My dad collected a huge amount of film cameras, most of which I Ebay'd last year for him - including a couple of T-90s.  I moved to digital cameras quite early (around 2001), and have had DSLRs for the last 7 years or so (Nikons).  I *hope* both the quality and quantity of my shots has increased mainly because of the opportunity digital affords for me to test the settings and review immediately.  Being able to try different exposures and DOF instantly is a huge bonus.  That, and Scott Kelby's excellent books...

Steve - I worked in pro studios in the late 80's/early 90's.  When I started it was all analogue 2" and SSL or Neve desks.  When I left we were just moving to Otari 32 track digital and early versions of modern DAWs (as opposed to C-Lab Notator which was our staple midi sequencer software before).  As I don't work in music in a professional capacity anymore not sure if I'm really qualified on the original question.  But I do know it's a lot easier (though not necessarily any quicker) to put together compositions myself!  I miss needing the accuracy for punch-ins though.  And the old equipment.

I still have my old Nikon 35mm kicking around somewhere - can't remember the last time I used it.

Steve,
I recently sold my old Canon AE1 on eBay also, along with a flash and a bunch of lenses.  I learned a lot from that camera, but really more from reading and studying other people's work. 

I had gone digital way before I sold the Canon, and honestly, the quality of my photos now far exceeds anything I ever did with film....and quantity.  In fact, it may be that the "ease" of digital, and being able to get "instant" results on such a large quantity of attempts, is what improved my skill.

And ya know, it may just be the same in my recording studio.  In the early '90s, my recorder was a Fostex R8 1/4" reel-to-reel tape deck.  I got a nice warm sound in that studio, but never what I would call anything that approached "Pro".  And it took forever to "get it right".  I let that studio die a natural death many years ago, and I pursued other interests.

Now, I've come back to recording, and I've been using Sonar for 2 years, and I feel like my work has advanced and improved an order of magnitude.  Again, part of it is "instant" results", but a large part of it is using high quality gear (which is SO much less expensive these days)... coupled with the DESIRE to wring everything out of my gear I can squeeze, and the desire to sound "pro".  (If I had only taken piano lessons!!!!)

So while I know where my roots are, I think new technology is a real help to "artists".  After all... I don't have another 100 years to "get it right"...  LOL.

It ain't easy being an arteeest in the digital age when every one thinks that they are a pro



Meanwhile, Kermit the frog still thinks it ain't easy being green ... Which I suspect it's not 


I hope that answers your question Steve 

I have a Canon F series 35mm camera with a large assortment of lenses as well.  I used it to make some money but never really got into the whole photographer thing as a main source of income. 

I too looked at selling it on Ebay, but after checking the prices that camera body was bringing, and the lenses as well, I decided to simply keep the camera. 

The Canon F series is a totally 100% manual camera. It has a battery in it for a light meter and that is about as automatic as it gets. I  removed the battery, wrote down the battery number and put the camera in my closet.

Digital reduces the cost of a photograph.

 
You are right for sure. I sometimes use my Wife's camera. She has several, successful I might add, online shops so she needs good photos. When I use her camera I think nothing of setting it for continuous (or whatever the name is) and just clicking away. It is almost like a movie at several frames per second... of course you can also take a movie with most modern digital cameras and then pull a picture out of the movie if you want, crazy! I have a smaller pocket digital along with the Zi8. For most of my puropses the Zi8 is fine. Hers is a Canon Rebel EOS T3i, it has the regular lens and I bought her a nice macro lens that cost almost as much as the camera body.
I never studied photography but I do know that with my Mamiya 35mm I would be much more selective if time and circumstance allowed. I have no idea if I got better pictures that way or by just taking a whole bunch of them, I suspect the digital is better just from the sheer number of pictures you can take in a short time with no worry about the cost. More to your question, even though I never studied photography, I (using the 35mm) was certainly aware of film speed, apature, lens speed especially, and which lens I should probably use and I got some great pictures. Always aware of where the sun is with either camera. That said... I think that the Digital SLR gives the user such an edge over having to set everything manually (and think about cost) that it cannot help but give the user better pictures. As for a pro who uses a camera to make a living, I don't know. I would think that they would have and use both digital and film and make great pictures with both.
I have been in a recording studio, not to record but to be shown around (Capricorn, in Macon, GA). It was cool to see where the ABB stood and recorded their albums but I really didn't gain anything other than a great memory. I have been in a professional photography studio a LOT. My dad and my uncle were close. They built homes next to each other. My uncle was the town photographer back in the 40s through the 60s and into the 70s. He did everything, all the weddings, all the portriats, all the school pictures, he was the crime photographer, he was the only photographer and I went in his studio whenever I wanted to. He mostly used large format cameras, even at home on holidays. Then he also had the 35mm cameras. He gave the Mamiya to my dad and my dad passed it on to me... so I have been around a LOT of professional photography and I am absolutely sure that if he were still around he would be using a digital SLR. He would have the others too but loving the art the way he did... he would be using digital and getting both more and better pictures. The art is in the person and a good digital SLR will out perform a 35mm SLR. I think there is something to be said for having a good medium format camera, if you can afford one. I could never justify the expense but I would LOVE to have one.
Good memories... and as Glyn said... after the initial cost of the digital SLR the price of pictures is nothing compared to using a 35mm.
I remember that huge camera from the 50s with a big flash bulb for every picture... but we have good pictures from back then, if black&white... still good and priceless to me. Think, Jimmy in the old Superman shows. That was the kind of camera he mostly used.
 
Anyway... I think you have it figured out and in a short while your oly question will be, "What took me so long?"... Good luck with digital!!
 
Julien

I also come from the old school - Canon AE-1. People thought the AE-1 was too easy back then compared to the A-1's, and F's. Still, it enabled me to learn exposure, both aperture and time.

I think the major takeway from all these conversations is that technology has enabled many, many more people to dabble  in the creative arts today, when the prior state of the art was too difficult for them. What people notice is the vast increase in the mediocre. However, they also fail to notice the increase in talent also. Essentially, what you have is a much larger 'ocean' of creativity - there is so much dreck to filter through but, oh, there are so many more gems to find. 

It's this way everywhere. Take the internet, and even this forum, for i.e. From an application standpoint, the Web and HTML is the dodgiest programming invention ever, technology-wise. However, it's value is not in it's implementation but in it's ubiquity. Who cares if the Web can be hokey when you can talk and share ideas with friends all over the planet. However, you still have to wade through tons of dreck in the Internet to find those quality forums instead some trashy useless site.

RobertB

I agree with the general consensus that it's really the skillset, not the medium, that makes the difference.

I think I'd have to disagree with that. I have a mid-line Panasonic camera and I've taken some incredible photo's that I never could have dreamed of taking with older equipment.

I just set it to 'Auto', it sets itself, I hold the button down half way until it beeps and the crosshairs turn green on the display, I press it the rest of the way down and that's it. I can (and have on vacation) take 1,000's of photo's. I took over 4,000 on my 2 week trip to Yellowstone. The vast majority come out so so, but there is that slim percentage that comes out incredible that I never would have got with pre-digital.

Worrying about the cost of film and wasting it on bad shots and the 'learning' process, really pushed me away from photography back before digital came along.

I mainly take photo's of wildlife when on vacation and taking 30 ~ 40 shots of something running across a field 200 feet away doing 20MPH, trying to get a good shot, would get very expensive with an older camera for someone like me.

Bub-  You're not giving yourself any credit!  Yes, you can set your camera to Auto, but YOU are the one composing the picture.  I'd be willing to bet your best shots are one you diligently composed, regardless of the camera's settings.

Those "Auto" pictures I have inadertently shot (like ones of the inside of my pocket..LOL) really suck!!

:-)

Well, anything I might have said has been covered, sooo... ya!