Going from film camera to digital...

[Katie612]

Hello, I have had a Canon EOS Rebel 2000 for about 10 years now. It has a 28-80mm lens. I got it as a gift because I enjoyed taking pictures and I taught myself to use it. I LOVE this camera, but I really want to move up to a digital SLR camera and not have to worry about developing the film. I have a Kodak point and shoot digital, but it does nothing compared to what my Canon does, so I really want a DSLR and have been looking at Canon's Digital EOS line. My question is... what technical features do I look for in order to compare the new DSLRs to my current camera? Should I assume that after 10 years, even the base model DSLR is going to be better than my current camera? I don't want to spend all that money on a model that's not going to live up to my original camera, but I don't want to spend more than I need to, as the pictures I take are all just for fun.

Any advice will be appreciated. When looking through the forums already, I saw you guys rip up a lot of people, so I hope that you will consider that I am a beginner and be nice! Thanks.

[OsmosisStudios]

Pretty much any current Rebel model will surpass your current film body in terms of features. Useability will be similar, if not identical. Even resolution, unless you get your film drum-scanned and always use super-fine grain film, will be higher.

[inkista]

+1 what OS said, except for one rather large issue. Your film camera is, by definition, a "full frame" camera--the image plane is 36mmx24mm: the size of a frame of 35mm (135 format) film. Most digital bodies use a smaller sensor.



The only Canon digital bodies that have sensors the same size as what you're used to with film are the 5D and 1Ds bodies (of all Marks). The 5D Mark II body, new, goes for $2500, and the 1Ds Mark III body goes for about $6000. The lowest-priced full-frame you can find that Canon makes is a used 5D ("Classic" or Mark I to distinguish it from its successor), which goes for around $1100-$1500. I think. Prices change very quickly in the digital world where new camera bodies come out every six months.

Most likely, though, you're going to be looking at the sub-$1000 bodies, and all of these are what are known as "crop bodies". They use a sensor that's 1.6x times smaller than a frame of film. You'll also see the sensor size referred to as "APS-C" (not that anybody remembers the APS film format these days).

The effect that this has can be a little disconcerting if you come from film: all your lenses are going to have a narrower field of view (from the "cropping"), and their performance may shift a little. The nice part is your corners are all going to look sharper. That 1.6x factor is a useful way to translate the field of view between film and digital. So your 28-80 lens, mounted on a digital body will give the same field of view as a 45-128mm would on your film Rebel. Good news if you like telephoto; bad news if you like wide angle. Your 28-80 goes from being a wide-to-short-tele walkaround zoom to a normal-to-telephoto walkaround zoom.

This is why most of the digital bodies now come with kit lenses that cover 18mm at the wide end. 18x1.6 = 28.8, so 17mm or 18mm is the "new" 28mm. So, to have something on a crop body that "feels" like your 28-80 does on your Rebel 2000 would mean purchasing something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens.

Your depth of field will also be affected, because you're likely to either a) use a shorter lens or b) shooting from farther away, both of which increase DoF. This article goes more into depth on all the effects of the smaller sensor size.

Because of the smaller field of view, the viewfinder may also feel a little cramped, but you quickly get used to it and cease noticing after you realize you can change the iso at will shot-for-shot, and you notice that the memory card will let you take a few hundred (or thousand) photos before you fill it up. No more roll changes after 36 clicks!

One other thing to keep in mind: while a new digital Canon could, very likely, last you a decade, like your Rebel 2000, these things are now computer peripherals with a ton of digital technology in them. They likewise breakdown and go in and out of fashion the same way that computers and cellphones do. And upgrading a digital body, unlike a film camera body, is also much like upgrading your film. Just something to contemplate.

Last note. Because of the smaller sensor size, btw, Canon has come out with a new class of lenses that create smaller image circles, but can be sharper and smaller than equivalent film lenses. They're designated as "EF-S", rather than "EF". These EF-S lenses cannot be used on film or full-frame digital, because the image won't cover the entire frame, so if you want to share lenses between your film and digital Rebels, keep that in mind. 3rd party makers will also have some form of "for digital only" or "for crop-body only" designation to warn about this same issue. On Sigmas it's DC, on Tokina's it's DX (like Nikon), and for Tamron it's Di-II.

[RichardTaylor]

I went from an EOS 1000 to a 350D (Rebel XT) with the 18-55 kit lens, a few years ago, and felt right at home.
With digital you have a lot of freedom and the high ISO performance is an eye opener.

There will not be a huge learning curve as far as shooting goes, however there may be a learning curve when post processing your pics (the darkroom).

[autofocus]

"There will not be a huge learning curve as far as shooting goes, however there may be a learning curve when post processing your pics (the darkroom)."[/QUOTE]

+1 with what Richard said here, and I'd like to include a few more things. Film exposures are far more forgiving than digital with digital being more like shooting chrome (slides). With film, you could be as much as 2 stops off your exposure and your lab would still be able to produce a decent image...not true with digital. (although shooting RAW will give you a little headroom in that area) That said, you'll have to be a lot tighter on your exposures when shot. Film also has more dynamic range over digital yielding better details in your high lights and shadows. You'll almost always need to do some post processing with digital images, so you'll have to get and learn to use an editing program for post processing. (as in Photoshop or GIMP) Just some food for thought, but don't let it stop you. And Canon makes a fine line of digital Rebels when the time comes to purchase one.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

(not that anybody remembers the APS film format these days).

Then there are those of us that own one of the (very) few APS SLR cameras ever made.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Then there are those of us that own one of the (very) few APS SLR cameras ever made.

Wow. I just have my ELPH. It's one of the cameras I took to Antarctica.



I haven't used it since going digital, though, and since the pop-up flash on it is busted, I consider trading it in on the CLP every now and then.

[Deepdivetc]

Originally Posted by inkista

I haven't used it since going digital, though, and since the pop-up flash on it is busted, I consider trading it in on the CLP every now and then.

Well I just ordered through CLP on Friday... Still waiting for it to get here... yes I am being impatient but I can not wait to mess around with it..haha

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by inkista

Wow. I just have my ELPH. It's one of the cameras I took to Antarctica.

Never said I used the damned thing, though thats not to say I havent. It's even got a screwdrive AF motor, so it works with all my AF lenses.

Oldschool baby.

[sk66]

To me the big difference between a base quality SLR and a base quality DSLR is build quality..the more advanced we get, the more plastic we get it seems. The other difference is that "image quality" based on ISO had to do with the film loaded, not camera's capability..now it's camera capability.

And everything everyone else has said.