35mm vs digital camera at WDw

[snyderla]

I love my 35mm for the quality of the photo's & because I can zoom in close and get great pics of the family members on rides. Are there any reasons why a digital might be a great choice for a camera for WDW vacations? I know I can't get good quality zoom on them, but are there things I can do with a digital I can't with 35mm?

Any input greatly appreciated!!!

Lori

 

[CharlesTD]

We use both Digital and 35MM we have a Nikon D70 digital SLR and we have a Nikon F80 35MM SLR we still love the image quality from the 35MM over the digital I would reccomend the 35 still.

 

[rocketriter]

I always take a high megapixel, very small Sony digital camera with a high-capacity chip. In the evening I go through the day's shots and weed out the obvious losers. That way I've got room on the chip for all the photos for an entire trip. No film, no changing, no camera bag, nuthin'. That's a great convenience at WDW.

The photos blow up to a very nice 8x10, which is all I need. And I use only the mechanical zoom, not the digital zoom, and I have no trouble getting in close on people's faces.

 

[Alphatexana]

I love my 35mm for the quality of the photo's & because I can zoom in close and get great pics of the family members on rides. Are there any reasons why a digital might be a great choice for a camera for WDW vacations? I know I can't get good quality zoom on them, but are there things I can do with a digital I can't with 35mm?

I'm not sure whether you are comparing point and shoot cameras or SLRs.

We have a Canon Digital Rebel and I took it on our last trip. It is a SLR (the type with interchangeable lenses). I took well over 350 pictures during our 7 day trip. While it may be obvious, with digital I'm not paying for 350 prints. Instead, I'm able to cull through, crop, lighten, sharpen or otherwise edit the ones that I'm really fond of before making those prints. If I were shooting film I know that I'd be more cost conscious of shooting 8-10 photos of my six year old's interaction with Minnie in rapid succession. By being more willing to shoot 8-10 photos of a single character meeting, I may just catch that one special photo where her face lights up with a perfect Disney-induced smile.

Another convenience available with a digital camera is to look at the camera immediately and determine whether you "got" the photo you wanted. If you make a mistake with a 35mm photograph you won't know about it until after you get the prints back from your developer.

Thus, in my opinion, digital offers some clear advantages over film. That said, without a doubt, I think that the most important decision you can make is to take a camera with which you are comfortable. Purchasing the nicest digital camera available won't do you any good if you don't enjoy using it.

 

[kathleena]

I have a Canon Rebel 35mm film with 200mm zoom and an Olympus C750 digital. Here's my pros and cons

The zoom is 10x and the megapixel is 4.0 on the Digital. Much smaller and lighter than the 35mm. Great for day photos. I have 4-256mg cards and I can take all the pics I want, store them on a CD when I get home and only print the ones I want, when I want, trash the bad ones or doctor them up - like take the yellow/red out of indoor photos plus photo share them online with family. The zoom is comparable to the zoom on my 35mm. I bought the lens mounts and a few filters. The quality - I think - is much better than the 35mm. Exception is action photos, like on the safari. The newest model is the c770 and I've read the flash is expanded and very good. I would highly recommend this camera - you will love the zoom. My only complaint is that it's slow, not the instant shot like the 35mm film. But I have adjusted and now use it exclusively during the day. Someday I will upgrade to newer Canon digital when the price finally drops!

The 35mm film is better for at night and for parades and the safari. You have to be careful of film now - being scanned at the airport. The film can be ruined by the scanner no matter what they say - the x-ray will start to degrade the color. I mail film down and only take the camera at night to the parks. I take film mailers to shutterfly with me and mail them as I finish the films. I pay for the process only mailers and then can view the pics online and order only the ones I want.

 

[barbarabee]

I like the quality of 35mm, but I switched to digital last year, and it has been really great. In addition to the previous posters, another advantage is not having to worry about putting your film through the x-rays at the airport! I've lost a few rolls that I'd tucked away in my luggage absentmindedly. And it can be a time-consuming process to have the 800 speed film hand-checked by the airport security.

There are some problems with lighting and the flash using the automatic setting on the digital camera, but my digital does have an option for manual settings which overcomes some of those issues, but not all...

 

[JeanJoe]

My wife and I love digital. Just before DD#1 was born, we got a Canon digital Elph, a point and shoot, and have taken ~3,000 - 4,000 pictures since then (and since the birth of DD#2 10 months ago).

But, right before our last trip to WDW, we got the new Canon Rebel XT (EOS 350D), an 8 megapixel SLR, along with a nice 28-135 mm telephoto lens with image stabilization. At first we were VERY worried about its size and weight (the lens' nickname is Mongo). But, after shooting some low-light shots, we've been converted. We took 810 pictures during our 1 week stay.

With digital, as mentioned earlier in this thread, you can shoot hundreds of pictures, preview them to keep just the 'good ones', and not pay to get prints / slides of the failures.

So, why not get a digital SLR? The lower cost of not needing to deal with film processing, with the flexibility of using your choice of telephoto lenses?

In another thread, I posted a few pictures I took with the Canon Rebel XT.

 

[CharlesTD]

I agree that digital is a little more conveniant for images but you still don't get nearly the image quality from them. We love our D70 and we have the 18-70 for it and a sigma 70-200 HSR 2.8 for it and a 70-300 ED Nikkor lense for it. We also have the F80 and have numerous lenses for it and find ourselves using the 35 MM more often we shoot on average 15-20 rolls of fil in a 2 week trip. We have a 2 gig hitachi microdrive and 3 512 meg cards for the Digital but rarely seem to use it while at WDW or anywhere to be honest.

 

[snyderla]

Thank you for all of the info! I didnt even know you could get lenses for digitals! And I was wondering how the digital camera's 3X, 4x & 10X optical zooms would compare to my 160mm. I just have a Minolta 160. It works great for me, I mean it did until last night when on the way to DGD's birthday party the door clasp broke on it when I was changing a film roll. Now I have to decide whether to pay to have it repaired or just get a digital. Or maybe both. I usually take 10 or more rolls of film per trip, if I just saved the 35mm for nights & action I could take lots of pics of the family (17 of us going) and not have to spend the $$$ to develop those that aren't any good!! I like to do scrapbooking, and I think I need both camera's now!

Lori

 

[JeanJoe]

Thank you for all of the info! I didnt even know you could get lenses for digitals! And I was wondering how the digital camera's 3X, 4x & 10X optical zooms would compare to my 160mm. I just have a Minolta 160. It works great for me, I mean it did until last night when on the way to DGD's birthday party the door clasp broke on it when I was changing a film roll. Now I have to decide whether to pay to have it repaired or just get a digital. Or maybe both. I usually take 10 or more rolls of film per trip, if I just saved the 35mm for nights & action I could take lots of pics of the family (17 of us going) and not have to spend the $$$ to develop those that aren't any good!! I like to do scrapbooking, and I think I need both camera's now!
Lori

Hmm, the big caveat, though, is that you'll pay a bit more for a digital SLR, but you should be able to get a "body only" Canon Digital EOS for ~$400-500, I think. Try http://www.dpreview.com/ for really hardcore reviews on all digital cameras (point and shoot and SLR).

 

[Caskbill]

Thank you for all of the info! I didnt even know you could get lenses for digitals! And I was wondering how the digital camera's 3X, 4x & 10X optical zooms would compare to my 160mm. I just have a Minolta 160. It works great for me, I mean it did until last night when on the way to DGD's birthday party the door clasp broke on it when I was changing a film roll. Now I have to decide whether to pay to have it repaired or just get a digital. Or maybe both. I usually take 10 or more rolls of film per trip, if I just saved the 35mm for nights & action I could take lots of pics of the family (17 of us going) and not have to spend the $$$ to develop those that aren't any good!! I like to do scrapbooking, and I think I need both camera's now!

Lori

I shot with 35mm SLR cameras for 30 years, but now shoot strictly digital. The costs alone make it so cheap you can shoot as many pictures as you want.

For vacations I just use my point & shoot, a Canon S1 IS, 3.2 megapixel, 10X optical zoom with digital zoom on top of that. Image Stabilizer circuitry. Paid about $350 for it.

Last Christmas while at AK, took these photos of the construction of Expedition Everest. All 3 photos were taken from the exact same spot. Photo 1 is with no zoom at all, Photo 2 is with the full 10x optical zoom only, Photo 3 is with partial camera digital zoom. Photo 4 is a further zoom of Photo 3, but zoomed on the computer.

One thing I really like is to put a slide show together on the laptop. With a 15" screen they're much nicer than looking at prints, and the whole family can see them at one time. My camera will also hook directly to the TV and you can do a slide show there directly. At WDW I'd take pictures for the day, then back in the villa for the night, hook it up to the TV and watch the slides.

You can compare the effects of the zoom for yourself. NOTE: These were taken with only medium resolution. If I had shot at the highest resolution they would be better.

 

[manning]

Those of you who have canon film SLR cameras.

If you are thinking of the digital rebel xt, the ef lenses are interchangable with the XT. However there is a conversion factor of 1.6, IE a 100 mm lense becomes a 160 mm lense, a 28 mm lense becomes a 44.8 mm lense etc..

 

[JeanJoe]

Those of you who have canon film SLR cameras.

If you are thinking of the digital rebel xt, the ef lenses are interchangable with the XT. However there is a conversion factor of 1.6, IE a 100 mm lense becomes a 160 mm lense, a 28 mm lense becomes a 44.8 mm lense etc..

Excellent point -- I was going to mention that, but worried we'd be getting too technical. (I'm totally new to SLR photography, but tried to do some research before purchasing.)

What this basically means is that you'll be zoomed in 1.6x closer when using the digital SLR (because the digital imaging area is smaller than 35 mm), which is great if you want more zoom, but worse if you want to shoot more panoramic shots.

 

[SylviaL]

DH is the camera expert so I won't comment on technical things--it seems like you have a lot of good advice already. I will say, though, that we have both film and digital Canon SLRs and since we got the digital SLRs, we don't even touch the other one. But, if you have kids, with a digital camera, you can take a picture of them every morning before you leave (for security reasons).

 

[Caskbill]

Just a reminder that if you have a 35mm film camera with a normal 50mm lens, and put on a 200mm telephoto lens, that's a zoom factor of 4x.

A digital camera with a zoom factor of 10x optical zoom is quite a bit more telephoto than the 35mm camera. So if telephoto is important, that's something to be considered.

I should have mentioned in my earlier post that the Canon PowerShot S1 IS model I'm using has thru the lens viewing, and with image stabilization, takes great shots. It sure beats carrying around a bulky SLR with extra lenses.

Add in other factors such as when desired, it will record audio to go along with your photo (great feature for making a comment about a photo you just took), will take multiple photos (great for a sequence of shots of a moving image), and your choices of fully automatic, or full manual control over everything, or anything in between, in MHO makes it a purpose choice for vacations photos.

Granted, digitals are not as good at night as film, but I don't find that a major drawback.

 

[JeanJoe]

Granted, digitals are not as good at night as film, but I don't find that a major drawback.

Is this true? I've never owned a real 35 mm (just point and shoot 35mm's, without IS), so I was astounded at what my new digital Rebel XT with IS could do in the dimmer rides if I set the ISO to 800 (or if I could tolerate some graininess, 1600). I have some taken in IASW which, despite the low light / no flash / slowly moving+turning boat, I was pleased with. I also have some night-time castle / fireworks shots that I was surprised turned out nicely. (At least compared to the awful results I used to get with my point+shoot 35mm.)

Regarding digital zoom, don't a lot of 35mm film shooters now send it off to get developed and have the negatives digitized? You can do the digital zoom yourself after downloading the file, right?

 

[CharlesTD]

JeanJoe the difference is night and day with 35MM SLR and point and shoot unless you are buying a very highend point and shoot. We find for the fireworks etc and any lowlight shots the F80 SLR is far better than the D70 SLR we also like the fact that if we want we can get a cd with the prints so it really doesn't make a difference for us. We continue to shoot film we also buy pro film not off the shelf stuff which also makes a difference.

 

[manning]

We continue to shoot film we also buy pro film not off the shelf stuff which also makes a difference.

Comparing off the shelf film vs pro film of the same speed and emulsion.

They are one and the same. Found this out years ago when I use to shoot weddings.

It's like shipping a tomatoe from the west coast to the east coast. It is picked before its prime and allowed to ripen on its way east.

That's what happens to film. Once it is manufactured it continues to goes thru a chemical process while it is on the shelf waiting to be bought. The film at some point will reach its ideal point for exposure. The amateur film is shipped as soon as it is made to give it a longer shelf life with the idea it will be stored in all types of temperatures and may be bought at a random time (it may be bought today or 3 months from now).

Film marked as pro is shipped near its peak (or prime) and is kept in refrigeration to control its aging process.

If you are buying pro film, keep it in the refrigerator.

 

[rayelias]

Maybe someone can give me a couple pointers.

I've tried a couple digital cameras. Nothing great, but not the cheap-o's either. Name brand stuff between $100-150.

I have had such problems with the cams I've bought. I'm afraid of spending $4-500 on a decent digital cam for fear I'll have the same problems. It's one thing having a crappy $100 camera, but something different for wasting $500!

My big problem. They SUCK the life out of batteries. Now, I ALWAYS turn them off when not using them. As a matter of fact, I only turn them on to take a pic and turn it off right afterwards. I might get 10-20 pics before I notice a CONSIDERABLE change in "shutter speed" (if you know what I mean... instead of immediate picture, there's a slight delay. After another 10-20 pics, there's a second or two delay - VERY annoying. After another 10-20 pics, there's no need to even bother you click the button and it shuts off. I've tried different brands of batteries, as well as rechargables. Same difference. Same thing has heppened with 3 different brand cameras all new out of the box.


Am I doing something wrong? Any tips? Am I some sort of freaky jinx?

I REALLY would like to buy a nice digital, but I don't want to waste my money.

 

[TEK224]

you guys sound like the camera experts, so here goes:

I wanted to get a smaller digital camera that I can use to take pictures of kids programs at work and also take on vacation with me. I have a minolta SLR (that I love) and an Olympus digital (which I like). But even the Olympus is a little bulky to carry around. I wanted a small one that I could slip into my pocket without feeling too bulky.

I looked at the Canon elph 5 MP. It's not much bigger than a credit card. Would have been perfect, except they were out of stock. Since I wanted to take pictures the next day, I instead purchased the Nikon coolpix 5600 (also 5 MP). It's a little thicker than the Canon, but will still fit into my pocket.

The photos I took look good. They're still not as good as my Minolta photos, but I think they're good enough for me to print out and put into my photo albums.

The salesman at the store said he didn't think the Nikons were as good as the Canons. He said I would get better pix from the Canon. All of the features are pretty much the same (MP, zoom capabilities, etc.)
So is he right. Would the Canon be a better choice? I can still return the Nikon and exchange for the Canon if it's going to be a big difference. Of course, the Canon is $100 more, so I don't know if the salesman was just trying to get me to spend more.
Please give me your opinions. The Nikon or the Canon?