Need Advise: Best Beginner Digital or 35 mm Camera

Kodak closing Australian production plant

11/09/2004 01:25:39 AM · #26

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

11/09/2004 01:26:50 AM · #27

Need anymore evidence?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

11/09/2004 01:29:35 AM · #28

Using Kodak as an example is the wrong thing to do here. Kodak focuses their efforts in the consumer market. The point made here is that the professional market has not predominantly moved to digital photography yet.

11/09/2004 01:33:34 AM · #29

ok im with you there - professional photography maybe moving a bit slower
but my point is .....

don't students rank more towards the consumer market rather than the professional market?

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 01:34:39.

TooCool

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/09/2004 01:36:07 AM · #30

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The Canon Elan 7 series (whatever the current model is) sells for $299

My local camera guy told me about a notice that Canon put out about one of the Canon Elan series cameras (can't remember which number) and second market (Tamron, Sigma, etc...) lenses. He said that in certain circumstances that the lense and camera were not totally compatible and could fry both body and lens... Has anyone else heard anything like this? Is there any such issue with the digital Eos series of bodies?

ajschmidt

11/09/2004 01:37:59 AM · #31

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

Kodak is still going very strong on the film side. I was in Sydney two weeks ago and bought a bunch of kodak iso 50 135-36 film. You are right about the snap shot market.

Kodak cuts 900 jobs

Interesting read ...

I know that it may look like kodak is in trouble, but trust me, they will be around for ever. I have two relatives that work for Kodak and in all reality it is just cheaper for Kodak to distribute film world wide from the USA rather than have on site labs around the world. The cost is offset with the decrease in shipping rates, due to higher international mail, due to lower numbers of international passenger flights. FedEX is booming post 9/11/01.

11/09/2004 01:51:53 AM · #32

It's not 'moving slower' at all. Professionals use all available tools to get what they want. In some cases it's digital, in others it's film. If I'm a pro photographer who has used film for 25 years and knows exactly what I'm going to get out of it in any given situation, digital would be a hindrance in some situations. Take a look at some 6x7 drum scans some time and tell me if you still think digital is the only way to go. Sports Illustrated still uses film-loaded Hasselblads in NBA games because they believe film holds an edge in that situation. Consumers are using digital for convenience reasons, but pros are concerned with the results over all else.

As for students being more concerned with the consumer side, that's just wrong. People attend photography classes to learn about photographic technique either for a hobby or for professional reasons. In either case it's necessary to be exposed to professional equipment. A digital point-and-shoot like your P72 doesn't have the flexibility of a professional tool. Can it, for instance, do something like this:

No it can't - and you can't teach DOF control with something that doesn't have any control over it.

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

ok im with you there - professional photography maybe moving a bit slower
but my point is .....

don't students rank more towards the consumer market rather than the professional market?

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 01:53:09.

ajschmidt

11/09/2004 01:53:09 AM · #33

Thank you all for the best One Hour thread I have ever had on this site. The Fuji f5000 is a great camera the more I read about it, and was the perfect direction for me to offer the class as an introductory digital that they all can afford. Hell, I can buy two f5000 for the price of my sb-800 flash.
John, as always, you are a life saver and a good friend. GET PUBLISHED!

One last thought. If you know a GOOD used camera retailer, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks all and good night,
Adam Schmidt

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 01:58:45.

11/09/2004 01:54:40 AM · #34

Can always blur the background in photoshop

11/09/2004 01:55:59 AM · #35

Thank all and goodnight
goodnight

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 01:57:51.

11/09/2004 01:57:45 AM · #36

Well, no you can't get the same result. But even if you could, if you were shooting 500 shots in a morning and had to get them to your editor in an hour, would you go through all 500 shots and blur them in Photoshop? You'd be out of a job faster than you can say 'digital'.

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

Can always blur the background in photoshop

11/09/2004 01:58:55 AM · #37

your going to get 500 photos developed within an hour?
... also the cost factor of all that film and developing

Message edited by author 2004-11-09 02:02:43.

11/09/2004 02:01:32 AM · #38

No, in that case I'd be using my digital SLR.

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

your going to get 500 photos developed within an hour?

11/09/2004 02:09:17 AM · #39

I got nothing against dslr .. i want one when i can afford one
what i do have a probem against is the old style cameras i still can't see any of the advantages of them over digital

With my Camera

11/09/2004 02:18:59 AM · #40

Well if you're using macro mode, you can blur the background. How far away from that flower were you? A foot? You can't do that when your subject is 20 feet away. A film SLR behaves exactly the same as a full-frame DLSR. Depth of field is totally an issue. Go borrow one and try it if you still don't believe me.

Originally posted by saintnicholas_25:

I got nothing against dslr .. i want one when i can afford one
what i do have a probem against is the old style cameras i still can't see any of the advantages of them over digital

With my Camera