You really can't go wrong with either one. What feels better in your hands? I personally shoot Nikon and lean that way myself.

I think if you like film and feel more comfortable shooting with film cameras then those ar a good choice. I have been told that cameras no longer are an investment, but for me they are. Besides 35mm is stil a nice format to work with and is cheap. If you want digital images scanners are not priced to bad and printers are getting better. I myself have been trying to decide if digital is the way to go, but after looking at my 645 negs I think I will stay put for a while longer. Digital will keep getting better, but film will still hold some of us for a while. Monte Johnson.

Thanks for the feedback, guys. It is a difficult choice for me. I really do enjoy film, but I honestly can't say that I am not swayed by the 'Wow!' factor that advanced digitals provide. I went to a local camera shop today and was pretty surprised at the level that they are pushing digital. Oh well... guess I still have much to ponder in the process of making the final decision.
Bob

Bob, I don't think that you have even begun to explore the potential your current C5060 has. What you are seeing in prints is the end results of some dedication to learning how to manipulate the imags in an editing program. A DSLR won't do all that for you that you believe. It ain't the fiddle, it's the FIDDLER!

Hi Ronk,
I think I've tapped the C5060 pretty good this year, though I'm sure it has loads of un-tapped potential still in the tank. My reason for wanting another camera isn't related to total unhappiness with the C5060, or expecting something magical to happen simply because I suddenly have a new SLR to play with.

I realize that it's my limitations as a photographer that provide the biggest hurdle to successful photos. I've seen images taken with cameras that have far less capabilities than mine, that simply blow me away. There are some very talented people, making some very fine images on seemingly simple P&S cameras.

For me though, I simply would like the added control that an SLR provides. A big issue is interchangable lenses. I enjoy the ability to carry around a few different lenses for different opportunities. Sure, I can take the same 'duds' with different lenses, but then again, that's a subject for my 'fiddle' lessons.

My biggest issue right now is whether I want to stay with digital imaging. I still feel a strong pull to go back to film. I'm a little unsettled about the nature of 'throw-away' electronics. And cost is another issue. For a few hundred dollars more than a Canon EOS 20D, I can get a Canon EOS 1V, which I feel is an incredible camera that probably won't be obsolete in 3-5 years. This just seems like a better way to go... for now at least.

Thanks for your feedback.
Bob

Hi bob,
I see your point on the flexibility of interchangable lenses, but when you say that you are "blown away" by the images, what exactly is the difference between those pictures and yours? Is it a matter of control offered by the camera or basic aesthetics and design?
IMHO, a good photographer can make a good picture with a p&s, subject to the limitations of the aesthetic controls available and the photographer's ability to see the potential and use them.

Ronk is right when he says you can get great pictures from a PS camera, but one thing I have learned if you like the camera you are using you tend to become part of it. You learn what makes it do what you want.A certain connection develops between you and that camera. Now it is not the camera that makes great images,but in my experience it makes a difference when you like what you use. Digital is a wonderful creative tool that has limitless possibilities, but if it don't feel right for you then the rest is a mute issue. I am sure you as many of us want to feel we have spent our money wisely so if it feels right to buy a Cannon 35mm camera then it probably is for you. Last year I shot mostly color slide film with a Contax 35mm. I scanned and printed many flower images. Now I too have a digital camera which I have taken some of the same images, but for me the control of my 35mm was much easier than trying to control the outcome of my digital camera images. Film will be around awhile so enjoy it now while you can. Digital cameras are here to stay, they will only get better with time. Monte Johnson.

Hi Ronk,
I guess the 'blown away' phrase is tied in with something that I know better then to think... that is that because these images are taken with a camera with say fewer pixels or options then my own, that the images should somehow not look as good as they do. As for the differences compared to my images, I would have to say that, in general, I don't view many of my images as being truly successful. By that, I mean that only a handful of images seem to make me feel like I captured whatever it was that compelled me to photograph the subject in the first place. I certainly don't blame my camera for this. I realize where the fault lies. But, I basically learned to love photography on my Minolta XG-7, after graduating from 110 and 126 mm cameras (yikes!). SLRs just simply feel right to me. So, in the end, I guess it's a matter of control, aesthetics, and design.

I totally agree with your other point. I'm sure any good photographer can make impressive images with just about any camera... even my first camera - a Quaker Oats pinhole camera.

In the end, I may simply press on with what I have, and concentrate more on good composition, etc.

Thanks for comments.
Bob

Hi Monte,
I agree. I think that 'knowing' your equipment is vital to success in any field. It does become an extension of ourselves, and the more compfortable we feel with it, the more likely we are to use it to it's potential.

Personally, I am amazed at the state of digital cameras, and I am still overall happy with my C-5060, but for reasons unknown, I currently feel a stronger pull towards film.

Thanks for the comments.
Bob

ccbob, you nailed it for yourself; composition is a part of it, all part of MAKING, and NOT TAKING aphoto.

Say, this is kinda like therapy... you help me talk through the issues, I pour out my soul, then out of nowhere - Bam! The solution comes from my own lips.

Seriously though, I hear what you are saying.
Thanks! Now if you'll excuse me, I have some 'fidle' practice to attend to.

Bob

Today I shot a roll of film with the Pentax SF 1 I purchased off ebay for $50.00 It came with two zoom lenses. I am a big Pentax fan having started my hobby years ago with a K1000. After I bought my Panasonic FZ10 I sold a Pentax SF 1 and really ended up missing it.

As I said I shot a roll today just around the yard--flowers, plants etc. Had a 1 hour processing coupon for $5. Now I shot nothing fancy but I had a lot of fun. My shots came out better that the digital ones. I'm sure that's just my lack of knowledge of the Panasonic.

My point in writing is that it was just a good time going back to the old slr and film. I'll keep playing with the digital camera and photoshop elements 3, but I have to say shooting with film and a good old Pentax was great. I almost went all the way back to the K1000 but I have significant vision problems and really need the autofocus.

There's definitely room for both digital and film but I really enjoyed handling the slr and film.

Good for you wizardb!
Maybe it's just nostalgia, or something similar, but all I know is it is indeed fun to take out the old SLR and fire off some shots.

Bob

There is something to be said for digging out the old 35mm camera. I remember a few years ago a dusted off the old minolta 370 and for the next year it was all I used. I was happy again and felt good about photography. When I used my digital camera I just did not take the time to compensate for exposure and think out the process. After all the cost of taking [ictures were nell so why not. That was what created the problem and at the time I almost lost interest in photography. I know you can be creative with digital, but for me I needed basics to bring me back to what I loved doing. Monte Johnson.

Hey ccBob,
I have one foot firmly planted in the film realm, and one in digital.
I shoot quite a few rolls of velvia and various B&W's thru my EOS3. The 3 is a great camera by the way, you'll get most everything the 1 series gives you, except a few CF's and absolute build quality.Although the build quality on the 3 is very stout. At the time I bought it, it was that or the F100, I couldn't afford either company's top offering. I liked the 3 better at the time, and till this day, refer to it as my favorite camera.
As to the digital, I have a 20D, I held off on poping for the 1 series, because I just wasn't to sure about digital at the time of my purchase, even though I had bought an Oly E-10 a few years prior. I wasn't sure wether digital was ready for prime time, and didn't want to fully commit to paying the big bucks.
That being said, digital is ready for prime time, and I feel at IT'S price point, the 20D is the best camera out there. However, like you, I'm willing to spend the bucks, but I want to get my money's worth out of an item. Here to fore, I would by a nice slr, and not even give a thought of upgrading for 12-15 years. But with these cameras, wether you spend $1500,$5000 or $8large; there's going to be models replacing them in short order.
Knowing what I now know about digital cameras, their capabilities, photoshop etc, I will upgrade, because I do want some of the features that I have on my 3, that are lacking on my 20D.(and don't get me wrong, I am to produce stunning photographs w/20D) I don't want to get on the constant upgrade merrygoround, so I will wait a little more and choose wisely.
You will deffinately not be unhappy with either the 1series or the F100, but do give a look to the 3.
p.s. I don't use it a lot, but the eye contol on the 3 really does work.
Regards,
crosdaddy

Hi crosdaddy,
Thanks for the feedback. I've given the EOS3 some looks, and it does look like a fine camera.
I've also been giving some thought to simply using my old Minolta XG-7 for film, and possibly going with a Nikon D70s for digital. Then, some time later, as prices on the F100 fall, maybe picking one up to replace the Minolta.

Bob

Hi ccBob and all who contributed. So many good points and I agree with your comments. I too think either camera a good choice, and yes, cost is a BIG factor for using film instead of digital.

However, I was struggling with this same issue. Listening to the interview of the chief photographer at the Kentucky Durby on Shutterbug Radio was a deciding factor for me; they use film based equipment saving the negatives for archival purposes. As you can guess any race at the Kentuck Durby generats a lot of negatives over the years and will be able to digitize from any negative any time no mater what changes occure with digital technology. I have noticed other photographers are going back to film for archival reasons and converting to digital.

I thought this made since so will use both. I elected to stay with film based cameras and process the negatives into digital images using the scanner.

Take care one and all and thanks for everyones imput. It's been good for me to hear your views too.

I struggled like many when came to digital and film. I once and for all had to clear my thoughts to decide what I enjoyed working with. I discovered I liked shooting with film, but I liked sharing my images and printing some of my own. A four hundred dallor scanner solved the problem for me. I now have both. Now I will have to say you have to learn to live with dust and scratches and larger files, but if you enjoy film and want digital then it is a small price to pay. I save some money because I never get prints with processing just negatives. That way I do not have a lot of small prints to deal with. I only print the ones I like. Monte Johnson.