should i go for a 35mm or digital slr as a novice

[ayo_jay]

I'm new to photogarphy and recently offer a Zenit 11, SLR 35mm Camera for £25 .Is this a good deal or should i just save up for a digital SLR ?

Or is there a better entry level 35mm ?

[parisian]

Classically we would advise film cameras to learn with. The basics of photography, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, composition are best learned without the hassle of the digital minefield on top of it.
There are literally millions of film cameras on the market that would be better than the Zenith and for not many more pounds either. Do take your time to trawl the web or visit the shops and magazines such as our own AP. Feel the camera in your hand. Feeling comfortable is far more important than what make it is but the regular high performers will come from Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Canon, Nikon, Yashica, Contax, Rolleiflex. All made wonderful 35mm SLRs and all had a range of lenses and accessories that would suit anyone.
If you like your computer work and before spending a chunk of cash on a DSLR have your films scanned to CD by the lab and you can work on them with the computer in exactly the same manner.
If you then decide that you are hooked by photography then by all means move on to a DSLR but until you are then hold on to your cash.

[Fen]

Classically we would advise film cameras to learn with. The basics of photography, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, composition are best learned without the hassle of the digital minefield on top of it.

I'd say it depends on how computer literate you are.

You can pick up a cheap 2nd hand DSLR, some memory cards and away you go.

Rather than waiting for your films to come back you can view the results instantly and make notes and changes as you take photos. Experimenting with different settings without having the cost of film and development.

[parisian]

But surely that simply promotes the 'machine gun' approach where you press everything and hope for a good shot without ever knowing how it was achieved. The slower, working out the exposure, depth of field and composition in the viewfinder approach just has to be more satisfying - doesn't it?
And as regards waiting for the films to come back - an hour isn't too bad and available on most high streets.

[Barney]

But surely that simply promotes the 'machine gun' approach where you press everything and hope for a good shot without ever knowing how it was achieved. The slower, working out the exposure, depth of field and composition in the viewfinder approach just has to be more satisfying - doesn't it?
And as regards waiting for the films to come back - an hour isn't too bad and available on most high streets.

The machine gun approach is all in the mind. There's nothing to say that you can't work slowly and methodically with digital, I don't know of a DSLR that won't let you shoot with full control over aperture, shutter speed and ISO. Having said that, I think that's really useful to be able to leave some functions on auto just so that you can understand the effect on one on manual.

Also, 1 hour's not long most times, but it might as well be a year if you miss you opportunity to correct an error that you were unaware of until you got your prints.

I'd say that digital would be by far the better route into photography. The start up cost are higher, but second hand DSLRs are available with kits lens for well under £200. The histogram and EXIF data gives a new user so much useful information as they learn. They can review their work, see what settings worked, which ones didn't.

Finally, as the printing process will be out of the hands of the new photogrpahy, they won't notice any errors in the printing process.

[ayo_jay]

Thanks for the advice

[Nod]

Another plus for digital over (most) 35mm cameras - EXIF. Being able to see what settings were used to achieve good (or possibly more importantly, BAD) results in a particular situation is wort it's weight in gold. Yes, you can make notes about every frame you take or even use a dictophone but having the information embedded in every file is far more convenient.

Another thing to consider is patience. I used to find even the 1 hour D&P too slow sometimes - with digital, you can look at the results instantly and reshoot a scene if necessary. Then there are the D&P costs to consider - that 1 hour service isn't cheap, so each film can cost around a tenner (inc film cost and 1hr D&P). The saving you'll make buying a 2nd hand film body rather than a 2nd hand DSLR can vanish PDQ!

One last point (although I'm sure others will occur to me later!)... Crop factors. If you like wide angles, the 1.5 (or there abouts) crop factor loses you a fair amount of width. On the other hand, the extra apparent reach of a telephoto on a crop body can be what you're after.

[parisian]

Isn't everyone getting carried away a little here?
The OP is talking about getting a Zenith at £25 which is a tad under any DSLR - or compact for that matter.
My post merely pointed out that there were better options for not much more money (which could well be a key issue from the tone of the OP) and that to get started in the game they wouldn't be too bad.
Getting started is the thing here and for folk on a tight budget, DSLRs - desirable as they may be - could take a long, long time to save for.

[Barney]

Getting started is the thing here and for folk on a tight budget, DSLRs - desirable as they may be - could take a long, long time to save for.

True, but then there's not much point having a camera if you can't afford to buy the film and the D&P either. It all depends on how long it would take the OP to save against how many films he/she'd be putting through a 35mm SLR.

[Benchista]

Actually, if you're going to go the film way of learning, there's no better camera than a Zenit. Unforgiving and a hard master, but they really make sure you understand all the basics, such as the relationship between aperture and shutter speed, in a way most more automated cameras don't. However, £25 seems steep, given the one in the recent AP feature when they got one for a fiver...

[Straightarm]

I'm new to photogarphy and recently offer a Zenit 11, SLR 35mm Camera for £25 .Is this a good deal or should i just save up for a digital SLR ?

Or is there a better entry level 35mm ?

Avoid like the plague. A zenith is truely aweful camera. When you consider the cost of film and processing, saving up for a digital camera will be better value

[Learning]

If the Zenit comes with a standard 50mm lens then I would offer ten quid for it (assuming that it was in good working order).
However if you can afford rather a lot more and get something like a Nikon D50 or D70 (or equivalent from Canon, Pentax or Sony) with a standard lens then you will learn a lot faster because of the immediate feedback. For cost we are talking ten times more than your fifteen quid.

[benji]

I'm new to photogarphy and recently offer a Zenit 11, SLR 35mm Camera for £25 .Is this a good deal or should i just save up for a digital SLR ?

Interesting thread, this.

I'd say, save up for a cheap digital SLR (i.e: Canon EOS300D + kit lens). You'll learn more quickly thanks to the instant feedback digital gives you at no extra cost. Learn the basics and improve...

... Then...

... Then move on to shooting transparency.

Transparency IS the business, my friend!!!

(my take on it! )

Benji

[LargeFormat]

If you are going to take snapshots digital is the only one that makes sense. If you are planning to get really deep into photography you might consider film but you'd be looking at setting up your own darkroom with loads of on costs but many would see that as investing time and money in an obsolete technology. If you follow the digital route and plan to get into photography you probably have access or own some of the computer equipment.

[Barney]

... Then move on to shooting transparency.

Transparency IS the business, my friend!!!

I have to say, I've never seen the appeal of transparency film, probably because it's too much faff just to look at the images.

If photogrpahy's about taking an image and then kepping it stored away in a shoe box rarely to see the light of day again or if you want your friends' hearts to sink again at the mention of 'slidehow' then transparencies are the business.

If you want to take images that can be shown anywhere and sent across the world in seconds then digitial is your friend.

[El_Sid]

I have to say, I've never seen the appeal of transparency film, probably because it's too much faff just to look at the images.

While it's true they are a faff the end result when projected on a good quality projector and matching screen is well worth it - doubly so if the slides are medium format...

If photogrpahy's about taking an image and then kepping it stored away in a shoe box rarely to see the light of day again or if you want your friends' hearts to sink again at the mention of 'slidehow' then transparencies are the business.

If you want to take images that can be shown anywhere and sent across the world in seconds then digitial is your friend.

But how many digital pix are really viewed regularly - or even more than once? I have a suspicion (based admitedly solely on my own experience) that by-and-large most digital pix are stuffed into a folder on CD/DVD/back-up drive and forgotten about...

[Manofolympus]

I have to say, I've never seen the appeal of transparency film, probably because it's too much faff just to look at the images.

While it's true they are a faff the end result when projected on a good quality projector and matching screen is well worth it - doubly so if the slides are medium format...

If photogrpahy's about taking an image and then kepping it stored away in a shoe box rarely to see the light of day again or if you want your friends' hearts to sink again at the mention of 'slidehow' then transparencies are the business.

If you want to take images that can be shown anywhere and sent across the world in seconds then digitial is your friend.

But how many digital pix are really viewed regularly - or even more than once? I have a suspicion (based admitedly solely on my own experience) that by-and-large most digital pix are stuffed into a folder on CD/DVD/back-up drive and forgotten about...

I would agree-my analogue prints and slides get looked at far more than digital pics which tend to lurk forever on a hard drive-and I think peoples hearts sink when you force them to look at a string of pictures whether on a projection or computer screen!

[Barney]

I have to say, I've never seen the appeal of transparency film, probably because it's too much faff just to look at the images.

While it's true they are a faff the end result when projected on a good quality projector and matching screen is well worth it - doubly so if the slides are medium format...

If photogrpahy's about taking an image and then kepping it stored away in a shoe box rarely to see the light of day again or if you want your friends' hearts to sink again at the mention of 'slidehow' then transparencies are the business.

If you want to take images that can be shown anywhere and sent across the world in seconds then digitial is your friend.

But how many digital pix are really viewed regularly - or even more than once? I have a suspicion (based admitedly solely on my own experience) that by-and-large most digital pix are stuffed into a folder on CD/DVD/back-up drive and forgotten about...

I would agree-my analogue prints and slides get looked at far more than digital pics which tend to lurk forever on a hard drive-and I think peoples hearts sink when you force them to look at a string of pictures whether on a projection or computer screen!

Well from my perspective, all visitors get a view of around four or five hundred of my shots on the slideshow on my LCD screen in the lounge. Okay, it's only a 7" frame but more people see them more regularly than they would otherwise. I've about a dozen printed out aroung the lounge, hall and dining room and of course family photos are emailed to family and friends or posted on Farcebook.

My philosphy on photos is similar to that of cameras. Just as the best camera is the one you've got with you, the best photos are the ones that are seen.

[benji]

I have to say, I've never seen the appeal of transparency film, probably because it's too much faff just to look at the images.

Fair enough. It's just that you may simply not see the appeal (maybe?).
Could "post-processing" images on a computer also be considered as "faffing around"?
(lens-mounted filter/Digital plug-in filter? Colour profiling/calibration, sizing up or down, sharpening, etc, etc...)

If photogrpahy's about taking an image and then kepping it stored away in a shoe box rarely to see the light of day again or if you want your friends' hearts to sink again at the mention of 'slidehow' then transparencies are the business.

How many pix end up in HD and never really see the light of day either?
I've never done "slideshows" of my own relentless snapshots for my friends. Some people may do that. It's never been my aim. I take your point though, and can clearly see how a whole succession of boring shots could quickly become boring, be it "digital" or "slide" show.
On the other hand, interesting images can make for interesting slideshows (digi and/or trad), can't they?

If you want to take images that can be shown anywhere and sent across the world in seconds then digitial is your friend.

I'm not always in such a rush to share, personally. The rest of the world can wait AFAIC


Shooting transparencies is a bit like owning a vintage car or motobike (a bit): They don't do anything more or better than the modern means of personal transport, but... It's all about the feeling of satisfaction, the use of an old type of technology, the uniqueness of a particular medium, the delight to know you've overcome some of your doubts and managed to make it from A to B -be it with a degree of difficulty, yet in style- and the passing on of a know-how, (to my young son), etc. All pretty boring, unappealling stuff, really!

I shoot digital a lot too, but there is still nothing that thrills me more than a well-executed transparency.

Benji (sorry went off topic a bit )