I'm not qualified to comment on the advantages (or not) of conventional film over digital. It really depends on what you wish to do. I'm simply pointing out that it's possible to hone your skills with any type of camera.  My new digital automatic works on exactly the same priciple as the Canon Sureshot Zoom I used for many years previously. They are both very similar in fact.

The main difference & advantage of the digital for me is that I can use what I learned with the old one - with similar results (much better in most cases) - & also try new things. This costs nothing & I can take almost as many shots as I like without worrying about the expense or running out of film. I can see the results instantly without waiting for them to be processed. I don't have much use for prints as most of my activities are on the Internet. I've taken far more photos in the few months I've had the digital camera than I've taken during my whole lifetime. Logically, I must have learned something & made some improvement in a very short time.

What I'm trying to point out is that you have a perfectly good digital camera that you seem to use very little. You could use this to try out many of your ideas before transferring the same principles to your conventional SLR.

Quote:

You're welcome Craig. As always I'm just saying what I think. There is no risk of losing images if you back them up to CD or even floppy disk. If you want prints there are many excellent photo-quality printers on the market at ridiculously low prices. The results with modern instant drying photo-quality paper are equally as good as you would get by using traditional methods. The advantage is that you can edit the images first before printing them & only print the ones you want to keep. Printing photos is expensive on ink but once you have the printer I think it compares favourably with the traditional methods.

SLR are the best. My Pentax KM has taken some excellent shots over the years. My dad use to do amature photography in the 80's. He took an excellent picture of Epcot Centre that looks like it came from a magazine. It's on a slide wheel in my basement somewhere but I'll try and find it for you guys. Got a nice scanner that does slides.

I guess the argument over 35mm vs digital cameras is a lot like the argument over LP Records vs CDs. I find that digital doesn't take a cyrstal clear sharp image. I also find that my Dad's digital seems to take very dark images for some reason. For example, the shots I took at CZBA the last weekend were originally very dark dispite the fact that it was a bright sunny day. I had to use edit them with Photohouse to make them look half decent.

For example, her are two shots of the C172.
This first one is the stock image cropped and resized to meet forum rules.


And here's the image I posted before. Still kind of dark. I brightened it and sharpened it up.

Quote:


probably the Canon EOS300D (Digtal Rebel for the US people)...it's the only one i can afford right now. you are right about the post processing...but that can't hold me back of buying one.

of course Schiphol! when i have time, i'm off to spot some NW DC-10's  first i'm going to practice at my local airfield (only GA), Koksijde Airshow...and of course the RIAT! 

and that's not everything...i'm going by plane this year!!! we land and depart at RAF Fairford!!! can't wait to see a few hundred aircraft from a bird's eye view! i also avoid long queues at the entrance. if you see a Fokker 70 landing from KLM Cityhopper and you see a (nice) guy with a camera descending...you know it's me  

thanks for the link Hagar...i already knew the site but thanks anyway!

here's a link to a database of photos taken with a 300D...all of them at Schiphol: http://m4d.demon.nl/~wouter/aviation/

this guy didn't edit his shots so they came out of the camera like this...of course with some photoshop, you can improve the result alot! 

niiiiice:)