For those who have gone from good film SLRs to digital - Why?

Greetings to the forum. I'm glad I found y'all - I've already found answers to several of my questions. However, I have a really basic question that I know my wife will want answered.

I have an A2e, and my wife has an Elan IIe. We have an EF 50 f/1.4 USM, an EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, and an EF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM. We have two Speedlites, a 540EZ and a 380EX. I have a vertical grip, and she wants one. Nothing real exotic, just an assortment of good, workable gear. We're both what I'd call advanced amateurs. Our claimed interests are primarily landscape and nature shots, but there are zillions of snapshots and candids in the blend, too. I've rented studio lights for family portraits, and have shot second and third weddings for friends. My wife has a real eye for composition. I've been known to shoot two rolls of film on a single flower, playing with DOF, lighting angles, etc. Neither one of us uses full-auto mode. My wife uses primarily P mode, and I do too for snapshots. For more composed photos I go to aperture-priority mode to control DOF. I love the sound of the A2e - a quiet "snick" that disappears completely under normal conversation. Rewind is essentially silent, too - I've missed a couple of shots because the camera rewound without my noticing it. The Elan IIe has a typical SLR sound - "kachonk-scree" - but it's still pretty quiet.

We just got back from a two-week trip to England, Scotland and Wales. Between me, my wife, and my eight-year-old daughter (armed with her trusty Kodak point-and-shoot) we shot 56 rolls of film, nearly 1600 exposures. My wife and I constantly swapped lenses - 28mm to get the grandeur of Westminster Abbey, 300mm for a closeup of a gargoyle, 50mm for snapshots on the Underground, etc. With film and processing, we're looking at right around $600 (thanks to Sam's Club). Plus, it's going to be three weeks after we got back before we can get the film to be processed, due to life interfering.

I've had several people say that one or both of us should go digital. I've spent the last couple of weeks investigating digital SLRs to go with our existing glass, and have made up a spreadsheet on the Rebel XT and the 20D with costs, features, etc. I know what they can do, how they compare, what we need to go with them, and all that.

I just can't get my arms around the "why?", and I know my wife is going to want a reasonable answer. I'm hoping y'all can come up with an "aha!" that will help with my decision. Why should I spend another $1-2k on photo gear? Is it all about the instant gratification, the ability to winnow blown shots, the geek factor, or just because it's there? Yes, I know that we have to make up our own minds, yadda yadda. What led you to make the decision to change? There's a lot to be said about the thrill of the unknown (will that shot come out?), the feel of a new set of prints when you slide them out of the envelope for the first time, and the aroma of a new canister of film.

I look forward to your responses. Thanks!

Your $600 film processing cost should be one of the big reasons for going digital. One or two more vacation trips like the one you just came back from and the digital EOS will have been paid for itself, no?

The second reason is the instant feedback you get with digital. No more wondering if the shots you got are going to come out how you hope they will. No more waiting for them to get back from the photo lab. Upload them to the computer and your pictures are ready for viewing and/or printing. Or, if you care to and have a compatible printer, you can go direct from camera to printer.

There are a couple of more reason but I think these two are the top reasons, at least for me.

Yes, you only need to get prints of the images you want. You don't need to pay for all the prints when you really only wanted/needed maybe $300 worth of your $600 in processing fees. However, with digital, you'll spend your time processing your own images before getting them printed. So, you'll save a lot of $$ in the long run, spend more time processing your own images, have ALOT more control over your final images.
Additionally, the instant feedback of the LCD/Histogram, along with the EXIF data to look back on are super tools for improving your skills.

-daniel

Leo's right. Its the ability to view images immediately, and feeling free to experiment without worrying about development costs. I used to have an EOS 3 which I loved, but was reluctant to experiment because it would cost about £7 to develop each roll, and the processing lab standards varied so much. There was no guarantee that the pictures would come back processed to my satisfaction.

Being able to go out for a day's shooting and see the results as soon as I get home is a winner for me

I now shoot around 800 pictures a month, its my principal hobby. I could not have contemplated that pre digital.

If you've already got a computer and the necessary software, its certainly worth considering, now that Digital SLRs' have 'come of age'.

well, glenhead I think I'm inthe same position as you, I use an olympus OM1 and an Eos 1N, I take a fair number of shots which I grudgingly take down to the processing lab and hand over my money...
There is a pay off between digtial/film which may throw your thinking about a bit (sorry!) but here it is:
Film - take you pictures, you go and get them processed. if they're neg.'s then you get your prints, in your hand and 'there' once done. if its slides you take then again you get a product you can stick in a projector and admire at HUGE sizes (nothing beats this in my mind, a 12 foot image I took...cool). the cost each time you process a film gradually eats away at your wallet...
digital: you take hunderds of pictures 'for free' after an initial big hit for the camera/memory cards/spare batteries etc, and then you download them to the computer. then you select maybe a handful to print - which you may get done at a lab or d.i.y. (the latter required a decent printer and ink and paper...cost of that = ??). ok so you can alter and mess around with them in PS but how many of them will you actually enjoy as pictures, up on a wall?
I assume that if you wanted something blown up to A3+ then you'd get it printed professionally, digital SLRs - at least the 350/20D - do pretty well up to this size, but slides can do better...

it all relies I guess on how YOU use the prints/images you take. but I agree with the thoughts of others, the sheer numbers you take could indicate you're perhaps not after showing off all of them but may select a few good ones from a location you visit...in this case digital might be best for you as the control of what gets printed at the end of the day remains with you rather than 'blind luck' of handing over a stack of cans and having to pay for the entire lot - including the fudged shots (cause there's always going to be some!).

think I've made you mind up on that one, go digital and select the prints you want printed...!

I see several reasons (the same that made me get back into this world, basically).

1) Quality. Todays mid-to-high level digital stuff is more than sufficient to get even very big prints. Nothing to regret from that point of view. sure, film is another world but for the average use (even as a pro/semipro/advanced amateur) digital today is more than fine.

2) Financials. There is some investment at the beginning. but once you have your gear set up the way you want it, its basically over. the only expense will be the prints that you really want to have. Or to buy new gear, but that's the same with film With what you have spent on processing with your last vacation you'll probably have a free vacation every 3/4 years. Or a new lens/piece of equipment every year, your choice.

3) Speed. Personally, albeit I know a lot of photographers that like the wait and the complications involved in film as "part of the game", I always hated to wait for labs to process whatever I needed. Digital is almost instant. You have a quick chimp on your LCD, then as soon as you get home you see the real results. This is less important when you do not have the chance to reshoot (i.e. sports, but in that case the fact that digital is very cheap saves your butt in another way byt allowing you to take tons of pics) but for example during a vacation, if I found a pic taken during the day that I do not like or I could have done better, well... the next day I just reshoot it. If I have to go back home, maybe from a place where I will never return, the pic is gone forever.

4) Flexibility 1. Especially if you shoot RAW, a lot of mistakes can be corrected making those hard to repeat shoots very often recoverable. Of course, the target is to have the correct result straight out of the camera, but sometime it just does not happens.

5) Flexibilty 2. I do not really know how many times I missed a shoot because I had the wrong film loaded. I used to have 2 bodies with different film inside, but still sometimes I could not made it. With digital (good quality digital, forget the toys) I just have to decide at te moment what the correct ISO would be and set the camera accordingly. And this works for every single shot I take. This is IMHO the greatest thing about digital. The right film at the right time. Always. And if its the wrong film well... its only my fault if I forget to set the right ISO Edit to add: and of I need BW, its even easier, either in camera or in post processing. Just discard the color information and you're done.


I hope this helps. And welcome aboard !!!

PacAce wrote:
Your $600 film processing cost should be one of the big reasons for going digital. One or two more vacation trips like the one you just came back from and the digital EOS will have been paid for itself, no?

The second reason is the instant feedback you get with digital. No more wondering if the shots you got are going to come out how you hope they will. No more waiting for them to get back from the photo lab. Upload them to the computer and your pictures are ready for viewing and/or printing. Or, if you care to and have a compatible printer, you can go direct from camera to printer.

There are a couple of more reason but I think these two are the top reasons, at least for me.

You're assuming everyone switching to digital would never want to print their images? Someone coming from film to digital would probably want 95% of their images printed. Also if you take as many as they say, I doublt they would enjoy post processing 1600 images from just one trip. Sounds like they should stay with film.

Beyond all that has been said here, I consider digital as a way to (at last!) afford experimenting all the tricks I never tried with my film cameras.

Although I've practiced photography for decades (as an amateur), there are still some domains I didn't dare to really explore because of the cost involved, the time needed etc.

My 20d is my fourth SLR and my first digital one, and since I got it I feel free to experiment all those magic tricks, explore all these special domains I never had before.

I'm still far to be an expert but there is still sooo much fun and excitment to keep on learning!

(btw I kept my EOS5 film camera for one thing I can't do with a DSLR: B&W pictures ; IMHO digital is not able to achieve the same results as the good old BW film and prints).

Believe me I have been in your shoes. I am a working pro, and hoped to get through the rest of my career without having to go digital after spending 30 years honing my skills as a master B&W printmaker. I have the same two film cameras your have, but since I got a 10D two years ago they have been sitting on the shelf. I still use my medium and large format cameras but given the choice I would prefer to shoot digital or 5x7/8x10 film. Once you learn some Photoshop skills your ability to contol your color photography will be completely addictive. I get much better prints from a cheap mass printing place than I use to get from custom pro color lab because I can control the exposure, the color balance and saturation and the contrast in shadows and highlights. I never really cared much for color prints until I switched to digital. The Rebel XT body makes excellent digital photography available to almost everybody.

Becaue I now get to stay warrm and dry and am able to sit down in the dark room and of course, it isn't dark.

I now prepare my prints in CS and get them professionaly printed with no colour correction. I retain all the control and get to do it in comfort.

N

I also spent over 20 years shooting with film SLR's and have gone digital in just the last 2 years. my wife and I still have our film cameras, Elan 7e's, but since we have both gone digital, a 10D and a 20D, we have not touched our film cameras. I keep the film cameras for back up, but I have not used them in over a year.

Here is another angle which chtgrubbs pointed out - the versitility you have in the field. Let's use your last trip as an example. I am sure there were many times when you were shooting in full daylight, perhaps flower shots, and wanted the great color pop that Velvia 50 gives you. a few minutes later you may have walked into an abby or castle where you wanted to shoot in low light, but that roll of Velvia was only half used and the sign on the doors says "no flash". With digital this is not a problem. You just change the ISO setting and go for it. With daylight balanced film, you were doing great outside, but back in the abby, under the incandescent lights you new your pictures were going to be yellow unless you had the proper filter at hand, but again that reduces your light even more which compounds the problem. With digital, you just change the white balance and it is as if you changed to a different color balanced film. Even if you had a roll of the proper color balanced film in ISO 400 or 800, you still would be rolling the dice on color because the light might be mixed; sunlight through a high window mixed with fluorescent and incandescent and candle light. When shooting raw and using a white card, you can get it dead on! You can even switch to B&W in the preferences of the 20D and shoot a few frames that way! Going digital will expand your ability to capture the image the way you want to.

I know you feel like you are "turning to the dark side" after all those years with film, but once you switch you will be extremely happy with the new possiblities.

I can hear the echo of our fore-fathers within the photo fraternity saying, "What? Shoot on celuloid? A man is not a man unless he is shooting on Tin!!!"

Mike

Having had a Canon G-1 digital as my carry-around camera for 4-5 years. I recently went to a d-SLR (Rebel XT). I also have have similar film equipment to yours which I used for my more important work (almost everything) and similar shooting interests. The immediate reason for finally pushing me over the edge, was a trip last fall to Ireland and the disappointment in results from shooting in such overcast conditions without any immediate feedback so I could correct for exposure in the difficult lighting conditions. The XT is a great camera, and I've probably shot my last film, and everything everyone else says is pretty much valid, however, IMO, with some caveats.

Unless you purchase a full frame sensor camera, you WILL want to buy new lenses. Minimally, something along the lines of either the 17-40 L or 17-85 EF-S to replace the 28-105. This is due to the 1.6 crop (magnifcation) factor. Also for landscapes, to get wide angle, which you don't currently list, something like the 10-22 EF-S, or between those 2 about $1400 USD in glass. Neither of the EF-S's can be used on the film camers. There are 3rd party lenses which you could use instead, however, you're still talking about a chunk of change and probably not useable for film. That $1-2k quickly can become $3-4k!

If this is your normal situation, then a digital SLR may not be for you, since most users feel you MUST post-process. There are numerous threads about dissatisfaction with d-SLR's not being sharp enough unless post-processed and this takes a lot of time, especially when first learning. The upside as previously pointed out is that you have complete control.

If these points are hurdles to you, you may still be happy going digital with an advanced point & shoot, which take great pictures. The biggest drawbacks to those IMO is the limited interchangeable lens choices, lack of DOF and relatively long (compared to SLR) shutter lag.

Good luck.

Simple.. when I had film cameras.. I never took photos...

I'm just going by the premise that if someone takes 1600 pictures in one trip, he really isn't going to want all 1600 of the pictures, if he really had a choice, and would just select the ones he really thought were good, which you can't determine ahead of time with film.

I still shoot both film and digital.

Just very picky now on what I shoot with film.
And even more picky about what I shoot with medium format.

Use to shoot mainly film since in the early days the stock agencies
only accepted film.

Now they have always accepted digital files but they want a 40 meg file.
They accept prints as well so those images I have shot digital and are
accepted, I print off an nice 8x10 from my Canon I9900 and I am good to go.

I think as time goes by and the megapix gets higher and cameras get cheaper, I will shoot
film less and less.

I used to have outrageous lab costs. Getting images scanned with a drum scanner
was killing me. Then to get that image on a 4x5 film output was even more.

Now there is not much of a need for them.
You can get a good scanner now with a Dmax range of 3.4 for under $800.

Pretty much my own little photo lab now.