="/metal/html/biggrin.gif" border=0 width=15 height=15 alt=":D">
 
I would get a Digital point and shoot. My favorite is the Sony DSC-V1. It has an incredibly sharp lens and more features than you could ever use.
A high quality P&S will outperform a Digital SLR in many situations unless you spend the big $$$$ for a top of the line lens. Remember, additionally, most pics from a DIGI SLR will need post processing.
John
 
post processing and a point & shoot camera not need post processing? Please have a great day! Kelley (Texas) <img src="/metal/html/confused.gif" border=0 width=15 height=22 alt=":?">
 
Kelley,
When converting to digital you need to start seeing light differently or as digital sees it and digital cameras do see light differently from film. Until this past year digital did not have the exposure latitude that film does. Your exposure had to be spot on with digital. Film will give you latitude of a few stops over or under. Other than that the digital slr's operate just like a film camera.
Film cameras I think will not be obsolete, film will get more expensive though with less use.
If you have the funds I would go with a digital slr instead of a more expensive point and shoot digital. You have more versatility and performance with a digital slr.
RM
 
MAny Digital SLR come with a so-so quality lens. It's much more difficult to construct a good lens for a larger sensor like those in the SLR's than a smaller sensor lens.
Another great point and shoot is the Panasonic FZ20. It has a 12X optical zoom lens designed by Leica.
Now, any Digital SLR is going to be more versatile than a fixed lens camera. The Digital SLR will have interchangable lenses, larger sensor size, and will tend to show less noise as the ISO increases and also less noise in shadow areas. Digital SLR's are also larger than a good P&S.
Hope this helps!
John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top