SLR vs a DSLR

I bought a Cannon AE-1 back in 1978 and took some photos with it. For the past 10 years I stopped using it due to the high cost of film and developing. Instead I have been using a point and shot Nikon Coolpix 4800. I am thinking to move up to a DSLR. My question is do I shot my photos with DSLR as I did with my SLR?

Yes you shoot the same except it's a lot cheaper to shoot digital. And you get instant results so you only print the ones you want. Welcome to the boards !

Thanks for the welcome Rob pix4u2. Someone told me that a 35 mm lens setting in a zoom lens of a SLR and DSLR are not the same. I was told that I would have to get used to the DSLR. That many things will be different with DSLR compared to SLR, in terms of usage.

The lens settings will be the same if the DSLR is full frame. But consumer priced DSLR cameras are all crop frame. Usually the crop factor is either 1.5 or 1.6 (Canon). So your old 50mm lens now has the field of view that you would have expected from a 75 or 80mm lens back in the old 35mm film days. More thoughts on the film - digital comparisons -

www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...to-the-dslrslr-world

Also, Auto Focus now rules. Which can be a big adjustment. More here -

photo.tutsplus.com/tutorials/shooting/ac...ness-in-your-images/

And then there is the thicket of RAW. Again -

www.photographytalk.com/forum/photograph...-discovered-raw-mode

Kelly Cook

A big plus is the ability to change ISO on the fly.

It probably depends on what film SLR you've used and what DSLR you buy, how different it would be switch from film to digital. Supposedly DSLRs for the most part were modeled after film autofocus SLRs.

'Autofocus is a big adjustment...' you can say that again Kelly! That has been the hardest thing for me learning to use a digital camera since I've used mostly manual/mechanical cameras. I have a variety of different film cameras and on a new (vintage) camera, once I figure out the controls and settings I don't find it too hard to switch from one to another. Sometimes if I haven't used a camera in awhile it may take some thinking to remember various settings/controls on a particular camera.

That Canon AE-1 is a nice camera.

T basics remain the same but you get the flexibility of ........... something that''s super flexible!! Shoot at will.

If I were to go for a DSLR, would a full format camera be better than a half-format camera. Could you get a full format camera be under $1,000?

I picked up a *used* full-frame camera for under $1,000 - a Canon 5D. But to get a new camera in that price range, you're looking at a crop sensor.

As for which would be better, I guess it goes back to what Kelly said about the difference in focal length. If you're accustomed to the reach of a 50mm lens, you'll have some adjusting to do when that same lens is equivalent to an 85mm! How much of an obstacle that might be really depends on you.

Another advantage would be the better noise control with a full frame. But with your background being film, that probably won't be as much of an issue. Any modern consumer-level DSLR will give you a much cleaner image at ISO 400 than you're used to getting from ASA 400 film.

Feature-wise, if you want the pro-like features that you find on full-frame cameras, you can find them on a number of crop-sensor models as well. On the Canon side, anything with a 2-digit number before the "D" (40D, 50D, etc) will have similar controls to a 5D. The 7D is intended to be even closer to the full-frame cameras in functionality; it's basically a fully pro-level camera that happens to have a crop sensor. So think of the Canon models this way:
###D or "Rebel" series - Consumer
##D - "Pro-sumer"
#7 - Professional grade

On the Nikon side, there are also similar levels but I don't know the model numbers -- there are lots of helpful Nikon people here that can help with that though

As for "half format", it's the 4/3 sensor cameras that have a crop factor of 2. Whether a common 1.5 or 1.6 crop camera will work for you is not that hard to determine. There are tons of sample images from these cameras on many reviews. Download a few images, examine the results, see if they meet your needs or not.

Kelly

There are a lot of differences between the AE-1 and a DSLR. You would find less differences between an electronic, AF Canon of the 1990s and a DSLR. Exposure is the same. Digital, particularly if shooting jpeg, is not as forgiving as print film, but more so than slide film. As others have said the main difference is probably the format change.

Hussein El-Edroos wrote: If I were to go for a DSLR, would a full format camera be better than a half-format camera. Could you get a full format camera be under $1,000?

Used Canon 5D's are just starting to get down to $1000ish (body only) from the major used camera sellers . That means you probably can find one under $1000 from an owner who is selling their own camera.

Whether it would be better or not really depends on you. There is no doubt that the 5D is a wonderful camera, but so are many of the APS-C DSLRs. I think most of the debate on the internet about APS-C or 35mm is driven by the blind determination that bigger is better. I think most folks would be better served worrying about what features the various models offer them rather than format size.

I shoot with 35mm DSLRs, but if it were a choice between an APS-C DSLR and an expensive, fast lens vs a 35mm DSLR and a cheaper, slower lens I would go with the fast lens. That's a more important consideration for me. I've got large prints from APS-C DSLRs hanging right next to large prints from 35mm DSLRs, and people can't tell a difference. My experience has been that an 8mp APS-C, Nikon or Canon DSLR is easily capable of matching 35mm film image quality.

Mmm the AE-1 is an FD mount camera. So any lenses you have won't mount on a modern Canon camera unless you use an adapter, but you'll lose quality using even optically corrected adapters... which are expensive. You can buy cheap adapter that only work for macro level shooting. So basically you're better off completely starting again.

Now this frees you up to choose Nikon should you wish.

Nikon has some nice cameras and lenses too. Their cameras come in two basic formats. DX (1.5x crop) and FX (full frame "35mm" cams).

In the crop Nikon cams (DX) I'd only really recommend the D7000 at this stage.

For FX it would be hard to get a camera under $1000usd but the best bet would be a D700. They also have the D3 (older model) and D3s and D3x, but those are way over $1000usd.

Good luck.

Henry Peach wrote: There are a lot of differences between the AE-1 and a DSLR. You would find less differences between an electronic, AF Canon of the 1990s and a DSLR. Exposure is the same. Digital, particularly if shooting jpeg, is not as forgiving as print film, but more so than slide film. As others have said the main difference is probably the format change.

Hussein El-Edroos wrote: If I were to go for a DSLR, would a full format camera be better than a half-format camera. Could you get a full format camera be under $1,000?

Used Canon 5D's are just starting to get down to $1000ish (body only) from the major used camera sellers . That means you probably can find one under $1000 from an owner who is selling their own camera.

Whether it would be better or not really depends on you. There is no doubt that the 5D is a wonderful camera, but so are many of the APS-C DSLRs. I think most of the debate on the internet about APS-C or 35mm is driven by the blind determination that bigger is better. I think most folks would be better served worrying about what features the various models offer them rather than format size.

I shoot with 35mm DSLRs, but if it were a choice between an APS-C DSLR and an expensive, fast lens vs a 35mm DSLR and a cheaper, slower lens I would go with the fast lens. That's a more important consideration for me. I've got large prints from APS-C DSLRs hanging right next to large prints from 35mm DSLRs, and people can't tell a difference. My experience has been that an 8mp APS-C, Nikon or Canon DSLR is easily capable of matching 35mm film image quality.

True but it's not just about being able to tell the difference in prints. You know as well as I that the extra pixels give you about 1.5 stops more light using FF cams (assuming the same pixel density and sensor tech) also the fact that at a given MP amount the larger photosites allows for better noise control (meaning you can use higher iso). Plus there's the shallower DOF effect FF has over crop.

That said crop camera are certainly very capable.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: True but it's not just about being able to tell the difference in prints. You know as well as I that the extra pixels give you about 1.5 stops more light using FF cams (assuming the same pixel density and sensor tech) also the fact that at a given MP amount the larger photosites allows for better noise control (meaning you can use higher iso). Plus there's the shallower DOF effect FF has over crop.

I do not know such things. I've had plenty of opportunity to compare my old 5D to newer APS-C cameras at ISO 3200. Shallower DOF for a give angle of view is the only point I agree on.

And actually, for me and most of the world, it is just about what the finished photograph looks like. Only photo geeks care what the pixel peep samples look like.

Let me say up front that I am not a low light Ninja. So, for me, the only advantage with a FF body would be the ability to take full advantage of old WA primes. It was cheaper to go with a crop body and new WA zoom instead. Yes the zoom is slower than a nice prime, so I end up shooting at higher ISO. But the results still look good, so I am sticking with crop bodies. A FF body is pretty hard for most hobbyists to justify.

Kelly