Is a digital camera best for a photography newbie?

[Antoneo]

Ok I have a Minolta 400si SLR camera that my father bought along with a Sigma 28-200mm lens. Now, I dont know too much about photography or cameras and would like to pick up on it. For the past two years, the Minolta has gotten little use from the rest of the family due to its size, sort of grainy photos, and "complexity". I am not sure if the grainyness/fuzziness is due to the lens or possibly a characteristic of SLR cameras but it is somewhat disappointing. It costs about $8 to get the film developed (24 exposures i think) and about 1/4 of the pictures are wasted because the shots suck or the red eye kicks in. Also, when objects are too close (I guess in front of the focal point) the lens itself locks during autofocus and I would have to focus on some object far away to get it unlocked.. sort of a nuisance. I am not a shutter bug because the camera is too friggin big to lug around comfortably, most of my pictures are ehhh, and I don't have a scanner.

Do you guys recommend sticking with the SLR and changing the lens or should I get a good digital camera and learn how to take pictures/use settings like exposure on that first? My budget is about $700.
My printer is an Epson color 880... For those of you with digital cameras, do you print your stuff out on a regular printer like mine or a dedicated photo printer? If there so much of a difference that if I plan to frame any of my pictures, I should invest in a photo printer? Or do you guys use online photo printing services?
Is there any show stopping revolutionary technology planned to come out within the next six months?
Thanks in advance!

 

[StageLeft]

I don't know how that printer of yours prints but my brother paid $200 for the printer that does pictures on standard sizes only for digital cameras. It prints VERY high quality pictures. On quick inspection it looks like a real thing. If you really want to get into photography though it won't be good enough. I would guess that a good printer in your case is probably more important than the digital camera.

 

[GTaudiophile]

No. I'd get a cheap film SLR and play with it for a few months. Use mainly b&w film and spend some time in a real darkroom. Learn the "physics" of it all. Then move to digital with a "prosumer" camera.

 

[Czar]

I'd recomend a digital camera, I bought one and I'v taken waaaay more pictures than I would have with a film camera. Definetly worth it


next step for me is spending $2000 on a new digital camera, only a dream at the moment

 

[bacillus]

along with a Sigma 28-200mm lens

keep the camera but that lens is far too bulky.
suggest you switch to something like a 28-85mm lens which is far more convenient & managable!

 

[Wallydraigle]

With a digital camera you can see the results of your experiments immediately. You also will experiment more because you don't have to worry about film and development costs. Of course you have a bigger investment up front, and anything beyond a point and shoot camera will be quite costly. If you're going to get a digital camera anyway it would seem like a waste of money to buy a film set up just to turn around and sell it to buy the digital one. If you plan to go digital, the time it would take you to learn your way around a darkroom would be better spent learning Photoshop. There are many directions you can take this. If you ever intend to get into large format photography or anything like that then digital will probably be a waste of your time. But if you never intend to go beyond 35mm then digital is a great way to learn. In all honesty although film will be around for a long long time, even medium format will start to phase out within the next ten years. There are medium format digital backs now with resolutions in excess of 16 megapixels. Digital photography is still an immature technology. If that bothers you, then stick with film for a while. But one day it will be the norm, and film will be the novelty.

 

[lowtech1]

"Minolta 400si SLR camera...Sigma 28-200mm lens...sort of grainy photos"

Minolta & Sigma are good reputable photo equipment manufactures. 28-200mm lens @ f:4-5.6 class aren't known for sharp images nor distortion free, but it is good enough for up to 8x10 prints. Film & light/exposure is a large contributor to the grain of the image. Most of the current 400 iso crop of films should be more than adequate for 8x10. The best thing you can do try shooting out side with P (auto program) mode on the camera with 100 iso film.

Sunny 16 rule of thumb: Sunny day between 10am & 2pm.
100 iso - f:16 @ 1/125sec
100 iso - f:11 @ 1/250sec
100 iso - f:8 @ 1/500sec
100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/1000sec
etc...
200 iso - f:16 @ 1/250sec
200 iso - f:11 @ 1/500sec
200 iso - f:8 @ 1/1000sec
200 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/2000sec
etc...
400 iso - f:16 @ 1/500sec
400 iso - f:11 @ 1/1000sec
400 iso - f:8 @ 1/2000sec
400 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/4000sec
etc...

Partly cloudy -1 stops (ie. Sunny 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/1000sec; Partly cloudy 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/500sec)
Cloudy day -2 stops (ie. Sunny 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/1000sec; Cloudy 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/250sec)
Overcast -3 stops (ie. Sunny 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/1000sec; Overcast 100 iso - f:5.6 @ 1/125sec)

Once you perfect the out door picture taken, you can then try more advance fill flash at full daylight balance to 1 stop lower for more color saturation/details.

Indoor rule is slightly more complex depending on the various light source & distance of the lights/subject. It is best to stick with 400-800 iso and flash (for best result try a fixed focal lenght 50mm, flash, 400 iso, f:2.8-4 @ 1/60-1/90sec)


"1/4 of the pictures are wasted because the shots suck or the red eye kicks in"

Don't uses the flash if you don't want red eyes, other wise use an off camera flash, diffuser, or bounce flash to minimizes the red eyes effect.


"the camera is too friggin big to lug around comfortably"

You can get very nice/small fixed focal lenght camera such as the Olympus Stylus that weight less than 8 ounce, and have high quality glass lens capable of produce good 8x10 prints.


As for Digital....Havn't seen any that can produce the quality that medium nor 35mm camera with 50 iso film I'm use to.