Digital SLR's

[SHADOWFOX]

I am in the market for a new digital camera and would like to get a digital SLR camera. I have lenses from my film camera's that I heard could be use for the DSLR's. Does anybody have one? And for somebody like me who took basic photography lessons will it be worth the extra expense?

My current digital cameras are: Sony DSC-S85 & Pentax W20 (Underwater Digital Camera) that I bought on impulse during our cruise so that I can take pictures while scuba diving and snorkeling.

Thanks!

[LinuxRandal]

My father has a Cannon dslr, and a Cannon slr. Most get you to thinking you can interchange lens, but they mount slightly differently (autofocus in a different area, smaller diameter, etc). Best to not plan on it, but you will have to ask Pentax about what if any model dslr, they make that can interchange with (name of mount) style lenses.

Really bad thing, there is pretty much no market for used slr's anymore

[bigsteel15]

It will all depend what brand of SLR you have.
I was just speaking with my cousin and she said her Pentax SLR lenses will fit the new 10 megapixel unit they are coming out with. Won't be auto-focus but if you ahve nice SLR lenses you want tostill use them.
The Nikon AF lenses I know will fit their D series DSLR.
I believe Canon is the same.

[LCHIEN]

While film SLRs and DSLRs being compatible sounds great, There are a lot of compromises to be made.

Pros: You can use the extensive and expensive lenses you already own.
Cons: Usually digital CCDs sensing areas are much smaller (about 1/2" x 3/4") than the 35mm film area (1.5" x 1"). That means you are either going to
1) use only a small fraction of the image are projected by your lens, or
2) going to have to use a very large CCD

if 1) then the effective 35mm equivalent focal lengths of all your lenses will be multiplied by about 2-3 thus tilting your lens inventory towards the telephoto; the lens will be overdesigned, projecting about 3/4ths of its image outside the imaging area and the great edge performance, low barrel distortion or pincushining and fringing will be wasted; you'll be carrying around a physical lens much heavier, larger and longer than it has to be
if 2) then you will be paying for a large, low production volume CCD that will add greatly to the cost of your camera. You will be carrying around a lens (And likely camera body) much larger than necessary. Frequently the autofocus linkages might or might not work. On the good side, the CCD may be a little less noisy and more sensitive and you will be used to the focal lengths.

In general, I have thought this over (having a large collection of Olympus ZUIKO lenses for my OM series SLRs - I think I have four bodies and 9 lenses + bellows, tubes, etc) and it would make more sense overall, technically, to start anew with lenses designed for the new generation of cameras. I am not prepared to shell out $1000+ bucks for a DLSR yet - they're going obsolete way too fast.

Just for reference, the Olympus E-series digital SLR cameras can take OM system lenses, the CCDs are 2/3 sized of 35mm film so the image area is smaller. An adapter in needed since the 35mm system lenses have a longer film to mount working distance. And few of the classic OM lenses have autofocus.

I know I cannot do certain tasks well with my digital camera (currently a Fuji S5100) - but I have been doing mostly "snapshot" photography lately and it does well for that. If I was doing more taxing work - technical, sports, macro, I would be using my SLR or have to spend really big bucks on digital.

[dlminehart]

I have Nikon 35mm and digital SLRs. As noted above, you can generally use older 35mm lenses on DSLRs, but often with some sacrifice of either autofocus or autoexposure. The more expensive DSLRs (e.g., $1500+) usually offer the best backward compatibility. As Loring notes, the 35mm lens projects an image larger than the DSLR's sensor, so it's as if you were looking at only part of a 35mm image. I.e., as if your lens had more of a telephoto quality. For Nikons, the multiplication factor is usually 1.5. I.e., a 50mm "normal" 35mm lens gives you the equivalent view of a 75mm "moderate telephoto". For Canons, the factor is usually 1.6 (i.e., Canon has a smaller sensor).

The DSLRs are really a step ahead of the point-and-shoots. They're instantly ready for use, the shutter snaps as soon as you press the button, and you have a huge range of lenses, flashes, etc. The lens apertures tend to be a bit bigger, making for better low-light pictures.

Whether it's worth the $$$ depends on how you plan to use the capabilities and how flush you are with money. I'd really love a 10mm-20mm Sigma zoom (15mm-30mm 35mm equivalent), for the incredible wide-angle perspective it gives. But it costs about $500 (and Nikon's closest equivalent is $1000.) The mid-range zooms are available in both consumer and professional grades and prices . . . but the inexpensive zooms are not much different than what you get on a good point-and-shoot.

[jp_spins]

here's a couple of pretty good sites for reviews

http://www.dpreview.com

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

[mikel]

Also digital needs lenses that are better than film ones. They need more resolving power. A lot of the 3rd party lenses have had to be redesigned to work well on D SLR's.

I use only digital now and I save so much money in film and processing the high cost of the new gear.

...mikel

[thrytis]

What lenses you have and the brand of camera would make a difference. I went from a Canon EOS ELAN 7E (film camera) to a Canon Digital Rebel. Besides the magnification factor, i find no difference between using lenses for the two different bodies. I've never noticed an issue with autofocus or autoexposure. To make up for greater magnification on the existing lenses, i added a wider angle EF-S lens (works with digital only). This gives me the same wide angle shots and greater telephoto shots. Yes, technically there is a quality difference with the less than 35mm sensor, but unless you're making poster sized prints or your photos are being published on the covers of magazines you aren't going to notice a difference.

Benefits of an DSLR over a digital point and shoot is a wider range of focusing lengths (provided you buy more than one lense), much less shutter lag (great for photographing children), a smaller aperture (i couldn't find a P&S that could go much over 10), and some advanced options such as mirror lockup. If you're just looking to use filters and pick your own shutter speed and aperture though, a good P&S will let you do that. I wouldn't give up my DSLR, but i do want a compact P&S to compliment it.

[LCHIEN]

Also digital needs lenses that are better than film ones. They need more resolving power. A lot of the 3rd party lenses have had to be redesigned to work well on D SLR's.
...
...mikel

?

Where's that idea come from?
Although digital cameras now have many pixels, film cameras for years and years have been essentially limited only by the grain in the film and the resolving power of the lenses.

Super good, high quality lenses differed from cheaper lenses not so much really in mid to small aperature resolving power but in the performance with the aperature wide open, in such things as being sharp out to the edges of the picture frame and color abberation and linearity (pincushion and barrel distortion).
All that is made so much easier by the smaller image area, the glass can be smaller and thinner, the zooms more compact and the length shorter.
Smaller focal lengths mean smaller aperatures for the same f-stop, less glass, easier manufacture, lighter, fewer problems with outer edge sharpness, color abberation, distortion etc. In 35mm film lenses, a 2:1 or maybe 3:1 zoom was normal, a 5:1 or 6:1 zoom was a tour de force. With the smaller lenses for digital cameras, 10:1 is not unheard of. 35mm movie cameras (e.g. professional) had 10:1 zooms and used 35mm film, but the film image was turned 90° and the actual image area was more like 18mm x 24mm instead of 24mm x 26mm.

In general the smaller image sensor size allows a lot more leeway in lensmaking than for 35mm still camera lenses.


Slapping the words "Digital" on stuff has (sometimes) given marketeers a whole new reason to charge more money by making you think stuffis more complex or better.

[jziegler]

What lenses you have and the brand of camera would make a difference. I went from a Canon EOS ELAN 7E (film camera) to a Canon Digital Rebel. Besides the magnification factor, i find no difference between using lenses for the two different bodies. I've never noticed an issue with autofocus or autoexposure. To make up for greater magnification on the existing lenses, i added a wider angle EF-S lens (works with digital only). This gives me the same wide angle shots and greater telephoto shots. Yes, technically there is a quality difference with the less than 35mm sensor, but unless you're making poster sized prints or your photos are being published on the covers of magazines you aren't going to notice a difference.

Benefits of an DSLR over a digital point and shoot is a wider range of focusing lengths (provided you buy more than one lense), much less shutter lag (great for photographing children), a smaller aperture (i couldn't find a P&S that could go much over 10), and some advanced options such as mirror lockup. If you're just looking to use filters and pick your own shutter speed and aperture though, a good P&S will let you do that. I wouldn't give up my DSLR, but i do want a compact P&S to compliment it.

Supposedly the aperture size going small is less important on digital than on film, I think I read that it has to do with the sensor size, but I don't remember. Basically, I think that on a typical (point and shoot) digital, the f 8 setting would be similar to f 16 on a 35mm.

That said, my new P&S digital is on the UPS truck as we speak. I like my film SLR, and can't see the expense of the DSLR (And new lenses, nobody makes a DSLR that uses Minolta MC/MD mount manual lenses).

Jim

[ewingda]

Shadowfox,

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I switched from the Canon Rebel (SLR). I will never use my film camera again. I can get all of the shots adn effects I want with the digital body, my lenses, filters and Photoshop. And I can shoot all I want on my memory cards and throw away what did not come out. That gets expensive with film. The last straw for me was shooting 10 rolls of 1000 speed film on a ski trip and getting no more than 20 good action shots. I was tired of the waste!

I am able to use ALL of my lenses on the XT - without adapters etc. The only thing that you have to remember is that the digital CCD is a bit smaller than the size of a single frame of 35MM film so there is a magnification factor of 1.4x. If you have a 50MM lens from and you put it on the XT you will be seeing your target with the equivalent of 50MM*1.4=70MM.

Cannon has been releasing new lenses with a "S" designator that removes the 1.4X factor.

Most people are always searching for a longer zoom lens but that gets expensive. With the Xt and the canon 75-300MM zoom you basically get a 400MM zoom for free. The down side of that is you give up your wide angle lenses (25-75MM). You need to get a 20MM to get you back to the 28 you had.

I personally shoot with a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. (IS = image stabalizer - removes hand shake, USM = ultrasonic Motor - super fast/quiet focus) This lens is affected by the 1.4x factor. I shoot weddings ans other events with it and I rarely take it off - only for a true wide angle lens.

My thoughts - a Canon or Nikkon will suit you well. They are great cameras.

My suggestion - Buy the Canon digital rebel XT or XTI (depending on your $$$ situation). Skip the kit lens and get the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. You may want to add a wide angle or a longer zoom depending on what your interests are. Canon makes THE BEST LENSES - BAR NONE. Look at the next football game and look at the cameras - all white lenses with a red ring - Canon L-series - the best. That technology trickles down the middle and lower end lenses.

If you would like to discuss or see some of my images let me know.

[Howard]

The sensor size is independent of how the aperture works. Aperture relates to the amount of light falling on the surface of either the sensor or film at a given shutter speed. The smaller the aperture - the larger the number F stops, at any given constant shutter speed will result in underexposed frames. Depth of field will increase at smaller apertures. Focal length is "magnified" although the more correct term would be "cropped" with the APS sized sensors in the consumer DSLRs. Canon is the only manufacturer at this point using a full frame sensor. Since the amount of light falling on the sensor is the same as 35mm film, there is no cropping. The APS sized sensor that Nikon uses results in a 1.5 crop factor turning a 50mm lens into an effective 75mm. Like Loring said, it's great for telephoto but really compromises the wide angle. I owned a couple of Nikon pro DSLRs, the D1x and the D2h and they were fine cameras, however, the megapixels were only 6 and 4 respectively and unless you had a long enough lens to bring something in tight, the lack of resolution left a lot to be desired. Dust is a real problem with any DSLR. The sensor attracts it like crazy and you have to be very careful when changing lenses and even more careful when cleaning the sensor. There is certainly the instant grafitification on seeing what you have just taken. Sharpness is also a real issue as post processing is almost always required to achieve the same sharpness of film. Film has billions of silver halide crystals per frame compared to 16 million in the very best Canon DSL (at $8000 just for the body I might add). I sold both of mine and now use a Nikon F6, their best film camera. There is no comparison, in my estimation and opinion, between the sharpness and color rendition between my film camera and the digital. I also have a dedicated film scanner that will resolve at 4000dpi so if I need to scan something to blow up or otherwise do something with it, I can do so with relative ease. I cannot over stress the importance of backing up your digital images. Backup, backup, backup. If your hard drive crashes and you don't have your images backed up, you most likely can kiss them all goodby. Film isn't a problem in that regard. Keep the negatives in a safe place and you should be good to go. I may go back to digital in the future but I love the color, the sharpness, the richness, the detail that film brings. Just my 2 cents worth...

[LCHIEN]

Supposedly the aperture size going small is less important on digital than on film, I think I read that it has to do with the sensor size, but I don't remember. Basically, I think that on a typical (point and shoot) digital, the f 8 setting would be similar to f 16 on a 35mm.

That said, my new P&S digital is on the UPS truck as we speak. I like my film SLR, and can't see the expense of the DSLR (And new lenses, nobody makes a DSLR that uses Minolta MC/MD mount manual lenses).

Jim

I tried taking some macrophoto stuff with my S5100 and felt like I failed miserably.
1) I used a ring lite and some closeup diopter lenses.
2) I could not focus adequately using the viewing screen
3) I had heck but I used a slave adapter to sync the ring lite
4) I found the lens could only do F9 minimum aperature and I'm used to F22 to F32 on macro lenses to maximize depth of field and sharpness and to reduce the brightness of a strobe flash ring lite at a distance of 3 inches.

I ended up with overexposed, out of focus shots.

who said a small aperature is not important?

[thrytis]

I think i read something about not needing as large an aperture on the small digital cameras to get the same depth of field (probably what Jim was refering to), though i would be surprised that it still would match a decent lens on an SLR as was Loring's case. However, if you're using the aperture to balance a slower shutter speed (such as flash macro photography or bluring a running water), f 8 is still f 8 and not f 16. Most people don't do this though.

I don't think the same people who bought film SLRs need digital SLRs. Many digital P&S offer so many more features such as manual shutter and aperture and using filters. You can be much farther up on the skill level and still do everything with a digital P&S.

[jziegler]

I tried taking some macrophoto stuff with my S5100 and felt like I failed miserably.
1) I used a ring lite and some closeup diopter lenses.
2) I could not focus adequately using the viewing screen
3) I had heck but I used a slave adapter to sync the ring lite
4) I found the lens could only do F9 minimum aperature and I'm used to F22 to F32 on macro lenses to maximize depth of field and sharpness and to reduce the brightness of a strobe flash ring lite at a distance of 3 inches.

I ended up with overexposed, out of focus shots.

who said a small aperature is not important?

Loring,

I wish that I remembered and could still find it. I remember seeing it mentioned with respect to a Sony digital that had a program mode that heavliy favored F8 settings. I know I frequently use much smaller apertures on my SLR. A review over at dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv3/page13.asp mentions this problem with one Sony camera saying that there is a loss of resolution with small lenses at a small aperture. So, I suppose with a DSLR with the larger lenses they use, this is then a non issue, and really this is just a problem with the small lenses on the P&S compacts.

As I said before, I still use my 35mm SLR for lots of stuff. You'd have to pretty much pry it out of my cold, dead hands at this point. We will see soon how I like the new Canon P&S digital. Should be much better than the circa 2001 Sony it will be replacing. Lots of nice features, manual controls available, 6 megapixel, 4x zoom. We'll see.

Jim