Just Say No Kids…

#1 Stephen Waits

That's a little short sighted.

* Sell your EOS300

* Consider the cost of development and film. Let's say each roll costs you $8 total. At 15 to 20 rolls/month that works out to $1440 to $1920/year. NOT going to a digital SLR is going to actually cost you more!

* Consider the cost of NOT owning it. How many times will you skip a shot because you don't want to "waste film"?

* Consider how much more quickly you may be able to continue learning because you'll be FREE to experiment

I say, don't waste another minute, go back to the store and buy that sucker!

--Steve

12:25 am - Tuesday, April 1, 2003

#2 Mark Goldstein

Hi Steve.

You may have a good point (or two) there.

You may have changed my mind.

I may be entering the Lottery for the first time this week.

Mark

2:27 pm - Wednesday, April 2, 2003

#3 Gabrielle Taylor

I learned SLR photo in my teens, and did quite a bit of it until it became too time-consuming and expensive (not to mention lugging around that huge heavy Pentax -- and I've since found I'm allergic to developer chemicals, which explains some more about why I stopped doing photo).

Two years ago, I borrowed an Olympus D-3000 for a month. Shot some quite nice landscapes, and generally found I was excited about photography again. I did the math on what developing film would cost me, and realized, as Steve did, that I didn't want to pay to print every shot -- but that I did want to be able to shoot the same scene 150 times just to get one shot I really liked.

Since then I've experimented extensively with prosumer grade digicams -- looking for the right combination of lens quality and technological function. I agree that it's frustrating that one should, if one were to 'keep up' with digicams, spend the same amount every year on a whole camera as one might've been inclined to spend on accessories that would still be usable next year. That's a general problem in high tech: here today, garbage tomorrow.

I think, in a roundabout way, that actually argues for buying a less-expensive all-in-one prosumer, instead of a DSLR and lenses. DSLRs are going to stay expensive for the foreseeable future because only professionals want (that is, _need_) them. Alternatively, you can pick up a prosumer like the Minolta 7hi or the Sony f717, and get great zoom, sound optics, manual focus ring, a decent range of function, sufficient megapixels for 16x20 prints, etc., and be able to experiment. Then you'll either find a way to make your hobby pay for upgrades to the real professional equipment (which, realistically, you'll only exploit fully if you have the time to act as a professional) or you'll find you're a dabbler and probably content with the technical levels demonstrated by a prosumer camera. No extra lenses required, and whatever accessories you buy for it will generally be applicable to your next prosumer.

Beyond that, because the prosumer cameras are universally smaller than a dSLR with separate lens, I'm willing to carry it around with me 100% of the time, which means I take at least 100% more photos, as opposed to "going out to take pictures".

8:13 pm - Friday, April 4, 2003

#4 QCumber

The best zoom lens on the market is still a pair of feet. In most cases just walking a little closer or farther away from the subject of the photo suffices.

I've often found that I get much better pictures using my fixed focus lenses with the hyperfocal distance set properly than I do with zoom lenses. For this reason I'm suspicious of overpriced zoom lenses. I've yet to encounter a situation where I've "needed" auto focus.

As to buying a DSLR, I'll get one next year. I've got a good slide scanner and I'm happy with the quality of the scans from my 35 mm. While I actually can afford the 10 D, I'd much rather put that money into my home studio. I'm buying several thousand worth of professional lighting, seamless backgrounds, muslins, and many other goodies that will still retain most of their value 10 years from now (unlike the 10D).

9:07 pm - Friday, April 4, 2003

#5 Gabrielle Taylor

Yeah, QCumber, but you used the word "professional". Mark isn't a professional (and neither am I). I do think a well-rounded prosumer is an investment worth considering for someone on the cusp of professional or dabbler. A pro, with the dedication and income of a professional, will necessarily have a different attitude. However, for someone on the cusp, pro digital camera gear can be a seductive cash sucker that won't actually see full use before becoming obsolete -- I think we're talking apples and oranges here.

10:42 pm - Friday, April 4, 2003

#6 QCumber

Hi Gabrielle,

I'm not a professional yet, either (a professional being someone who derives the majority of their income from photography).

That being said, I still don't think the 10D returns fair value on the money. The image quality is quite good. Is it superior enough to what my Minolta DiMAGE 7 produces to justify the added expenditure? Nope.

If I need the higher quality I'll simply take a test shot on my DiMAGE at the appropriate focal length and then swap in my 35mm with some Kodachrome or Fuji Velvia loaded (who needs a polaroid test back when you've got digital?). Scanning the slide/negative and then working on it in Photoshop is still an option after the fact.

I'm discovering a love of still life photography, particularly that of food, and I think I'd much rather invest in the lighting.

In terms of taking 150 pics for the one shot you really like, all i can ask is "why?" I prefer to take a measured approach to photographing something. Identify the subject, look for ways to focus attention on the subject (compostion/framing), and then simplify the picture. I've found that slowing down and considering each shot has really improved my skill as a photographer.

These days I find that 30 to 50% of all pictures I take are useable, with both digital and film.

11:38 pm - Friday, April 4, 2003

#7 Gabrielle

I wasn't being literal about 150 shots, baybee.

3:35 am - Saturday, April 5, 2003

#8 QCumber

My apologies. :">

I do agree that it is nice to have the freedom to go "snap happy" without having the processing bill hanging over one's head.

4:21 am - Saturday, April 5, 2003