I'm not looking for the cheapest camera out there... I just want a good camera along with value for my money.

SLR cameras will still sell because digital ones have limitations with high end photography. The problem is the optics, at present digital ones are still aimed at the mass market, thats where the quick money is made. Consequently, decent optics are no where to be seen, you dont need them for that market. Some high end digital cameras are starting to appear at sensible prices (as such) with good optics, but choice is limited.

The only way to get professionl/semi professional standards is still a traditional 35mm SLR. The downside is that production of 35mm film has vertually ceased - there's enough on wharehouse shelves for a few years, but new production is rare. The upside is that as you saw 35mm SLR are now very cheap compared to the past, albeit their life can only be measured as - say - 5-8 years due to film availability.

Its horses for courses, and depends what you want. If you need good optics with full featured zoom yaddie yadda, SLR is still the only way to go, it will be 2/3 years yet before Digital cameras come out with SLR standard of optics at sensible prices (current really good digital equivalent to 35mm SLR come in at circa $3000-5000+). If what you genuinely want to achieve really needs good optics, then buy a 35mm SLR, but accept that within 5 years you will have to ditch it, and developing film will be increasingly fiddly unless you do it yourself.

Ultimately a camera is as good as its lense, and for quality professional level photos there is no choice. Current "affordable" digital cameras do not have good optics - frankly never will, not needed for the mass market - so if you are going down the road of quality photos, and need to in the next 2-3 years, you have no choice but to buy a 35mm SLR, and accept the "disadvantage" of developing film etc etc. I would talk it through with your Tutor, but if you do have a genuine need for quality, then 35mm SLR is the only route to take right now, and will be like that for 3+ years - at that point the mass market will be saturated, and manufacturers will turn more to Digital cameras with quality lenses, but right now, no chance.

Muchas, muchas gracias. That was clear and definitive.

Zydor, can you go a little more into how the Digitals are inferior?  I use to be really into photogrpahy (still have my old 35 mm camera). But just dont have the time these days.  I know about the film, but was wondering how the old film differs in the optics.

I would as well, because my wife has some follow-up questions regarding the quality of digital photographs. Please expand.

It has nothing to do with optics.  35mm and digital SLR's (DSLR) use the same lenses.  The difference is the CCD accepting the image instead of film.  A DSLR will cost more (new technology does), but they are not inferior to 35mm.  The biggest issue that people run into with digital is printing them on inferior paper.  Send it off to a real lab, and you will see no difference in an 35mm SLR and a DSLR.  I have tested this myself using a high end Nikon 35mm versus a Fuji DSLR (using the same lens, since the Fuji uses Nikon lenses).

Singrdave, if you get a film slr, make sure you get one that has auto focus so that you will be able to use the lenses on a DSLR in the future.  If you take a lot of pictures, the processing costs will quickly add up.  With digital, you can "process" (ie: print) just what you want, unlike 35 mm which you have to process everything.  You also can crop and fix images with digital, then print.  digital has many advantages over film.  The upfront cost is more, but the long term is not.

Karma is correct, the optics aren't the issue because pro-cannon lenses can be used on the SLR and the digital SLR. Processors are making the difference.

Currently, a film camera can register a greater range of light (I think it is 3 stops on either end of light and dark). That means a digital camera will get less detail out of a shadowy area and the bright area than film will. Digitally, there are ways to composite an image to get more detail on each range but as a one shot deal, film gets more detail.

Now having said that, with film you don't absolutely know if you exposed correctly (even if you used your and if everything went OK until you get it developed. With digital you can fix your exposures immediately by adjusting your aperture and speed and taking another shot.

When you are buying your camera, you need to think about how large you want your pictures to be. If you want 8x10 as a max then you should have no problems using either camera. However,35 mm also has size limits. If you are making your photo 11x14 or larger your 35 mm exposure needs to be really solid and depending on the film type you will get some grain.

If you want to make really large pictures you should consider getting a medium format film camera. You don't have to get a Hasselblad. There are lots of medium format cameras out there. Medium format has a 6x6 cm negative so you have the potential to print a larger picture more easily.

I've kind of glossed over stuff in the previous two paragraphs.

If you are wanting a nice compromise between digital and film, I think you should consider the Pentax 10K digital. I think that is the latest version.

It is a 10 megapixel camera but I think the sensor might be APS size (bit smaller than 35 mm) but the camera is supposed to be dust and water proof. It also has an internal stabilizer in the camera body. Canon only has a stabilizer in the digital lenses.

The other nice thing about the Pentax 10K D is that the lenses also work with a Pentax film camera. This way you have the option to shoot booth film and digital. One set of lenses works on 2 camera bodies.

My friend has this camera and it is pretty nice.

For starting lenses:
50 mm compact macro(if Pentax has one) It is 200 some dollars but you get the nice landscape basic 50 mm lens and you can also move up to do close ups with a minimum distance of 5 cm. I LOVE this lense. I get some macro shots without having to pay the price of the mighty expensive longer macro lenses. Very flexible.

Some kind of zoom lens. I have a 35-135 zoom lens. I like it a lot.

Good luck. Glad you are starting with photography!

Its not a question of "Digital is best" or "the old way is best", its a question of what the camera is to be used for. For the overwhelming number of normal situations there is no doubt that a digital camera has far more flexibility and can produce good results. With 35mm film and with digital, the final output clearly also depends on the paper used - but no amount of good paper will make an original picture sharp if its a lousey picture or zoomed in beyond the capabilities of the digital camera's original image.

The issue of the lense is very relevant if the individual is going into Professional level photography. A digital camera will produce a 'quality' of image popularly touted as mega-pixels, which whilst rooted in reality, is more a marketers device than anything else. With a digital camera there is a limitation on how far you can zoom into the picture taken before it gets blocky. The greater the concentration of pixels in a given area the more you can zoom in, but its still finite.

With a decent lense/zoom configuration that limitation is removed as the picture required is contained more within the original shot and little or minimal enhancement is needed, resulting in a sharper picture at any level of zoom. That ability is critical for a Professional Photographer. Thats why you will see Professional Photographers with the aka $3000-5000 digital camera and decent lenses, or still using 35mm film on SLR, particularly those on News Tasks or having to take action shots eg Sport etc.

If the camera is being used for standard everyday use, or static shots with little need for picture manipulation and enhancement - no contest, clearly digital camera meets the need, no question. However do not mix the needs of a Professional Photographer who has to take action / moving / long range shots will normal photography. In the case of a Professional Photographer a high quality lense configuration is critical. If you are in that bracket and want to use a standard mass market digital camera, help yourself, but your business will not last long.

Photography has always been, and will always be about the quality of the original shot, and for that - at a Professional level - good lenses are essential.

Thanks to Karma, Zydor and momijiki for the quick lesson!

Ditto! Incredibly useful information.

This paragraph doesn't actually make sense.  What does "zooming" in have to do with megapixels?  The light that the CCD receives is no different than what film would receive.  Up until that point, it doesn't matter if you are using a film or digital camera.  The lens is delivering the same image.  Film is finite, also.  Depending on the speed of the film, it could have severe limitations, too.  An ISO of 800 is going to have a large silver halide in its emulsion vs an ISO of 100 which is a very small grain, so you have a lot of the same limitations as you would a 3 megapixel camera versus a 10 megapixel camera.  The lens has nothing to do with it, though.

Just like different film speeds, you can get grainy pictures if you use a low megapixel camera.  But, you really aren't going to see degradation in picture quality on even a 6 megapixel camera unless you are enlarging and printing to an 8x10 or larger (and, even then, if it is something you are putting on your wall, you still won't see it).

As a rule of thumb, if you plan to hang a picture or put it in an album, you need 200dpi per printed inch.  That means that an 8x10 ([8" x 200 DPI] x [10 x 200DPI] or 1,600 x 2,000 pixels, or 3,200,000 pixels) would need a 3.2 megapixel camera or better.  So, a 6 megapixel will get you almost 300dpi per printed inch, which is pretty much standard for prints (unless they are using a negative free print process, which prints on traditional media).

WWW Link

This is a link to digital camera review site that I find really useful. Definitely check it out. This link goes directly to the Pentax camera I was writing about.

Pentax 10K d. Be sure to look at this one and NOT the 100k which is a different camera. I have Canon gear myself. I started with a Canon SLR so I had two lenses already. I thought long and hard about Pentax, though because my Canon glass has been through some pretty rough stuff and I only had two lenses.

Take your time to look around and choose. Also, if you get digital stuff, you should at least get Adobe Photoshop Elements for software. iPhoto is pretty limited, I think. Elements (if it isn't a bundle on your computer already) is under $100 and will do for a lot of editing stuff until you feel comfortable enough to lay out more serious cash for more complicated editing. Another great toy is to get the pen and pad rather than a mouse. That is a matter of preference of course. I know some people who do great work with the mouse. The pen and pad also come with Photoshop Elements or without the software.

Karma's info about film speed is really good. Make sure you factor that in when you think about function. Sometimes you want a grainy look. I shot some stuff on BW 1600 film which has large sliver halide crystals for faster shots or lower light. In those shots, the larger grain you see when the photo was really enlarged gives a grainy look that suits that particular image.

Pixelation doesn't look so good or I think it usually ends up looking less artistic.

Ah...but that is where photoshop comes in   I always shoot clear images, then manipulate them if I want an artistic feel.  The other beauty about digital is that you can shoot one image and end up with both a color and B&W (or Sepia..or blue toned..or selenium toned) version of the same picture.

Photoshop is a lot less work (and less stinky) than a darkroom, too

Yea, but for us old farts, that is where we learned to love the craft (or in my case hobby).

I'm not all that old, but that is where I learned, too.  However, Photoshop offers tools that you just don't have in the darkroom.....and it's less stinky.  lol