300D's film equivalent?

[RinkRat]

Being a photography newb, I've decided to take some courses on the subject. It would seem all of the courses require a film camera. What would you recommend for an inexpensive film version of the 300D?

Ya know, this "hobby" is getting quite expensive! Lenses, bags, filters, tripods, ugh...

Thanks.

-RinkRat

[robertwgross]

I don't know if this is exactly how Canon planned it, but for the Canon Digital Rebel, there is a brother in the Canon Rebel (film camera). One weakness is that there is no Depth of Field preview button.

---Bob Gross---

[RinkRat]

I figured that much, but I did do a search on Ebay, and it appeared there were a few variations of a 35mm Rebel.

i.e. "S", "2000", "G", "GII", "XS", "SII".

Without studying the entire history of Canon's Rebel line, I was thinking someone here would know which one would be the film equivalent of the 300D.

-Rat

[Penguin_101_1]

To me the Ti is about the same.

[blinking8s]

my classes require film as well, I went ahead and figured if I am going to take any more classes, I was going to invest in an awesome camera, I had a close to fully manual 1970's nikon, but I couldnt change the shutter speed, with no camera stores in the Area that are remotely worth a crap..I ordered a Elan 7n...its so awesome its depressing :(

[Perfect_10]

I would suggest a Rebel 2000 (EOS 300) or Rebel Ti (EOS 300V), or even a used Canon Rebel G (EOS 500N).
I keep an EOS 3000 (Canadian model) kicking around just for film work.

[Jesper]

The Rebel Ti is called EOS 300v here in Europe, it's more or less the film version of the Digital Rebel (EOS 300D).

[Andy_T]

Why not pick up a real nice Canon film camera (like the Elan7E/33) used on eBay?
Might be helpful as a backup, offer you more possibility for creative photography and work great if you need a true wide angle photograph (affordable full frame ... er ... sensor :lol: )

They should be available for a song ...

Only downside would be that you might want to upgrade your DRebel to the 10D before long...

Best regards,
Andy

[Cadenza]

Frankly, I think it is unconscionable to require
beginning students to start out with film SLRs
these days. I did it in college, but nowadays
it is an unnecessary, frivolous expense that
makes mastering basic technique more difficult.

Beyond technique, looking into the future, the
next generation of photographers will be more
employable if they are taught early on about
pixels, photoshop, color spaces, scanners etc.,
rather than dealing with stinky darkrooms,
chemistry, and Beseler enlargers. The cumbersomeness
of this later part, I believe, is what turns off many
perfectly apt students from pursuing photography
more seriously.

Of course I believe conventional film will always
have a place in a photography curriculum, but by
now, it should be structured into the more
advanced levels, geared towards fine arts
photography majors who likely will want to work
with medium and large formats.

These days, only hard headed, dogmatic professors
who are still enamored of their relics would require
that students start their journey into photography
with a film camera. It's a generational confrontation.

[ron chappel]

The Rebel Ti is called EOS 300v here in Europe, it's more or less the film version of the Digital Rebel (EOS 300D).

Yep,that's the one

But the film version is cosmetically quite different too.The shape is the modern type - the digital version couldn't be built into that tiny space so the digital rebel/300D gets a bulkier boring kind of shape.

The 300D and 300V share important specs such as frames per sec,number of focus points and focus ability,metering ability ,flash,etc.

The main determinant of EOS models seems to be FPS.The entry models do one frame per sec,the 300V/D go at 2.5 FPS while the 10D/EOS30 are similar on about 3.5 i think

There are some older models still sold that confuse that simplicity though

[thomascanty]

I don't know if this is exactly how Canon planned it, but for the Canon Digital Rebel, there is a brother in the Canon Rebel (film camera). One weakness is that there is no Depth of Field preview button.


My Rebel 2000 has a Depth of Field preview button.

[karusel]

I agree with cadenza. It really doesn't make sense to be learning photography on an analog camera when everybody knows they are slowly dying out. Just a few steps more and digital SLR sensors will have the same resolution as film, with all benefits of digital. I say it's a shame having to forget about film, but it's for the better. If you don't put your shots on the net, who will know about you? So, paying for the rolls of film, developing it correctly, all the pain about ISO, changing films for differend light, all those differend filters, scanning slides... so much hassle for what benefit? It is just a matter of time before film will only be found in museums I therefore find it ridiculous that some/most/all photo classes require a film camera.

[boone]

Just remember that the EF-S 18-55 kit lens won't work with those film bodies.

[Brianbar]

If I where to take a course on photography, I would first of all forget about any camera being like a 300D or what ever.
I would save my money and purchase a much older camera that's 100% manual, that way you will learn all the basics of photography, once you understand that you can shoot with any camera you like.

Brian

[Penguin_101_1]

If I where to take a course on photography, I would first of all forget about any camera being like a 300D or what ever.
I would save my money and purchase a much older camera that's 100% manual, that way you will learn all the basics of photography, once you understand that you can shoot with any camera you like.

Brian

I agree. I know a good one if you want ideas but I don't want to get in trouble for saying it is a Minolta. :wink:

[bertelm]

Are these "interest" courses or part of some college program? I have taken several "interest" courses over the years. Although they do specify a film, it's not really necessary to have a film camera. All the concepts are equally applicable to both the film world and the digital world.

You might want to check and see if a film camera is truly a requirement.

[xuxu1]

I don't know if this is exactly how Canon planned it, but for the Canon Digital Rebel, there is a brother in the Canon Rebel (film camera). One weakness is that there is no Depth of Field preview button.


My Rebel 2000 has a Depth of Field preview button.

Yup... i had a Rebel 2000 and it also had that DOF preview button!
It was a great camera for the money.

Sold it though and sticking to digital since then. :)

Regards
Ed

[Cadenza]

You must lose the notion that you'll save
money by going the film SLR way. If you're
going to send your film to a lab, the total cost
per roll is about $10-$15; and a lot more if
you decide to get large prints.

If you're going to develop film yourself, you'll
need to buy an inversion tank, loading reels
(don't you hate having to load those in the dark?
Aaaargh!), developers, fixers, PhotoFlo, clips,
thermometers, filters, light sensitive papers,
film holders, enlargers, stopwatches,
lighttables, etc.

And these days, you will still need to learn
about Photoshop, scanners, files, on top of it
all, it's just that you'll need to digitize your
film/prints first.

If you're still unconvinced that you should get
a digital SLR, I suggest you get an advanced
EOS from earlier model years rather than the
cheapest possible current film Rebel. I saw an
EOS 10s being sold used for about $150 (I
almost bought it.) That was a semi-pro camera
back in 1996; it had a very impressive feature set.

[ron chappel]

Frankly, I think it is unconscionable to require
beginning students to start out with film SLRs
these days. I did it in college, but nowadays
it is an unnecessary, frivolous expense that .........

.......These days, only hard headed, dogmatic professors
who are still enamored of their relics would require
that students start their journey into photography
with a film camera. It's a generational confrontation.

Mostly agree cadenza! :)

On a related note,one of my pet beefs is the way alot of people say "you must start with prime lenses to learn to use perspective!"
What rubbish :x
If one is learning properly,a zoom HELPS one learn about perspective!

-of course that one about using ONLY a std (50mm in film) lens for awhile to 'force' oneself into learning how to 'see' a picture/free the mind,etc still applies to some extent-

[ron chappel]

Now that i've read your orriginal post properly :oops: :oops: ...

Any of the EOS models from about 1995 onwards can do practically everything so all of those would be suitable.Just pick one by cost or features :)
But as someone above said allready-your 18-55 lens won't fit other EOS cameras so you'll have to get another wide zoom.(28-80 or similar)

If you want to do it on a budget i'll heartilly suggest the EOS500/rebelXs.Film cameras sell SO cheap these days 2nd hand---i'm having trouble selling an eos500 with 35-80 zoom for the equivilant of us$100 :shock:

[Andy_T]

Ron ...
what would you normally take for an Elan7e/33?

Best regards,
Andy

[ron chappel]

Hi Andy
Actually i've never had one of those :(

But i do notice they sell very well still.A rough guess-body only- somewhere like us$250 upwards

Just checked Epay usa
Yep 230 up to 300+

[Andy Somnifac]

Frankly, I think it is unconscionable to require beginning students to start out with film SLRs these days. I did it in college, but nowadays it is an unnecessary, frivolous expense that makes mastering basic technique more difficult.

While I fully support digital photography, I still believe that film is the best way for a beginning photography CLASS is the best way to go. My rational goes like this: if a student can pull the trigger without any fear of extra cost involved, they will, and without much thought, until they happen to get something usable. I know that people are going to say that not all students are going to act like this, and that's true, but there will be plenty who do. In the process they will learn absolutely nothing about photography. They'll learn that if they keep clicking the shutter button, they will eventually get something. I know that during my time as a photography student, I never put more time into an exposure as I did when I was shooting 4x5 sheet film that cost me a couple bucks a pop of the shutter.

Plus is makes them learn about ISO because they can't just push a button and presto, different ISO. If they're shooting color, they'll learn about color temp. Also, I believe shooting in b+w helps the student work on composition because it helps you ignore color and think in shapes and tones.

I'm sure I could go on, but my point is: film still has it's place in a classroom environment. If you're learning photography on your own, and WANT to learn something about it, then there's no reason not to dive directly into digital. Just remember that not all students want to learn and sometimes need a gentle prod in the right direction.

[johneo]

I asked a similar question not long ago about which film EOS was similar to my 10D. Ended up going with the Elan 7NE. Great film camera and I'm having fun shooting some film though my 10D still does 90% of my shooting.

However ... These two cameras are so close in feel and weight with various lenses that there have been a few times I have taken a few shots with the 7NE when I wanted the 10D. When I have them both hanging around my neck I have to check which one I am going to shoot.

That's not really a big deal but here's a thought. Get a little better film camera that may take you further with your photography over time. Evidently you are going to take your photography a little more serious if you are taking a class so over time you may want a better film camera. As with everything else you will probably want to upgrade and seeing the price of a good film camera is relativly cheap compared even to a 300D go for a better film camera.

There are enough differences betweeen my 10D and 7NE to have figured out, now, that they do not function or act the same. My thinking is there is such a difference between film and digital cameras that no matter how similar they look, feel or perform, the gap between digital and film is still pretty huge.