Is 35mm Obsolete?

[justin4pack]

Im wanting to buy a starter camera for my wife to play with. I can get a decent setup with lenses and body and extras for around $50 Im just noting to put out $300 to $600 on a dslr and her not use it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Depends on what you're doing with it. Despite the low cost of entry, the cost of film and processing is not insubstantial, and if your wife has no background in photography it may be daunting for her to use a 35mm SLR. Realistically for most people a digital setup is going to offer a more satisfying experience.

 

[justin4pack]

Well she started using 35 millimeter SLR's in school so I think she would be fine with use.

 

[alkemyst]

35mm film is a very niche market. It's not really something one gets into as a cheaper alternative to a dSLR.

Film + developing costs add up quick and limit how many 'practice' shots one does. dSLR's let you practice and practice with settings taking multiple shots of each subject in different ways.

You don't even need a dSLR to start, I'd recommend a manual compact as a starter camera and see if the interest takes.

 

[justin4pack]

She would be doing sports photos indoor as well as portrait and nature

 

[CuriousMike]

Buy a generation or two old DSLR off of Craigslist.

$2-$300 and you're in a Canokin body + lens.

If she doesn't use it, throw it back on CL and you might not even lose much money.

 

[justin4pack]

Found a Nikon p7100 at a decent price. Would u say features wise this is a decent camera

 

[corkyg]

The beauty of a DSLR is that it can be used just as if it were a 35mm film camera without all the hassle of development and printing. I venture to say that many, if not most mature DSLR users started with 35mm film. I did!

Let her be creative!

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I bought my first "decent" camera (a Panasonic DMC-FZ20, on clearance for $300) after I spent over $100 buying and developing 10 rolls of film. That's roughly 350 photos.

When I'm really into photography, I can easily shoot 700 shots in a day. That's $200 a day worth of film. Ok, so maybe with film I would be more careful about what I shoot, but then I would never get the odd experimental shot that just happened to turn out great.

Digital of any sort is way, way cheaper than film over the long run. The "film" never runs out (memory cards) and the long-term storage is far more compact and easy to deal with (hard drive).

Definitely pick up a used Canon Rebel or Nikon D40, D50, D70, D3000, or the like on Craigslist for $200-$300. It will come with a starter lens and probably a memory card. Let her use it until she's pining for something better. If she doesn't use it, you can sell it on Craigslist again and maybe be out $50 at the most.

 

[CuriousMike]

Found a Nikon p7100 at a decent price. Would u say features wise this is a decent camera

It depends on how involved she was when she used 35mm gear.
If she understood the concepts of shutter, aperture and ISO then she would be better served with a real DSLR.

Otherwise, the P7100 would be fine.

Why don't you ask her what she wants?

 

[Scooby Doo]

The beauty of a DSLR is that it can be used just as if it were a 35mm film camera without all the hassle of development and printing. I venture to say that many, if not most mature DSLR users started with 35mm film. I did!

Let her be creative!

Use a full frame camera and you've got yourself a digital 35

 

[corkyg]

Use a full frame camera and you've got yourself a digital 35

You got it. Am on my second 5D.

 

[Anteaus]

The guy is bulking at spending 300-600 and you guys make a 2-3 thousand dollar joke.

 

[Silenus]

Buy a generation or two old DSLR off of Craigslist.

$2-$300 and you're in a Canokin body + lens.

If she doesn't use it, throw it back on CL and you might not even lose much money.

Exactly this. Buy a used entry level DSLR from one or two gens back. You will still be FAR ahead of any compact and most mirrorless in terms of IQ and features...but for bargain prices. There is never any shortage of people selling DSLR's who bought them with good intentions but never really used them.

 

[Silenus]

She would be doing sports photos indoor as well as portrait and nature

PS- you do realize that indoor sports is probably one of THE most demanding things you can ask any camera to do? For pros that requires very high end gear. That said if you get an entry level DSLR + 50mm or 85mm f/1.8 lens for a decent price that will probably give you the best chance get some low light sports shots. Those lenses should do very nicely for portrait work as well.

 

[Throckmorton]

She would be doing sports photos indoor as well as portrait and nature

How the heck do you do sports photography when you have like 24 photos in a roll? Obviously people did it when they had no choice, but this is 2013.

 

[tdawg]

Found a Nikon p7100 at a decent price. Would u say features wise this is a decent camera

Not for any serious indoor sports photography. If she's just taking snapshots of the kids playing basketball for the scrapbook, it may work, but nothing really more serious than that.

 

[finbarqs]

I love 35mm because it's so much easier than DSLR's. images come out incredible right off the bat without any photoshopping!

 

[justin4pack]

Ok I found a rebel XTi with lens kit and acc for around $200, would this be a good starter?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Ok I found a rebel XTi with lens kit and acc for around $200, would this be a good starter?

Yes. Seems like a decent deal as well, assuming it's in good shape.

 

[alkemyst]

Ok I found a rebel XTi with lens kit and acc for around $200, would this be a good starter?

The XTi just recently was many people's upgrade camera. For $200 that's a good deal if it's been taken care of.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

She would be doing sports photos indoor as well as portrait and nature

The quality of modern sensors is MUCH higher than film ever was.

For indoor sports, film just doesn't cut it. You will be using ISO800 or ISO1600 film to get decent shots (and you will still need a $1000 lens to do it) and you will get awful grain in those photos.

Let alone, you have to pay $5-$10 for every 36 shots.

If you shoot just 100 rolls of film over the life of the camera, it's cheaper to get a digital.

Skimping now to get an inferior product that still costs you more later seems like a lose-lose.

Just my opinion.

Edit: I just saw you found a Rebel XTi. Decent camera and probably worth the investment in something along those lines. Good find.

 

[Throckmorton]

I love 35mm because it's so much easier than DSLR's. images come out incredible right off the bat without any photoshopping!

You mean the guy at Walgreens Photoshops your pics

 

[iGas]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NewCanon-EO...Kit-/111148254546?hash=item19e0f3c552&vxp=mtr

I would go with the above T3 (DIGIC 4, 100-6400 ISO) for the same money as the XTi (DIGIC 2, 100-1600 ISO).

 

[slashbinslashbash]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NewCanon-EO...Kit-/111148254546?hash=item19e0f3c552&vxp=mtr

I would go with the above T3 (DIGIC 4, 100-6400 ISO) for the same money as the XTi (DIGIC 2, 100-1600 ISO).

Yes, particularly if the lens that comes with the T3 is the Image Stabilized version of the 18-55 lens, which would probably not come with the XTi. That eBay auction is strangely moot on the subject; although the images show the IS lens, the description merely states 18-55.

In any case, the IS lens, disregarding the significant benefit of Image Stabilization, is also capable of producing visibly better image quality than the earlier, non-IS versions of the 18-55.