Digital Cameras Discussions |
|
18Degrees
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Points: 111
|
|
Re: Digital vs. Film SLRs
Reply #6 Mar 20, 2005 12:01 am |
|
I have a Elan 7e with Eye Control Canon 28-135 Image Stablizer lens dead Sigma 28-200 lens (it quit autofocusing) 2 550ex flashes (for wireless falsh) bogen tripod stroboframe PRO-T Nikon has the D70 ($999.95 body only, $1299.95 for the kit) but if you wait for septemberish i sure nikon will answer Canon for the christmas season( I usally see new cameras released then). 18 degrees
This message was modified Mar 20, 2005 by 18Degrees
18 Degree driveway - 928 Honda track drive - Fertilizer spreader for dispensing salt
|
18Degrees
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Points: 111
|
|
Re: Digital vs. Film SLRs
Reply #10 Apr 9, 2005 2:01 pm |
|
As far as digital slr are concerned to me they make no sense if you already have a film slr. The point of getting a digital is so that you wouldn't have to change lenses and carry all that extra equipment around.
There is a reason the eqipment is the size it is. Smaller cameras (film of digital) do not have the response time or the features to work the shot as fast or at all. BUT, if your camera is to big to luggg around, then the smaller one is the far batter chioce. ( I get frustrated with point and shoot cameras (film or digital), if I am doing more than point & shoot) my $0.02 18 degrees
This message was modified Apr 9, 2005 by 18Degrees
18 Degree driveway - 928 Honda track drive - Fertilizer spreader for dispensing salt
|
Muskokaphotog
Joined: Jan 8, 2009
Points: 10
|
|
Re: Digital vs. Film SLRs
Reply #12 Jan 8, 2009 12:38 pm |
|
Hi Roger,
I guess that depends on how much you spend on the film, the processing and the camera. And how long you keep your digital camera. Purchasing and processing transparency film today is expensive, total about $30 - 40 per roll, so ten rolls would buy an intro digital.
|
|
|