Is SLR/digital the way to go?

Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 1

I'm a journalist but I want to get into photojournalism.
I don't have a big budget around £200 max and not a huge amount of experience with cameras (but I'm a quick learner and will read the manual!)
Is it better to go with a wholly digital camera or fork out more for a SLR/digital one (the Rebel XT is on ebay for £269) as I'm going to be using it professionally and want the best results? Also photo courses always ask for SLR cameras but will a SLR/digital one be suitable?
Much appreciate any advice.

Joined: 06 Dec 2005 Posts: 82 Location: Montreal

In the world of journalism it sure is...

Film, with all it's glory is dying... regardless of any opinions or arguments, it is, proof of that is when companies like Kodak anouce the discontuniation of B&W paper...or companies like Fuji which will no longer make their Hi-set slide negatives....ect ect...

I'm not saying that one is better than the other....but one is definitly comming in while the other one is going out.

it's a bit like the Vynil > CD > MP3 evolution... of course vynil sounded better than CD's...and so on... but that has not stopped it's demise.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:50 am

A lot of classes require 35mm film because a huge part of the course is the development side. There are digieal courses as well which also go into photoshop rather than development.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:37 pm

I am a photojournalist...

I would never even consider using film. I can take a photo and within minutes have it in my editor's hands thanks to the other gear that I sport (a laptop, and a cell-phone interface for cellular internet service).

I suppose, though, that it may depend on what sort of journalism you're talking about. If you're into fast paced, breaking news type journalism then I strongly advocate a setup like mine. If your deadlines aren't as tight, then I could see using film... but digital is much easier in my opinion.

And as for quality... newspaper print does not have enough dpi to make any distinction between digital and film... only some high end magazines print at fine enough resolution for it to matter.

Joined: 27 Oct 2004 Posts: 452 Location: Gloucester, UK

Miranda wrote:

Is it better to go with a wholly digital camera or fork out more for a SLR/digital one Much appreciate any advice.

I think you are getting confused by terminology here. A digital SLR is a wholly digital camera. The digital alternatives are the digital compact and the strangely termed 'bridge' cameras. Bridge look like SLRs but don't walk or quack like digital SLRs.

For photojounalism the only way to go really is true digital SLR such as the Rebel or similar.

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:48 pm

Keitht wrote:

For photojounalism the only way to go really is true digital SLR such as the Rebel or similar.

This chap uses compacts.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

Joined: 31 Oct 2005 Posts: 152

Whatever camera you use consider the following :
Optical Zoom:Good.
Digital Zoom: Bad, very bad ... Don't get fooled by 1999x Digital Zoom ...

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:37 pm

LOL

For photojournalism, or any rapid-turnaround photography, digital is allegedly tops.

In terms of overall fast-action performance, though, 35mm film still shreds digital. Show me an 8 frame per second digital which can shoot ISO 6-6400, has a >12 mp "sensor", dual shutter buttons and vertical grip, and costs under $600 on the used market, then I will retract my statement. Hell, a lowly F100 has almost all of the things I mentioned and you can get that for $700 brand spanking new.

I had an F5 that I sold just because I decided to go digital- bad decision, I sold my digital within months. Peopel told me that if I had spent $4000 on my digital instead of $1000 I would have been happier. So what. Somebody out there has my F5 and I want it back!

You want convenience? Yeah, go digital. By the way, the Nikon D2Hs can do 8 frames per second, is 4 megapixel, and costs a mere $3500.

:) keithwms

Premium Member Joined: 02 Apr 2005 Posts: 2020

JohnG wrote:

Keitht wrote:

For photojounalism the only way to go really is true digital SLR such as the Rebel or similar.

This chap uses compacts.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

You can't argue with results.

I own an Olympus C5000 and I have to say that it does take a pretty nice photo. His photos are what they are though, because he has a clear and very thourough understanding of photography and the strengths and weaknesses of his equipment.

Joined: 18 Dec 2004 Posts: 661 Location: manchester, uk

keithwms wrote:

LOL

For photojournalism, or any rapid-turnaround photography, digital is allegedly tops.

In terms of overall fast-action performance, though, 35mm film still shreds digital. Show me an 8 frame per second digital which can shoot ISO 6-6400, has a >12 mp "sensor", dual shutter buttons and vertical grip, and costs under $600 on the used market, then I will retract my statement. Hell, a lowly F100 has almost all of the things I mentioned and you can get that for $700 brand spanking new.

I had an F5 that I sold just because I decided to go digital- bad decision, I sold my digital within months. Peopel told me that if I had spent $4000 on my digital instead of $1000 I would have been happier. So what. Somebody out there has my F5 and I want it back!

You want convenience? Yeah, go digital. By the way, the Nikon D2Hs can do 8 frames per second, is 4 megapixel, and costs a mere $3500.

:) keithwms

Unless you're doing work for like National Geographics, photojournalists don't need 12 megapixels. 4mp will do just fine for someone starting out in photojournalism because she will probably only be published in newpapers and with small features in magazines.

Of course $3500 is way out of her budget so I'll give you that but I just wanted to point out the above.

Joined: 29 May 2005 Posts: 499

I would say that, for someone in your position trying to get into serious photojournalism one of the digital SLRs would be the best option to take. You would learn photography better on one of these than one one of the smaller P&S types (just my opinion here, probably someone will leap up to contradict me). You will also be more likely to be taken seriously if you carry a 'proper' camera - if you are a skilled photographer and you know what equipment you want to get the job done then so long as you bring back the pictures then fine, but if you're just starting out this is likely to be more of an issue.

The rebel XT is probably perfect for what you want, in part as its small size means it's no trouble to carry whatever you're doing. Although the £269 on ebay sounds very low, make sure it's from a genuine seller.

Giles

Joined: 27 Oct 2004 Posts: 452 Location: Gloucester, UK

JohnG wrote:

Keitht wrote:

For photojounalism the only way to go really is true digital SLR such as the Rebel or similar.

This chap uses compacts.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

There are exceptions to every rule :-)

I should have said 'best' rather than 'only'.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:22 am

withnosocks wrote:

Unless you're doing work for like National Geographics, photojournalists don't need 12 megapixels.

National Geographic Photographers shoot film.

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:25 am

DJ wrote:

withnosocks wrote:

Unless you're doing work for like National Geographics, photojournalists don't need 12 megapixels.

National Geographic Photographers shoot film.

Yes, this is true. Most use 35mm film SLRs and Leica rangefinders.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html

:) keithwms

Joined: 18 Dec 2004 Posts: 661 Location: manchester, uk

DJ wrote:

withnosocks wrote:

Unless you're doing work for like National Geographics, photojournalists don't need 12 megapixels.

National Geographic Photographers shoot film.

Yes, I was using it merely as a reference for a photojournalist source that also requires super high image quality, which isn't extremely common. My point was just that most photojournalists don't need super high image quality that comes with a 12mp camera or even film. Speed is the necessity for most photojournalists, not image quality.